Voting in The Future

Maybe your driver license may not be enough to prove you are a resident of the state and county in which you vote. What if you needed another form of identification other than a bill for electricity, water, or natural gas? Could you afford to have a passport in hand? That could be one of the few alternatives Republicans and Trump may be thinking of as adequate.

As of early 2026, a new adult passport costs:

Can you afford $165 for a passport? It may be a bit cheaper elsewhere. For an expedited passport there is a fee also. They have you coming and going. I am due for both. What Id Republicans and Trump decide upon and how soon they decide could be an issue for the next election. How many people would drop out?

“The End of the Poll Tax”

Civil Discourse

Joyce Vance

Now, on to poll taxes. Today marks the 60th anniversary of the official demise of the poll tax at the hands of the Supreme Court of the United States. On March 24, 1966, the Court banned their use in state and local elections in Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections. The Court held that “wealth or fee paying has . . . no relation to voting qualifications; the right to vote is too precious, too fundamental to be so burdened or conditioned.”

Harper was necessary because there was a loophole in the 24th Amendment, which had been ratified two years earlier. The Amendment abolished poll taxes in federal elections, but failed to address state and local ones. The Court slammed the door shut on any notion that states could discriminate against voters’ fundamental rights when the federal government was forbidden to do so.

“Undoubtedly, the right of suffrage is a fundamental matter in a free and democratic society. Especially since the right to exercise the franchise in a free and unimpaired manner is preservative of other basic civil and political rights, any alleged infringement of the right of citizens to vote must be carefully and meticulously scrutinized.”

Today’s Harper anniversary is ironic, with Donald Trump pushing the SAVE Act and Senate Republicans considering it, although it seems to be foundering. The Act, which would require voters to prove they are citizens, functions like a poll tax. Voters would need passports or other forms of identification that are expensive to obtain in order to exercise their right to vote. Additional costs would be borne by certain voters, like married women, whose current name doesn’t match the one on their birth certificate.

It is clear Republicans understand what the SAVE Act is about: it’s not preventing non-citizens from voting, because that’s not a real problem. It’s about maintaining Republican control despite what the voters want.

Harper: “To introduce wealth or payment of a fee as a measure of a voter’s qualifications is to introduce a capricious or irrelevant factor. The degree of the discrimination is irrelevant. In this context — that is, as a condition of obtaining a ballot — the requirement of fee paying causes an “invidious” discrimination…that runs afoul of the Equal Protection Clause.”

Today, Democracy Docket reported that Texas Republican Chip Roy, one of the leading proponents of the SAVE Act in the House of Representatives, and someone who has repeatedly dismissed “concerns that millions of Americans would face unnecessary barriers while registering to vote if the draconian bill became law,” took a different view in private. In a video obtained by independent media organization Call to Activism, Roy discusses how difficult it was for one of his employees, a woman, to obtain the identification she needed to get a REAL ID, which is similar to what the SAVE Act requires. In the recording, Roy says, “So, she had to go through a bunch of hoops. She’s gonna have to go back to the DMV twice because they want the paperwork. That’s just part of the issue with how we try to set up the ability to identify people.”

This March 13 exchange between Senators Cornyn and Durbin is illustrative:

• Senator Cornyn: I don’t understand how the SAVE Act could disenfranchise millions of Americans.
• Senator Durbin: You have to present identification, but your driver’s license is not acceptable. 50% of Americans do not have a passport. Those who want to obtain it so they can vote will pay $186

The Court in Harper: “In a recent searching reexamination of the Equal Protection Clause, we held, as already noted, that ‘the opportunity for equal participation by all voters in the election of state legislators’ is required…We decline to qualify that principle by sustaining this poll tax. Our conclusion, like that, in Reynolds v. Sims, is founded not on what we think governmental policy should be, but on what the Equal Protection Clause requires.”

We shouldn’t have to “go through a bunch of hoops” to exercise a fundamental right. Republicans know exactly what they’re doing with the SAVE Act and other measures designed to make it more difficult for Americans to vote.

The Court concluded Harper like this:

“[T]o repeat, wealth or fee paying has, in our view, no relation to voting qualifications; the right to vote is too precious, too fundamental to be so burdened or conditioned.”

We’re in this together,