Constitutional expert pokes Jamie Raskin for his ‘rather bizarre’ election claims

Democrats long have influenced elections by manipulating the makeup of the voting populations. In some Democrat-controlled districts they have made specific provisions for non-citizens to vote in local elections, yet they are not supposed to vote in national races on the same ballot.

It’s why they oppose a current plan that would require identification, essentially confirmation of citizenship, for those voting in national elections.

The GOP plan is called the SAVE Act, and Chuck Schumer, the Senate’s minority leader, has claimed, “For instance, if you’re a woman who got married and changed your last name, you won’t be able to show ID, and you’ll be discriminated against. If you can’t find a birth certificate or a proper ID, you’ll be discriminated against. This is vicious and nasty.”

But constitutional expert Jonathan Turley, on whose advice Congress has relied to decide constitutional questions, described how U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., essentially has made himself a poster child for extremism on the question.

“With polling showing over 80 percent of Americans in favor of voter ID laws, it is hard to come up with reasons why you need an ID to board a plane but not vote in a federal election. That was particularly glaring this week when Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.) required people to show an ID to attend his campaign events after opposing an ID requirement to vote,” Turley explained.

“So if you want to hear Ossoff speak against voter ID, you will have to show your ID. Now Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) has a rather bizarre argument: the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, if passed, would likely violate the 19th Amendment to the Constitution.”

Rep. Jamie Raskin claims voter ID laws will TAKE AWAY women’s right to vote..

Really grasping at straws here. lol pic.twitter.com/72aMB96IUv

— American AF (@iAnonPatriot) February 6, 2026

Responding on the dispute, Raskin said, “What’s wrong with it is that it might violate the 19th Amendment, which gives women the right to vote, because you’ve got to show that all of your different IDs match. So if you’re a woman who’s gotten married and you’ve changed your name to your husband’s name, but you’re so now your current name is different from your name at birth. Now you’ve got to go ahead and document that you need an affidavit explaining why. And why would we go to all of these, troubles in order to keep people from voting when none of the states that are actually running the elections are telling us that there’s any problem.”

Turley pointed out states already can create systems to address issues such as different maiden names or name changes following a divorce, including requiring a standard attestation provided by the state.

In fact, the planned legislation would allow voting based on an ID that complies with the REAL ID Act and indicates the holder is a citizen, a passport, a military ID card and military record of service that shows a person was born in the U.S., a government-issued photo ID that shows the person’s place of birth was in the U.S., other forms of government-issued photo ID, if they’re accompanied by a birth certificate, comparable document or naturalization certificate.

Raskin’s claims, Turley said, are “simply ridiculous. Indeed, if this were credible, why has it not been used successfully against prior state voting ID laws?”

He confirmed the 19th Amendment guarantees the right to vote, “but, like all citizens, women can be asked to prove their eligibility to vote. The suggestion that requiring a signature on an attestation form is a barrier to voting is simply incredible.”

“The claim of a 19th Amendment violation is spurious but par for the course in our current political environment. As with claims that democracy is about to die, these inflammatory claims are designed to distract voters who overwhelmingly support Voter ID. Democratic members are unified in opposing such laws,” Turley said.

A report at the Washington Stand had cited Schumer’s wild claims about the “Safeguard American Voter Eligibility” Act plan – he called it “Jim Crow 2.0.”

The report explained, “Yet there is a population living in the United States who would find it difficult to obtain documents proving their citizenship, whether by Election Day or any other time frame — namely, non-citizens, who have no right to vote in federal elections. That is the point of a photo ID requirement for voting.”

And it cited a Pew Research Survey that revealed 83% of Americans favor “requiring all voters to show government-issued photo identification to vote.” Only about 16% opposed that policy.

“The policy enjoyed overwhelming majorities across political and ethnic lines, enjoying the support of 71% of Democrats, 95% of Republicans, 76% of blacks, 77% of Asians, 82% of Hispanics, and 85% of whites,” the report said.