Recently, U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski created a letter explaining her opposition to the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act. Her letter reflects a pattern that has become common in election debates. Many politicians say they support voter ID and election integrity in principle, yet oppose reforms that would meaningfully strengthen those protections.
Free, fair, and transparent elections are foundational to our system of government. Public trust in the integrity of elections is essential to the stability of our republic. When confidence in elections erodes, the consequences extend far beyond any single political contest.
In Alaska, a voter can present something as simple as a non-photo utility bill as identification. The law goes even further. A voter who arrives without any identification can still cast a ballot. In some cases, an election official may attest to the voter’s identity, but even that is not strictly required. A voter can cast what is known as a questioned ballot, and that ballot will be counted if the name appears on the voter rolls and the individual is registered.
In other words, the system confirms that a registered name exists. It does not necessarily confirm that the individual casting the vote is that person.
What is never verified in that situation is whether the person casting the ballot is actually the person whose name appears on the voter roll.
Much of the conversation about election integrity stops at rhetoric. Saying “I support voter ID” has become politically safe language.
At the same time, voter rolls themselves are not always carefully maintained. Across the country, they frequently contain outdated registrations for people who have moved, died, or registered in multiple states. When voter rolls are not rigorously maintained, and the identification requirements at the polls are weak, the safeguards that many voters assume exist simply are not there.
Yet many politicians continue to claim that Alaska already has voter ID protections.
Technically, that statement may be defensible on paper. In practice, however, the standard is so loose that it provides little real verification. Calling something a voter ID law does not make it effective. A system that accepts a non-photo document, or even allows a ballot without identification at all, is not what most Americans think of when they hear the phrase “voter ID.”
This disconnect between rhetoric and reality erodes public trust.
Sen. Murkowski’s letter raises concerns about federal legislation such as the SAVE Act and the role of the federal government in election administration. It is true that the Constitution gives states primary responsibility for running elections. But it also clearly gives Congress authority to regulate federal elections. Establishing baseline standards for voter eligibility is not unprecedented. If states were consistently maintaining accurate voter rolls and strong verification systems, the pressure for federal involvement would likely be much lower.
Legislation like the SAVE Act is aimed at improving that situation by requiring proof of citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections and providing states with tools to verify citizenship using federal databases. It does not give federal agencies authority to purge voter rolls. States remain responsible for maintaining their voter lists.
Reasonable people can disagree about the details of any legislation. But those debates should start with an honest description of the system we currently have.
ALASKA WATCHMAN DIRECT TO YOUR INBOX
The truth is that in many places, voter ID exists mostly in name. When identification can be as minimal as a utility bill or bypassed altogether through a questioned ballot, it is difficult to argue that the system provides meaningful verification.
Most Americans routinely present identification in everyday life. We show ID to board airplanes, to access secure buildings, and to complete countless ordinary transactions. Voting, one of the most important civic acts in a democracy, should not operate under weaker verification standards than activities that are far less consequential.
A well-designed system can make it easy for eligible citizens to vote while still ensuring that each vote is cast by the person legally entitled to cast it.
Unfortunately, much of the conversation about election integrity stops at rhetoric. Saying “I support voter ID” has become politically safe language. But the reality of many state laws, including Alaska’s, tells a very different story.
Public confidence in elections is fragile. Restoring that confidence requires honesty about where our systems fall short and a willingness to strengthen the safeguards that protect them. Pretending weak standards are strong ones does not help anyone. It only delays the reforms needed to ensure that elections remain both accessible and trusted.
The views expressed here are those of the author.
