and gives credibility to their propaganda. The ads would not stop even if we did do that and would only encourage republicans to propose even stricter voter ID laws and they will say see even the Democrats agree there is a bunch of illegals voting which is a lie. Biden proposing a border bill that Trump and republicans blew up didn't move the needle with voters who shared those sentiments and neither will this it would only be playing into their hands.

And the disaster at the border was one of the reason we lost.

will disenfranchise the elderly, poor, housing insecure, minority individuals.

It is much more than "we don't need one." It is that any voter ID law which hinges on proving citizenship is actively harmful.

with what would essentially be a poll tax by another name to appease republicans you can't compromise with republicans thinking we could for decades is a big part of the reason we are in this mess in the first place.

If all citizens could get an ID proving citizenship by paying money, Democrats could sponsor a bill that would pay all necessary costs (including at least minimum wage for time expended) to get the ID.

Unfortunately, there are people who simply don't have access to the documents necessary to prove citizenship = no matter how much time and money they spend. My father was born at home, for example. His birth was registered - either at the time, or was established later. He had relatively educated parents, he was educated, and he was white. I'm not sure whether his birth was attended by a midwife or not - but in the same era and for a few decades after - in the South, especially, midwives to black children were discouraged from registering their births. If the birth was not registered at the time, the documents needed to create a secondary record of birth (baptismal certificates, marriage registries, for example) may have been destroyed when poor black churches were burned in racially motivated attacks.

I give them my license anyway for them to read it off of instead of having me repeat it or spell it out.

But abuse is so rare, and that makes Voter id an unnecessary burden on too many voters. A freaking OBSTACLE to voting.

My family has a centuries-old history with obstacles to voting in America. It had a specific purpose. To prevent people with my skin color from voting.

It's the same with ALL of the VID laws on the books right now. There's no purpose other than to place an obstacle to voting for people they believe would vote Democratic. It's a confluence of obstacles, along with the purges and closing of voting locations. We shouldn't get caught up in validating this.

It's also part and parcel of the canard about undocumented immigrants voting in national elections. It's part of the new Jim Crow playbook, and people keep giving them more rope to hang us with.

We don't?

Isn't that what Republicans accuse us of doing? Letting non citizens vote?

Democrats proposing a counter voter ID bill doesn't address the issue the OP contends we will be hammered on in advertisements - BECAUSE - any voter ID bill that does require proof of citizenship disenfranchises those citizens who cannot prove their citizenship because documentation which is relatively automatically created now simply does not exist for many older citizens, especially poor, minority, and female.

Democrats should not support a "proof of citizenship" bill, and no other kind of identification will render the potential Republican advertisements moot.

36 States already require some kind of ID to vote. I'm in GA; it's been required for the 50yrs I've voted. And every cycle we break the previous record for turnout. We're doing it again this cycle in early voting

Because requiring "some kind of ID" does not establish citizenship.

The only way a voter ID law crafted by Democrats will counter the advertisements you are worried about is if the voter ID law requires an ID that proves citizenship. Doing so will disenfranchise many citizens who simply cannot prove their citizenship - primarily older individuals, especially minorities and women. Democrats should not, under any circumstance, advocate disenfranchising citizens to appease Republicans.

Only citizens are allowed to vote.

Republicans are looking for ways to kick voters off the rolls.

This is a non-issue made up by the con artist because he can't accept that he lost the 2020 election and he doesn't want to accept that Republicans are going to lose a lot of seats in 26.

Two of the 12 have not been implemented. One requires proof of citizenship when registering at the DMV (but not elsewhere), and three others require it only when citizenship isn't otherwise established.

Voting by non-citizens It is a non-issue - BUT - requiring proof of citizenship will disenfranchise many citizens who have been voting all their lives but who do not have access to documents to prove it (or such documents have never, or no longer, existed).

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/119/hr14

This bill has 220 cosponsors — 220 Democrats — plus its sponsor.

SOME should PLEASE use their computer machines to look things up before becoming overexcited about the imaginary Democratic Party in their heads.

...pass the damn bill.

...something to do with it.

Under the Act, certain types of voting changes would be subject to federal preclearance — meaning states or localities with a history of voting discrimination must get approval from the Department of Justice or a federal court before implementing them Brennan Center for Justice.

One of the covered practices is imposing stricter requirements for documentation or proof of identity to vote. This would apply nationwide if certain conditions are met, such as:

The change is in a jurisdiction with a sufficiently large minority population.

The change is likely to disproportionately affect minority voters.

The Act’s “practice-based coverage” framework would make such voter ID or ID‑like requirements subject to preclearance if they meet these criteria

Brennan Center for Justice.

The John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act would make it harder for states to pass new voter ID laws in jurisdictions with a history of discrimination, requiring federal approval before such changes take effect.

Preclearance

Geographic coverage: The John Lewis Act creates a new framework to determine which states and localities will be subject to preclearance. Under the requirement, jurisdictions with a history of voting discrimination must get approval from the Department of Justice or a federal court in Washington, DC, before changing their voting laws or practices to ensure that the changes are not discriminatory. In Shelby County, the Supreme Court struck down the Voting Rights Act’s preclearance formula, saying it was outdated. The bill updates the formula to ensure that state and local coverage is based on recent evidence of discrimination.

Practice-based coverage: The John Lewis Act makes some types of voting changes subject to preclearance nationwide, if certain conditions are met, because those changes are so often discriminatory. The following practices would be covered:

Creating at-large districts in places with sufficiently large minority populations.
Changing jurisdiction boundaries to remove minorities from the jurisdiction in places with sufficiently large minority populations.
Changing the boundaries of a district where a minority group is sufficiently large and has had a large population increase.
Imposing stricter requirements for documentation or proof of identity to vote.
Reducing the availability of or altering multilingual voting materials.
Reducing, consolidating, or relocating polling places, early and Election Day voting opportunities, or absentee voting opportunities in places with sufficiently large minority populations.
Making it easier to remove voters from the rolls in places with sufficiently large minority populations.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/john-r-lewis-voting-rights-advancement-act