|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
… then do it here too!
by Rob Roper
This November, voters in Maine will decide for themselves whether or not the next time they cast a ballot they’ll need a photo ID to do so. The ballot initiative is straightforwardly titled, “An Act to Require an Individual to Present Photographic Identification for the Purpose of Voting.” The language appearing on the ballot approved by the rabidly partisan Secretary of State is not so much, but more on that later.
Requiring ID to vote is one of those commonsense issues everybody (or almost everybody) agrees is a good idea. According to polling over the years, Americans consistently support voter ID laws by 70 to 80 percent or more, with majority support across the political spectrum.
For examples, a Monmouth poll in 2021 found 80 percent support voter ID. In 2024, Pew found 81 percent support, and Gallup 84 percent. In 2025, Rasmussen found 87 percent support with a partisan breakdown of 76 percent support from Democrats, 85 percent from independents, and 97 percent from Republicans.
Opponents of voter ID claim it’s racist. Which is odd because, again referring to Gallup, 80 percent of people of color (defined as “Alaska Native, American Indian, Asian, Black, Hispanic, or Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander”) support requiring all voters, which would include themselves, to provide photo identification in order to vote, just 6 percent less than whites.
This overwhelming popular support in “our democracy” explains why thirty-six states have some level of voter ID for their elections. It’s a political slam dunk. What’s truly bizarre is that fourteen states, including Maine and us here in Vermont, don’t require any ID whatsoever to cast a ballot, making it impossible to verify if the person casting a ballot is actually the person to whom the vote is being attributed. This is a problem if you’re concerned with guaranteeing one person one vote.
These outlier states make no sense, practically or politically. Back in 2012 I was privy to some private polling that, like the national data, showed 78 percent of Vermonters favored voter ID requirements with majority support across all parties. So, what’s going through the minds of politicians here and elsewhere who, gifted a landslide, multi-partisan, cross-cultural issue on a silver platter, rub their chins and say, no, they’d rather not? It does make one wonder.
When the folks in Maine decided to move forward with voter referendum to implement a voter ID law (after years of ramming their heads against the brick wall that is the Democrat majority in their legislature), the citizens’ initiative garnered over 170,000 signatures in support – two and a half times the number necessary to put the measure on the ballot, and nearly 20 percent of total registered voters. But still challenges remain.
As mentioned at the start of this piece, the clear title of the referendum is “An Act to Require an Individual to Present Photographic Identification for the Purpose of Voting.” Get it? Of course you do. But the Maine Secretary of State, Shenna Bellows (a Democrat whose claim to fame was trying to block the Republican candidate for president, Donald Trump, from even appearing on the ballot; so much for democracy!) crafted the wording for the Act as it will appear to the voters in November thus:
“Do you want to change Maine election laws to eliminate two days of absentee voting, prohibit requests for absentee ballots by phone or family members, end ongoing absentee voter status for seniors and people with disabilities, ban prepaid postage on absentee ballot return envelopes, limit the number of drop boxes, require voters to show certain photo ID before voting, and make other changes to our elections?”
Uhhhh… what?
Yeah. Supporters of the voter ID initiative justifiably called baloney on that, but the seven member Maine Supreme Court – all appointed by Democrats – backed Secretary Bellows. Who, did I mention, is running for governor. This is a dirty trick designed to facilitate further dirty tricks down the road. It’s not something they should be allowed to get away with.
So, my fellow Vermonters who feel strongly about the practical need for commonsense voter ID laws everywhere, consider helping our friends in Maine get the word out – and the vote out on election day – to pass this important citizens’ initiative. Volunteer to make phone calls. Contribute to their public education campaign. Clearly, they are going to need all the help they can get explaining to voters that the intentionally deceptive, gobbledygook ballot language actually refers to a basic voter ID policy — and to vote “yes.” (Learn more at voteridforme.com).
A victory in Maine could help spur a movement for better voter ID laws around the nation, including here in Vermont, where we desperately need one. We’re all in this together!
Rob Roper is a freelance writer with 20 years of experience in Vermont politics including three years service as chair of the Vermont Republican Party and nine years as President of the Ethan Allen Institute, Vermont’s free market think tank.
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Commentary
I’m not against voter ID. But is there a list somewhere online of all the voter fraud over the years? There must be tens of thousands of incidents or more. Otherwise these efforts seem to be unnecessary.
The problem we have in VT and other states without voter ID is that its absence makes fraud difficult to impossible to detect. If you notice, critics always are careful to say “there is no EVIDENCE of fraud” — not there is no fraud. They’ve created a system where evidence is impossible to collect, then claim absence of evidence is evidence of absence. It’s BS. When they were passing universal mailed ballots, the VT Director of elections and several town clerks testified that there IS NO WAY to detect let alone catch someone who steals someone else’s ballot, fills it out, signs the name from the envelope to whom it was sent, and mails it in. A postal worker noted that he handles hundreds of ballots sent to people he knows no longer reside at the address where the ballots were sent. He could send them all in (or sell them to someone), affect multiple state and local elections, and no one would be the wiser. Is this happening in VT? Maybe a little, maybe a whole lot. We can’t know — without some form of verifiable voter ID.
How would mail in balloting work if voter ID is required? How will overseas military personnel verify their ID? It does get complicated, no doubt.
Mail in ballots also need to be eliminated for 2 reasons: There is no way to verify the ID, and hence the qualification of the person who actually cast the ballot. There is no proper chain of custody for ballots sitting around in a drop box, a mailbox or postal office when unsupervised.
We need election DAY, not election week or month.
In Vermont, traditional absentee ballots and the recent mail-in ballots are returned in a signed certificate envelope, the signature of which Town Clerks use to verify voter identity. Absentee ballots are specifically requested by a voter. General mail-in ballots are sent out to every voter on the voter checklist.
For one thing, it is assumed that the voter checklist is kept up to date. However, this process has been found to be poorly enforced in Vermont.
In either case, the voter is required to put the ballot in a designated ballot envelope and sign it, in order for the Town Clerk to verify the voter’s identity. And herein rests the larger problem. Not only are voter checklists often poorly maintained, Town Clerks don’t keep a record of voter signatures on file. Even if they wanted to, a Vermont Town Clerk cannot verify a voter signature or identity.
This is but one of the reasons voter fraud can’t be proven. And, in the same way, election integrity can’t be proven either. It’s all a crap shoot.
To accommodate our military serving outside of their voting district, simply go back to the requested absentee ballot system of yesteryear, where it must be received in time to check the voter off the checklist BEFORE election day. If an absentee ballot has been lawfully received and the name checked off, no one can fraudulently vote in their place in-person on election day. Some states also have laws on the books to count mailed ballots received AFTER election day…in the case of California, up to 2 weeks after election day…ridiculous.
Another thing I was considering… who is responsible for verifying the IDs? Are we supposed to train the volunteer poll workers? There will be an expense for that, time and money. Or do we pay poll workers moving forward? An additional burden is acquiring an ID. Are we asking citizens to pay for an ID in order to participate in their legal right to vote? Or is there somewhere we can get an ID for free?
Re: ” …who is responsible for verifying the IDs?”
Town Clerks and their appointed pole workers are responsible for ‘verifying IDs’. But what does it mean to ‘verify an ID’? That’s a somewhat incongruous question.
First, not all IDs are acceptable. Typically, IDs with photos are required. A Vermont-issued DMV driver’s license, for example. Passports are acceptable too. And it doesn’t add significant costs to use the ID to ‘verify’ a voter is who they say they are. Just look at the picture on the ID and then look at the voter. And then check to be sure the voter is registered on an approved voter checklist.
Vermont’s problem is that submitting mail-in ballots does not require a voter ID. Everyone on the voter checklist receives a ballot. And they can cast that ballot without an acceptable or approved ID. There are no controls.
If town clerks and their volunteers are responsible for verifying IDs, will they be held responsible if someone votes with a fake ID that they didn’t identify? Are we going to sue these volunteers for not being accurate?
I’m still not totally sold on the premise that voter ID solves the problems. I’m still not convinced there is a problem. I still think if voter fraud was an issue it should be identified, otherwise we are chasing a ghost. It should not be hard to identify if dead people vote or if someone who doesn’t live in a town votes in that town. Or votes multiple times. It’s like being guilty without proof.
Re: “Are we going to sue these volunteers for not being accurate?”
Do you mean holding election officials (elected or volunteer) accountable for their performance? Why not?
Town Clerks aren’t volunteers. They are, ostensibly, elected and well-paid professionals. And the ‘volunteer’ appointed by the Town Clerk, who fails to follow the rules, AND demonstrates the intent to break the law, can be prosecuted. While making an honest mistake is not illegal, consider the adage ‘fool me once….’ etc.
Re: ”It should not be hard to identify if dead people vote or if someone who doesn’t live in a town votes in that town. Or votes multiple times.”
There are prescribed rules for maintaining a voter checklist. And while the process is not fool proof, and not being followed in many instances, you are correct in that a Voter ID requirement is the first step toward improving the election chaos we see today.
I agree to disagree. I don’t think there is ‘election chaos’. All the ‘evidence’ of election chaos is speculation at best. Thankfully, Marc Elias has won over 60 cases against Trump and the DOJ over election rigging and fraud, while the Trump ‘team’ gets disbarred: Chesebro, Giuliani, Cohen, Eastman, Ellis. Probably more. So when it comes to election integrity, I think it is clear who is trying to mess things up.
Elias consistently argued that allegations of widespread election fraud lacked credible evidence. Courts dismissed most of his fraud-based lawsuits (e.g., 64 of 65 post-2020 election cases) due to insufficient proof, such as:
No verifiable data showing significant illegal voting in the 1,500 proven fraud cases.
Again, this is consistent with Rob Roper’s contention: “If you notice, critics always are careful to say “there is no EVIDENCE of fraud” — not there is no fraud.”
Should 1500 proven fraud cases be cause for concern? You tell me.
The Vermont signature verification gap is a clear example of a systemic flaw that makes detecting isolated fraud effectively impossible, validating the role of complaints in highlighting vulnerabilities. I contend that this is by design.
While safeguards like perjury penalties and voter roll checks exist, they don’t substitute for proactive verification, and the absence of evidence can’t fully prove election fraud is an issue, one way or the other.
In legal and scientific contexts, the absence of evidence is not equivalent to proof of absence. Fraud could theoretically occur without being detected, but because claims of fraud require credible, verifiable evidence to be taken seriously in courts or policy discussions, a system that eliminates or at least disguises evidence, is the problem.
The solution is to require more stringent identification of eligible voters, not to argue that election fraud hasn’t been proven.
To Nick Rosato,
I don’t think most Vermonters realize how drastically Vermont’s Election System was changed through a Voted Bill in Vermont’s Legislature in May of 2021.
Vermont’s previous requirement to have a strict BALLOT CHAIN OF CUSTODY was eliminated. Therefore, it can no longer be known who has actually Voted on the majority of the returned Ballots in an Election.
With NO BALLOT CHAIN OF CUSTODY, Vermont’s Election System is NOT AUDITABLE. Since Vermont Elections can no longer be audited, Vermont’s Election System cannot be determined to be accurate.
Doing a hand-count or examination of the Voted Ballots after an Election in Vermont to see if the final numbers match the Ballot Counting Machine Numbers IS NOT ALLOWED.
Our Vermont Constitution says we are to have “Free and Pure Elections without Corruption.” Vermont Voters are to be: “U.S. Citizens who have attained the age of 18 years,” and Elections are to be, “One Day.”
Instituting Voter ID would very positively change many aspects of Vermont’s Broken, Untrustworthy and Unconstitutional Election System.
Nancy, the secretary of state’s website has detailed guidelines about chain of custody. They also list the general election audit results from seven random towns from the 2024 election which were selected to do a hand count to check the accuracy of the computers. There were no problems. So I’m not sure what you are referencing about no chain of custody and no hand-counting to check if the computers were accurate.
Re: “There were no problems.”
You mean there was no evidence of problems…. except for the fact that evidence was unattainable due to system deficiencies.
To Nick Rosato,
I am sharing information as a person who had first-hand experience in implementing Vermont Elections before the 2021 Remake. Ballots were treated with great care and high security by Town Clerks, as they were required to be kept in each Town’s Vault or Safe.
Maybe you are unaware of what a “Ballot Chain of Custody” meant before the May 2021 Vermont Election System Remake. It meant we did KNOW where each Ballot had been from the time it was issued until it was a Counted Vote towards the Election Totals in the following manners:
Ballots could only be issued by Town Clerks who kept a strict Ballot Chain of Custody Standard with documentation Absentee Ballots were allowed to be given to family members for other specific family members and had to be returned by the same. Documentation was kept to keep track of these Ballots.
There was a period of Early Voting allowed at a Town Clerk’s Office to be able to fill out Ballots in person. Military Ballots were mailed out to Military Personnel though specific submitted addresses and returned by mail to the Town Clerk’s Office. Documentation was kept to keep track of these Ballots.
ALL other Ballots were used on “Election Day” as persons came to their polling places and identified themselves before receiving a Ballot. Machines were not used for counting. Teams of residents counted the Ballots, checked by each others work and final totals were arrived at while many observed the process.
You said the VT SOS says there is still a “Ballot Chain of Custody.” How can this be true? What are they calling a “Ballot Chain of Custody?” If ALL Vermont Ballots are Mailed Out using the USPS System by a hired vendor that also prints them, how can we KNOW WITH ANY CERTAINTY where the Ballots have been, who voted on the Ballots or who returned the Ballots?
Please explain how you believe a “Ballot Chain of Custody” now exists with Vermont’s ALL MAILED BALLOT SYSTEM.
You also said there were “audits” in random Vermont Towns. The SOS has redefined the word “audit.” The SOS “audits” since the 2021 Remake are feeding Ballots into counting machines for a second time and calling that an audit. Did you ask about the context and details of what the call an “audit?”
The Elections and the Ballots belong to “The People.” We should be able TO KNOW AND TRUST our Election System is Trustworthy.
Maine also needs to eliminate “ranked choice” voting, and return to a system of one-person-one-vote. They currently have the policy of “keep counting until the non-Republican wins”.
I’m OK with that so long as “proof” does not require a Real ID. Real ID is unconstitutional (and was kicked down the road for 20 years by Republicans after initial passage in 2005, because they rightfully had reservations about it). But the current admin is now pushing Real ID and people had better understand its implications. (It’s easy to tell if your driver’s license is Real ID compliant: it’s indicated by the YELLOW STAR in the top right corner.)
Start here: https://www.cchfreedom.org/national-id/
The reason ‘Real IDs’ are being pushed is because States, like California, provide driver’s licenses to virtually anyone who asks for one. And it was found during the last election that millions of fake CA driver’s licenses were counterfeited by Chinese operatives and supplied to illegal immigrants.
And no. The push for Real ID is not unconstitutional – because it only applies to federal elections. As I pointed out earlier, if Brattleboro, for example, wants to let 16-year-olds vote with a Ouija Board when electing selectboard candidates, fine. But they can’t do that when voting for Federal officials…. President, VP, Senators and House Representatives.
If you had bothered to read the web page I linked to, a fully implemented Read ID will “will be digitized, potentially put on your phone, made real-time and remotely accessible, and used to track and control movement, purchases, and transactions.” That’s from official testimony. This goes far beyond simply proving ID to access a voting booth. That’s merely the foot in the door to greater control. Fake licenses are indeed a problem, but the solution shouldn’t be a digital ID that can feed into a greater system for control.
Mr. Kirby, The REAL ID Act of 2005 is a U.S. federal law that sets standardized security requirements for state-issued driver’s licenses and identification cards to be accepted for specific federal purposes, such as boarding domestic commercial flights, accessing certain federal facilities, and entering nuclear power plants. It was enacted in response to the 9/11 Commission’s recommendations to address vulnerabilities in identification and is explicitly limited to those three “official purposes”: boarding federally regulated commercial aircraft, accessing certain federal facilities (e.g., military bases, secure courthouses), and entering nuclear power plants.
I don’t know who is ‘controlling your movement’. I have a Vermont DMV issued ‘Real ID’ and I can assure you, no one is controlling my movement, despite what an excessively over-cautious web page tells you.
So you didn’t read it.
Yes, I did read it, Mr. Kirby.
My apology…. I meant o write – Mr. Kirkby.
* 25 states passed laws prohibiting compliance
* Implementation delayed by Republicans for 20 years due to concerns over usurpation of state’s rights
* Will eventually be linked with biometric systems (e.g. face and retina scanning) now being rolled out at nearly 50 airports with more to come online in 2026.
No worries? Imagine the uproar from conservatives if the previous administration did this (to say nothing of the $500 billion Trump is using to build data centers “to keep up with China,” the world leader in surveillance). But it’s OK if our guy is doing it, I suppose. This is the essence of cognitive dissonance with MAGA in 2025. Oh well, I tried to help.
While the REAL ID Act raises legitimate concerns about privacy, federalism, and equal access, no court has ruled that it infringes on U.S. citizens’ constitutional rights. The Act’s design as a state-implemented but federally mandated program, combined with its national security rationale, has so far withstood legal scrutiny.
Did 25 states pass laws prohibiting compliance? Well, sort of. The nature and extent of these actions varied.
Maine passed a resolution (SP 113) in 2007 and a law (LD 1138) prohibiting participation in a national identification system. Montana enacted HB 287 in 2007, opposing implementation. Arizona passed HB 2677 in 2008, prohibiting compliance. Washington enacted SB 5087 in 2007, opposing implementation due to privacy concerns. Virginia passed SB 1431 in 2009, prohibiting compliance with provisions that compromise resident privacy.
However, not all of these actions were outright bans. Some states, like Georgia (SB 5) and Oregon (SB 536), passed laws delaying compliance or conditioning it on federal funding or privacy safeguards, while others, like Alabama (HJR13) and Nevada (AJR 6), passed resolutions urging Congress to repeal the Act without legally binding prohibitions.
However, by 2020, all states were certified as compliant or had extensions, indicating that initial resistance was largely overcome due to federal assurances and the practical necessity of ensuring residents could use conforming state IDs (like Vermont’s DMV Driver’s Licenses) for federal purposes like air travel.
Will the Real ID Act eventually be linked with biometric systems (e.g. face and retina scanning) now being rolled out at nearly 50 airports with more to come online in 2026?
I’m afraid you’re late to the party. More than 60% of U.S. airports (approximately 250–300 of them) already offer biometric boarding or security screening. This includes facial recognition and, in some cases, fingerprint scanning, though retina scanning is not widely mentioned in current implementations.
So, what is the problem with that? I mean really. The platforms not only recognize you, they update your trip data in real time. Gate change… no problem. Flight delay? You know in real time. Having a medical emergency? Your covered in real time.
Does this surveillance‘control you’? No more than it allows you more control over your own circumstances than you’ve ever had before. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about.
Would you rather have less surveillance, … or no surveillance… and more hijacked flights? Or do you believe there aren’t any bad actors flying commercial these days… especially given the several million people who have entered the U.S. illegally in the last few years?
Seriously. What’s wrong with identifying people who use sensitive and high-use public infrastructure? Doesn’t the existence of universal threats justify universal security measures? Just askin’.
Well, I am impressed. Another novel-length response tirelessly cranked out with precision and detail, and at nearly two in the morning at that. Strangely bot-like.
“If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about.” That’s the ready-made (and chilling) retort to those who care about privacy. I tend to agree with Edward Snowden: “Arguing that you don’t care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don’t care about free speech because you have nothing to say.”
The “conveniences” of surveillance that you point out are always the selling point, the foot in the door. But China’s surveillance and social credit systems are the fullest expression of where this technology is going. If you have no problem living in that world, all I can say is good luck to you. Personally, I’d rather drive than get fingerprinted like a criminal to board a plane.
Re: “I’d rather drive than get fingerprinted like a criminal to board a plane.”
And what do you say to the State DMV when you apply for your driver’s license? And what do you say when a State trooper pulls you over for speeding, or running a stop sign, or having a taillight not working? What do you say when the trooper asks you for your license. auto registration and proof of insurance?,,, so they can run you through their databases. What do you say to your employers when they set up your payroll account? Or to the bank when you set up your checking and savings account?
Do you tell them to ‘stuff it’? Of course not.
There are many instances in which identification is not just essential but required for the successful management of a complex society… despite your self-righteous indignation to the contrary.