Posted: Feb 9, 2026 / 04:36 PM EST
https://www.abc27.com/pennsylvania-politics/fetterman-backs-save-act-says-voter-id-not-jim-crow/
I think it’s fair to say that Fetterman is unreliable, but I also think that it’s significant that he has come out and said he won’t vote for it, so thanks for digging that up.
The Caller article references an interview he gave earlier today. It would appear he supports voter ID in principle, but not this specific legislation.
Host Dasha Burns noted on the Politico show that Fetterman has deviated from much of his party by not opposing voter ID and explained that the SAVE Act would require proof of citizenship to vote in federal elections. However, the Democrat clarified that although he did not oppose voter ID, he would not vote for the legislation.
“I don’t support SAVE Act. I don’t. It’s in a weird time where it’s like if I say it’s not unreasonable to produce an ID — that’s not unreasonable,” Fetterman said.
Voter ID is overwhelmingly popular (83 percent in favor per Pew and should favor the party with the more highly educated constituency (Democrats). The only practical reason for him to be against Voter ID would be to avoid being primaried, but it’s probably too late for that.
Making it harder to register is a different issue. There’s no reason to have the same opinion on that as on showing commonly available ID.
In my state, voters are verified at the polls with a signature comparison. There is no matter of principle I can see as to whether using signature comparison or showing ID is better.
The problem with requiring ID is that, unless voter ID is free and universally available, it’s a poll tax. And poll taxes are unconstitutional under the 24th amendment.
I would be shocked if SCOTUS agreed. They would have to reverse Crawford v. Marion County Election Board.
Every method of voting requires some moderate expense. Either I get on my computer to request a mail ballot, or drive to the polling place. This is not what the word tax signifies in normal English.
What about the people who are blocked from voting because their signature changed? In my state, they can try a provisional ballot, but until I retired I would not have had the time to deal with that. I’m not arguing that voter ID is better in principle, just that there’s nothing wrong with a politician picking what more constituents want on a six-of-one-half-dozen-of-the-other issue like this.
But you’re not paying the state for computer access or for fuel.
If you have to pay a fee to the state in order to exercise your right to vote, that’s a poll tax.
The voter ID required in that case was free, so not a poll tax.
Then how come numerous states have had voter ID requirements for decades (in states where ID is not free to obtain) and none were struck down as a poll tax?
Because those states provide free voter IDs or a free alternative to ID.
I have a hard time believing that a mere $12, or $19 cost for a voter ID is what’s really holding up voter-ID opponents. After all, many people spend that amount of food on just one or a few meals. And this whole voter-ID discussion has been going on for fourteen years now.
I suspect it’s because they know some voters will not be motivated enough to get a voter ID to go vote.
SCOTUS was ruling on Indiana’s law. They currently charge $9 for non-driver ID:
If you do not possess an ID that is acceptable for voting purposes, Public Law 109-2005 requires the BMV to issue an Indiana State ID Card for free.
Poll taxes have a long history in this country of being used to systematically disfranchise minorities. That’s why we made them unconstitutional.
I suspect it’s because they think Democrats are lazy bums who will be deterred from voting if you make it is bit more difficult.
They are mistaken.
“It’s not much of a poll tax. Just a little one. That doesn’t count.”
I missed that. You are correct there. Did you check all the other states which require ID?
Also, passing a law that SCOTUS may reverse for certain states is not a sin. Then the state can either provide free ID, or the ID requirement will not apply to them. This is a little unfortunate because I think an ID requirement will help the Democrats a bit, but no biggie.
By this same logic, isn’t the federal fuel tax a poll tax, since you have to pay a little of it to drive to the polling place (assuming not walking distance).
Also, what about the tariffs you now have to pay on computer parts for the PC (or cell phone) you use to sign up for voting by mail? That’s arguably the biggest poll tax of them all.
Maybe SCOTUS will agree with the indirect poll tax theory once they realize that Democrats are more determined voters than Republicans. But I think it is a bit silly.
As written, the SAVE act has no provision for providing free ID. That’s a problem.
Have the Social Security Administration issue everyone a free voter ID when they turn 18 or become a citizen that never expires or can be renewed automatically for free (like Mexico does) and you fix that problem.
Republicans don’t WANT voter ID to be free and easy to acquire.
You’re eligible to vote if you drive, catch a bus, catch a ride with a neighbor, walk, jog, ride a bike, ride a horse, flap your arms and fly… but you’re not eligible to vote if you don’t pay the state government for a document that says you’re authorized to vote.
One of these things is not like the others.
Since voter ID is almost always portrayed as a Democrat vs Republican thing, let me ask even more directly then: A substantial number of Republican voters are poor. A substantial number of Republican voters are in rural, inconvenient regions. In other words, a good number of Rs would face just as much difficulty getting voter ID as the Ds. Yet you never hear conservatives panic about how voter-ID restrictions would hinder Republicans from voting. Voter ID is always portrayed as something that puts the Ds at a disadvantage.
What makes Republican voters uniquely able to jump through hoops to get voter ID, in a way that Democrats can’t? If anything, the fact that the Ds are more urban ought to make it even easier for them to get it. What prevents a Democratic voter from paying the same fee or doing the same traveling a Republican does, to get ID and vote?
Well, what about all the red states that require physical voter ID? Either there’s no problem because the ID is free like in Indiana, or there’s no problem because of the 24th amendment.