Why Has Common Sense Become Controversial?

The debate over voter ID has been controversial in California and across our country for years. But we have become so accustomed to the political arguments surrounding voter ID that we've stopped asking ourselves, why is this controversial in the first place? Why has something as ordinary as verifying your identity suddenly been framed as discriminatory, suppressive, or even racist?

That's the question I want to explore today, as we break down Proposition 39 - how did we get to a place where a basic, neutral standard has become a political and moral controversy?

What Proposition 39 Actually Does

Let’s start by breaking down what Proposition 39 is and what it would do. This is the famous “Voter ID” initiative that conservatives have been calling for in California. It was originally titled as “Establishes Additional Voter Identification and Citizenship Verification Requirements,” but has since been changed by our Attorney General to be presented as “Prohibits Citizens from Voting Unless They Present Government-Issued Identification” – which doesn’t seem like a biased re-write at all.

At its core, Prop. 39 would require California voters to provide government-issued identification when they vote. If you vote in person, you would present your ID. If you vote by mail, you would provide the last four digits of the government-issued ID number you selected when you registered, which election officials would verify against your registration.

But Prop. 39 goes beyond voter ID. It would also require election officials to make best efforts to verify the citizenship of registered voters, provide a free state-issued voter ID to anyone who requests one, and require regular audits of state and county compliance.[1] So, in simple terms, Prop. 39 is about verifying three things: who you are, that you're eligible to vote, and that the election system is actually following the rules.

Debunking Arguments Against Voter ID

Now, I have talked so many times before about why I believe voter ID is necessary. We’ve discussed election fraud, election integrity, and the importance of making sure that the people casting ballots are actually the people who are supposed to be voting. So rather than spend this episode rehashing all those arguments, I want to do something a little different. Let’s instead look at the arguments against Proposition 39 and ask why a policy as basic as verifying your identity when you vote has become so controversial.

Voter ID Makes It Hard to Vote

Argument #1 is that Voter ID makes it harder for people to vote. This says that some eligible voters do not have an acceptable form of ID and it could be hard for them to obtain it, therefore requiring an ID to vote means less qualified citizens will be able to vote. Let’s be honest here: this is ridiculous. As we have said before, so many normal activities in life require a valid form of ID. Voting is far more important than buying alcohol, renting a car, opening a bank account, or getting a tattoo – yet all of those things require showing your ID, while voting does not. So yes, it is fair to say that it is ridiculous to argue that requiring ID to vote is imposing an unbearable burden on the voter.

But even outside of that reasoning, Proposition 39 literally addresses this by requiring the state of California to provide a voter identification card to voters who request one for FREE.[2] How in the world could you still argue this will make it too hard to vote? When literally every eligible voter in California will have access to obtaining a FREE identity card? This stipulation shows that proponents of Voter ID do NOT want to keep any eligible citizen from voting – they just want to make sure that when you vote, you are actually who you say you are, and you qualify to cast a ballot.

Voter ID is Racist

But of course, there are still other excuses and arguments being made! Argument #2 is that Voter ID disproportionately affects minorities or low-income voters, therefore it is racist.

I take a lot of issues with this argument, and actually find it quite racist that those making it assume that minorities just don’t have driver’s licenses or the ability to obtain a basic ID. But regardless of that, here is where that argument really breaks down: Proposition 39 doesn't say Black voters need one form of identification, Hispanic voters need another, and white voters don't need one at all. It doesn't identify voters by race whatsoever! It establishes one standard for every voter – prove that you are who you say you are. Even if a policy does have a disproportionate impact, it doesn’t mean that the policy is actually racist or discriminatory.

If our definition of discrimination includes a neutral rule that produces different outcomes between racial groups, then we have created a dangerous standard for judging public policy. If a bank requires that borrowers put a certain amount of money down to obtain a loan, certain racial groups could statistically be impacted more than others – maybe – but it wouldn’t make the requirement racist. A facially neutral policy can have a disproportionate effect, but the disparity by itself isn't automatically proof of unlawful discrimination; the justification for the policy and possible alternatives matter too. The same is true of Voter ID.

If someone has difficulty meeting a reasonable standard, our response should be to ask how we can help that person meet the standard, not automatically conclude that the standard itself is discriminatory. But this argument is also ridiculous, just like argument #1, because only 1% of American adults do not have a valid, government-issued ID.[3] AND because, as I just explained, Proposition 39 actually would give that 1% of Americans – regardless of their race – the ability to obtain a free ID for the purpose of voting. So, it is a non-issue. 

There is No Voter Fraud

Argument #3 says that there isn’t enough voter fraud to justify this measure. After all, documented cases of voter impersonation are rare, so why impose a whole new requirement?

Surprise, surprise: also ridiculous. First, documented cases are only cases that we – drum roll – document. This has caused a massive loss of trust in our election systems here in California, with many voters believing outcomes are “rigged” and that there is voter fraud that is not being caught, prosecuted, and recorded. In fact, just at the beginning of September, the U.S. Department of Justice announced the arrest of a Victorville man who was indicted for allegedly paying people on Skid Row to use the stolen identities of registered California voters to sign ballot initiative petitions in those voters' names. According to the indictment, the defendants allegedly obtained a database of registered voters, distributed those voters' identities to people on Skid Row, paid them to copy the information onto petitions and sign the petitions with those voters' names, and then submitted those fraudulent signatures as legitimate.[4]

So, election fraud is not some imaginary problem – it is real, it is happening, and it is not unreasonable to try to prevent it. Which also brings me to the point that we put safeguards and preventative measures in place all the time. The question we should be asking is if identity verification a reasonable safeguard for something as consequential as an election. And to answer that…yes, it is.

It Will Cost California Money

And the last argument from those against Proposition 39 is that it will cost the state money to implement and enforce. This is true – the Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates Prop. 39 would increase state and local government costs each year by tens of millions of dollars to low hundreds of millions of dollars. It also predicts that there could be cost savings due to the removal of ineligible voters or eligible voters lacking government-issued identification that would help to offset some of the cost increases, though they likely would not outweigh the costs entirely.[5] Now, don’t get me wrong, I have hammered over the last several weeks that our government needs to cut spending and save money. I do not like passing anything that increases our spending problem.

But we have to distinguish between wasteful government spending and spending that serves a legitimate function of government. If there is one thing government absolutely has a responsibility to protect, it is the integrity of our elections. So, if we're going to spend money to make sure that process is more secure, more verifiable, and more trustworthy, I think that's a legitimate use of taxpayer dollars. Frankly, if we're willing to spend millions of dollars on countless government programs that aren't even constitutionally required, I don't think it's unreasonable to spend money protecting the integrity of the one process that determines who gets to run the government in the first place.

So, when we really examine the arguments against Proposition 39, they don’t hold up. None of them give us a compelling reason why verifying someone’s identity before they vote is unreasonable…and certainly not why a basic, neutral safeguard should be labeled racist or discriminatory.

Why is This Controversial?

Why, then, is this so controversial? If Proposition 39 even outlines a free option to obtain an ID, why would anyone be against it?

The answer goes deeper than just the surface-level objections that can be so easily rebutted. Voter ID is controversial because of radical leftist ideology that does not care about common sense or reasonability and instead demands adherence to its tenets without critical thought. In other words, people are against it simply because conservatives are for it, and if conservatives are for it, then it must be horrible and racist and unconstitutional.

But this is patently absurd. We just talked about how everyone eligible to vote would have the ability to obtain a free Voter ID. This means there would be no groups disproportionately impacted, because all people regardless of race would be able to take advantage of this offering. So then, what follows is that the only group of people affected by this are people who are not eligible to vote. And that is key – because at the root of radical leftist ideology is a hatred for our country and a desire not to defend it from those who do not belong to it.

This is the same thinking that concludes enforcing immigration law is racist or cruel. No, it is not. Enforcing any laws, immigration laws included, is just executing the most basic purpose of government: to punish evil (lawbreaking) and to reward what is good (law-abiding). The same is true with Voter ID. All it is doing is ensuring that if you are showing up to vote, that you are eligible to vote. And if you are eligible to vote, then you should have no issue with pulling out your ID – which you can get for free! – showing it to the poll worker, and then casting your ballot. Objections to this are not grounded in reality or rooted in consistent logic.

But if you hate America, if you think she is racist and evil and that anyone should be allowed to vote because voting doesn’t really mean anything, then of course you do not want voter ID. This ideology brainwashes you into thinking it is more important to protect the illegal immigrant – even to the point of undermining our elections – than it is to protect law-abiding citizens.

I am not saying this is what all Democrats believe, or that everyone who is initially against Voter ID thinks this way. But what I am saying is there is a severe lack of critical thinking to look objectively at the facts and make an informed decision. Voter ID should absolutely not be partisan. It should be something we can all agree on because we should all want people to be prevented from breaking the law to vote if they are ineligible. But the fact that it is partisan reveals the depth of corruption that has gripped one party in particular and said those who belong to it cannot question the party view.

How to Vote This November

There is only one thing you need to keep in view regarding Proposition 39: should our state ensure that the law is obeyed when it comes to our elections? If you have to be a citizen to vote, should we verify that you're a citizen? If you have to be an eligible voter, should we verify that you're an eligible voter? These are not radical questions, they are common sense.

For those of you who are concerned about election integrity, Proposition 39 represents a significant change in how California would verify voters! It is exactly what we have been calling for. For those of you who are opposed to voter ID, I would encourage you to take a step back and ask yourself why. Look at what this proposition actually does, look at the safeguards it puts in place – including a free state-issued voter ID – and ask whether your objections are really based on the facts of the measure, or on the ideological arguments that have surrounded voter ID for years. 

At the end of the day, our elections should have reasonable, neutral standards that apply to everyone. We should want eligible voters to be able to vote, and we should want our election laws to be followed. That shouldn't be controversial.

Which means, if you believe we should strengthen voter verification, verify citizenship, and hold our election system accountable, then you should absolutely vote YES on Proposition 39.

 
References:

[1] Legislative Analyst’s Office, “Proposition 39 [Ballot],” November 3, 2026, https://lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Proposition?number=39&year=2026.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Center for Democracy and Civic Engagement, Jillian Rothschild, Samuel Novey, and Michael Hamner. “Who Lacks ID in America Today? An Exploration of Voter ID Access, Barriers, and Knowledge,” June 2024. https://cdce.umd.edu/sites/cdce.umd.edu/files/pubs/Voter%20ID%20survey%20Key%20Results%20June%202024.pdf.

[4] United States’ Attorney’s Office Central District of California, “Victorville Man Arrested on Federal Indictment Alleging He Paid People,” September 10, 2026, https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/victorville-man-arrested-federal-indictment-alleging-he-paid-people-sign-ballot.

[5] Legislative Analyst’s Office, “Proposition 39 [Ballot].”