Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (52-46, 3/5 majority required)
52 Yea46 Nay2 Not voting3/5 required
S-5271-119
Cloture on the motion to proceed to the measure not invoked in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 52 - 46. Record Vote Number: 231.
Sponsored by Jon Husted (R-OH)
What it does
This bill would amend the Help America Vote Act to require voters to present a valid photo ID (driver's license, state ID, passport, military ID, or tribal ID) to cast a ballot in federal elections. Voters without ID could cast a provisional ballot and later present ID or sign a religious-objection affidavit; mail voters could submit a copy of ID or the last four digits of their Social Security number with an affidavit of inability to obtain ID. States would be required to provide free public access to copying devices and to notify registrants of the requirement, with exceptions for military/overseas voters and certain voters with disabilities.
Who benefits
State and local election officials who gain a uniform federal ID standard rather than a patchwork of state rules; voters and advocacy groups who support ID requirements as a confidence-building measure; ID-issuing agencies (DMVs) that may see increased demand; voters who already possess qualifying ID, who would see no change in their voting process.
Who is hurt
Voters who lack a qualifying photo ID — studies suggest this disproportionately includes elderly voters, low-income voters, people with disabilities, students, and some racial minorities — who would face the added burden of obtaining ID, completing an affidavit, or curing a provisional ballot within three days. Mail voters without ID who must disclose partial Social Security numbers, potentially raising privacy concerns. State election offices bear implementation and public-notice costs, and states with less restrictive existing ID rules would need to conform to the new federal floor.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that requiring photo ID protects the integrity of federal elections by preventing impersonation at the polls and by giving voters greater confidence that election outcomes are accurate, an interest the Supreme Court recognized in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board. They contend the bill mitigates burdens on voters without ID by providing free copying access, a provisional-ballot cure period, and religious and hardship affidavit alternatives, making it less restrictive than several state laws already upheld in court.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that documented cases of in-person voter impersonation are exceedingly rare, and that imposing a nationwide ID mandate creates a real burden on voters who lack the required documents or the means to obtain them, particularly elderly, low-income, and rural voters. They contend the three-day cure window and Social Security number disclosure requirement for mail ballots could still result in disenfranchisement and raise privacy risks, without a demonstrated fraud problem justifying the cost.
Constitutional context
Congress has authority under the Elections Clause (Art. I, §4) to set rules for federal elections, and courts would likely evaluate any challenge under the Anderson-Burdick sliding-scale framework, with Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (2008) providing the closest precedent upholding a photo ID requirement against a facial challenge.
Checks and balances
Congress would set a nationwide floor for federal election administration under its Elections Clause power, displacing more permissive state rules, while states retain implementation authority and courts retain power to hear as-applied challenges under Anderson-Burdick.
Historical precedent
Indiana's 2005 photo ID law, upheld in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (2008), is the closest precedent, though this bill would impose a similar requirement nationwide rather than state-by-state.
Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (52-46, 3/5 majority required)