By Curtis Scoon
On February 13, 2026, President Trump indicated that he would be willing to issue an executive order requiring voters to present proof of citizenship at the polls if the Senate fails to pass the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, which recently passed in the House of Representatives. Ever since the presidential election of 2020, the electoral process has been under tremendous scrutiny. Allegations of voter fraud involving mail-in ballots and voting machine tampering persists to this day. While these claims have not been substantiated, they continue to circulate and remain a prominent part of the national conversation.
The legacy of the 2020 election has been a significant erosion of trust in the electoral process along partisan lines. Moreover, Trump’s MAGA movement alleges that the Biden administration’s immigration policies incentivize undocumented migrants to vote Democratic. They argue this was facilitated through so-called “sanctuary cities” and the provision of free housing, healthcare, and education at taxpayers’ expense. The president reinforced these accusations by claiming only Democrats oppose voter ID laws and proof of citizenship requirements because they seek to allow undocumented immigrants to vote. He went so far as to double down on these claims during his State of the Union address.
On the campaign trail, Trump promised his supporters the largest mass deportation effort in U.S. history to ensure public safety and election integrity—an undertaking eclipsing the more than one million Mexicans deported during Operation Wetback in 1953–1954 under Dwight D. Eisenhower. This objective has produced images on the evening news of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers engaged in violent confrontations with American citizens protesting the apprehension of undocumented immigrants. In Minneapolis, escalating tensions during immigration enforcement protests resulted in the deaths of two U.S. citizens and sparked nationwide demonstrations demanding accountability. In November, Trump’s political future will be decided at the ballot box. Yet an underlying issue remains unresolved: who should have the right to vote?
America’s voting laws have gone through several iterations since the country’s inception in 1776. Early political thinkers, such as founding father and second U.S. president John Adams, believed that white male property owners made better voters because they had a direct stake in political decision-making. They also believed that other groups—including married women, adult children living with their parents, tenant farmers, servants, and apprentices—could be effortlessly manipulated. In their view, people with nothing tangible to lose could be more easily enticed or influenced.
Regarding the idea of expanding voting rights beyond property-owning white men, Adams expressed concern, stating, “…and every man who has not a farthing will demand an equal voice with any other in all acts of state.” He continued, “It would be an endless source of controversy and altercation.” Although these views seem antiquated and offensive today, the reasoning behind them in the historical context of the late eighteenth century is understandable. Adams’s prediction of “controversy and altercation,” for example, appears somewhat prophetic given the deep ideological divisions present in contemporary American politics.
Adams and his contemporaries seemingly concluded that individuals who had not demonstrated an ability to accumulate property or manage their personal affairs responsibly lacked the credibility to influence the development of the fledgling nation. However, since the nineteenth century, the right to vote has become progressively more inclusive. In 1870, Black men were granted the constitutional right to vote with the ratification of the 15th Amendment. This was followed by the 19th Amendment in 1920, which granted women the right to vote, and finally, the 26th Amendment in 1971, which lowered the voting age from 21 to 18. Throughout the 20th century, the naturalization of non-white immigrants also expanded voting rights to include diverse individuals of Asian, African, Pacific Islander, and Indigenous descent.
Either by design or happenstance, the concerns of early constitutionalists and political thinkers regarding whom should vote appear to have materialized in modern political life. New subsets of voters increasingly prioritize issues related to identity politics over traditional economic or institutional concerns. As the electorate has expanded, campaign strategies have also shifted to appeal to voters who may be motivated primarily by groupthink or non-traditional political emotional issues. The American electorate is no longer economically nor ideologically homogeneous, as it was during the nation’s early years.
In contemporary politics, elections often take on the qualities of a theatrical production or popularity contest, where public figures—including entertainers, actors, comedians, and athletes—often play influential roles in shaping political discourse and mobilizing voters. Such an environment encourages candidates to emphasize superficiality and celebrity endorsements rather than substantive policy discussions. It can be argued that the United States has experienced a form of political destabilization through its own electoral process, akin to its own “Color Revolution.”
From this perspective, the decline in the quality of political leadership is directly linked to an increase in an uninformed electorate. These voters tend to support candidates who similarly prioritize image and rhetoric over governance, contributing to political outcomes that create conditions in which social and political tensions can intensify. Compounding matters, some policymakers have proposed lowering the voting age to sixteen. Advocates of this position include members of Congress such as Grace Meng (D–NY) and Ayanna Pressley (D–MA). Other Democrats—including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Adam Schiff, and Ilhan Omar—also expressed support for a proposal to reduce the voting age, although the measure ultimately failed in the House of Representatives.
Most sixteen-year-olds have not yet completed even the most basic education requirements, raising questions about their preparedness to participate in national elections. Expanding the electorate to include younger, even less informed voters only serves the interests of those seeking to manipulate election outcomes. Proponents of this policy fully understand the less educated and accomplished the voter, the more susceptible to political messaging and campaign persuasion they will be.
The Founding Fathers recognized the importance of an informed electorate when considering the structure of early American democracy. They had the foresight to know the gradual expansion of voting qualifications—while well intended—could also create tensions between inclusivity and the need to maintain an informed and engaged electorate. When the most capable and knowledgeable voters are significantly outnumbered, elections increasingly reward candidates who rely on broad promises and irresponsible rhetoric, rather than detailed policy solutions.
No recent politician illustrates this modern dynamic more clearly than the recently elected mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani. The 34-year-old, former rapper gained strong support among younger voters by campaigning on proposals such as expanded affordable housing, free bus fares, free childcare, community supermarkets, and higher wages. Hipsters and young “Zoomers” (Gen Z) propelled Mamdani to victory with 75% of all young voters, and 82% of young women. Considering the city’s younger voters of color (ages 18-24) face unemployment rates of 17%-23.8%, Mamdani’s laundry list of giveaways was an offer they couldn’t refuse. A mere three days after being sworn-in his voters were dealt their first dose of reality as public transportation fares increased.
Next, Mamdani halted “sweeps” of homeless encampments causing well over a dozen homeless to freeze to death in his first six weeks in office. Coverage of the tragedy in a New York tabloid read, “Killed by kindness – homeless freeze to death because Mamdani won’t force them off streets.” His administration has also faced criticism regarding the city’s fiscal outlook, including projections of a potential multibillion-dollar budget deficit and proposals to increase property taxes for middle class homeowners. Cea Weaver, his newly appointed tenant advocate director, is on record on her social media account linking private property and home ownership to white supremacy in since deleted posts. In racing parlance, it’s fair to say the mayor has “Stumbled out of the blocks.” New York City’s voters are already exhibiting “buyer’s remorse.” The “mice” never quite understand why the cheese is free until it’s too late. Mamdani’s plight should serve as a bellwether to America regarding not just the right to vote, but the need of an educational requirement in civics to exercise that right.
The upcoming midterm elections may prove to be among the most consequential in recent American political history. Regardless of party affiliation, the nation’s best hope lies in an educated electorate. Political tribalism has rarely served the long-term interests of the United States. Some analysts have predicted a potential Democratic “blue wave” that could significantly challenge the presidency of Donald Trump. If opposition lawmakers were to gain the majority in Congress, the president could once again face impeachment proceedings. Having already been impeached twice during his first term, another impeachment would potentially lead to a Senate trial, and if convicted, removal from office.
The unrelenting issue of illegal immigration has also taken center stage for the midterms as allegations of voter fraud persist. Counterarguments from the opposition point to available data suggesting that proven cases of voter fraud by noncitizens remain relatively rare. Records compiled by the Heritage Foundation, one of the most conservative think tanks in America, list an insignificant number of confirmed cases involving noncitizens in recent elections. However, there are several examples of violators voting in multiple elections, implying a very lax vetting process. Iranian national, Mahmoud Vakili, was convicted in Illinois in 2012 for voting five times illegally. His penalty was 12 months supervision, 100 hours community service and court costs. While Vakili was a legal resident, he was not a citizen. There are others such as Miguel Valencia Sandoval, an illegal immigrant from Mexico, who used a stolen birth certificate to obtain an Illinois driver’s license and register to vote in 2012, 2014, and 2016. He was consequently, deported in 2018 after pleading guilty on five counts, four of which relate to voting while not a citizen.
Despite the miniscule number of violators caught, a national voter ID database seems to be the simplest way to quell suspicion regarding surreptitious voter fraud. A more efficient system should not be viewed as a threat by either political party if the focus is purely verification of citizenship, and integrity of the voting process. A recent Gallup poll showed 84% of US adults favored “requiring all voters to provide photo identification at their voting place.” Also, 83% favored “requiring people registering to vote for the first time to provide proof of citizenship.” In a society where identification is routinely required for any important transactions, proponents argue that similar standards in elections would strengthen confidence in democratic institutions. Regardless of political affiliation, establishing clear and nonpartisan standards regarding voter eligibility are long overdue.
Criteria for Consideration
1. National Voter ID Database – Citizenship could be verified through a secure national database that allows voters to upload vital records and verify their identity using biometric authentication. Individuals holding dual citizenship would not be eligible to vote under this proposed system.
2. Naturalized Citizens – Eligibility would require at least five consecutive years of residence in the United States as a legal resident, a naturalized citizen, or a combination of both.
3. Birthright Citizenship – At least one parent must be a U.S. citizen by birth or naturalization for an individual to qualify under birthright citizenship criteria.
4. Civics Education Requirement – All voters would be required to complete a short, nonpartisan online civics tutorial designed to ensure a basic understanding of American government and the electoral process.
5. Tax or Service Record – With the exception of seniors and individuals with disabilities, voters would provide at least five years of tax records or proof of military service to demonstrate civic participation.
6. Illegal Voting Penalties – Voting by non-citizens, whether legal residents or undocumented individuals, would constitute a felony offense under this proposal.
Call to Action
If you support the creation of a national voter identification database, please consider signing the petition below. With sufficient public support, citizens can collectively encourage elected representatives to consider reforms intended to strengthen confidence in the electoral process.
Create a national Voter ID database:
Curtis Scoon is the founder of ScoonTv.com Download the ScoonTv App to join our weekly livestream every Tuesday @ 8pm EST! Support true independent media. Become a VIP member www.scoontv.com/vip-signup/ and download the ScoonTv App from your App Store.
Support Independent Media Donate to ScoonTV https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/donatescoontv
