A small clarification and expansion. v2 expands the acceptable methods for individuals voting other than in person by adding notarization as an option. It also clarifies the definition of "military identification" to specifically include cards issued by the Department of Defense or Veterans Affairs.
Voter ID Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Steil, Bryan [R-WI-1]
- Committees
- Committee on House Administration (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 15, 2026
Bottom line
This bill establishes a federal photo ID requirement for all federal elections, aiming to enhance election security while providing mechanisms for voters without ID to still cast a ballot and for low-income individuals to obtain free identification.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to mandate photo identification for casting a ballot in federal elections, both in-person and by mail. It establishes specific requirements for provisional ballots and mail-in voting, defines acceptable forms of ID, and creates a grant program for states and tribal governments to provide free IDs to eligible individuals who cannot afford them.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that requiring photo identification is a common-sense measure to safeguard the integrity of federal elections, prevent voter impersonation, and boost public confidence in election outcomes. They contend that the bill's provisions for provisional ballots and free identification address concerns about voter access, ensuring that all eligible citizens can vote.
Opponents contend
Opponents contend that mandating photo identification creates unnecessary barriers to voting, disproportionately affecting minority voters, the elderly, students, and low-income individuals who may lack the required identification or face difficulties obtaining it. They argue that voter impersonation is exceedingly rare and that such requirements are designed to suppress turnout rather than address a widespread problem.
The bill is concise and relatively easy to read, allowing an informed reader to grasp its core provisions within a short timeframe.
Section 2(a)(1)
Mandatory Photo Identification for In-Person Voting
This provision mandates that individuals voting in person in federal elections must present a valid physical photo identification to an election official to receive a ballot. If a voter does not have the required ID, they can cast a provisional ballot. However, for that provisional ballot to be counted, the voter must present the required ID or an affidavit stating a religious objection to being photographed within three days of casting the ballot.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision is essential for preventing voter impersonation and enhancing the security and public trust in election results. They highlight the provisional ballot mechanism as a safeguard, ensuring that no eligible voter is turned away permanently on Election Day.
Critics contend
Opponents contend that this requirement creates an unnecessary barrier to voting, particularly for individuals who may not have a driver's license or passport, such as the elderly, low-income individuals, and students. They argue that the provisional ballot process is cumbersome and may not fully mitigate the risk of disenfranchisement.
Tradeoffs
Balances the goal of election security through ID verification against concerns about voter access and potential disenfranchisement for those who find it difficult to obtain or present valid photo identification.
Section 2(a)(2)
Identification Requirements for Absentee and Mail-In Voting
This provision requires individuals voting by mail or absentee to submit a copy of a valid photo identification with their ballot. Alternatively, they can submit the last four digits of their Social Security number along with an affidavit attesting to their inability to obtain a copy of photo ID after reasonable efforts, or they can include a notarization by a notary public attesting they personally marked the ballot. Exceptions are made for absent uniformed services voters and voters with disabilities under the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act.
Section 3
Grant Program for Provision of State and Tribal Identification
This section establishes a grant program, administered by the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), to provide funds to states and Tribal governments. These grants are intended to reimburse states and Tribal governments for the cost of issuing free photo identification (State-issued driver's licenses, ID cards, or Tribal government IDs) to eligible individuals who attest under penalty of perjury that they cannot afford the fee normally associated with obtaining such identification.
Allows an individual who does not present photo ID for in-person voting to submit an affidavit attesting to a religious objection to being photographed, in lieu of presenting photo ID, for their provisional ballot to be counted.
Section 2(a)(1)(B)(i)(II)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for detailing specific exceptions to general rules, ensuring precision.
Case for: Proponents would argue this protects religious freedom by accommodating individuals whose faith prohibits being photographed, ensuring they are not disenfranchised by the ID requirement.
Case against: Critics might argue that this exception could be exploited, as verifying a genuine religious objection is difficult, potentially undermining the security goals of the photo ID requirement.
Estimated impact: Likely affects a very small number of voters, but is significant for those individuals.
For non-in-person voting, if an individual cannot submit a copy of photo ID, they can submit the last four digits of their Social Security number and an affidavit attesting they are 'unable to obtain a copy of a valid photo identification after making reasonable efforts to obtain such a copy.'
Section 2(a)(2)(A)(ii)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for providing flexibility, but the lack of definition for 'reasonable efforts' leaves room for interpretation.
Case for: Proponents would argue this provides a necessary safety net for voters who genuinely cannot access copying facilities, ensuring they are not disenfranchised. The 'reasonable efforts' clause prevents casual avoidance of the ID requirement.
Case against: Opponents might argue that the undefined term 'reasonable efforts' creates ambiguity, potentially leading to inconsistent application across jurisdictions or challenges to ballots based on subjective interpretations of what constitutes 'reasonable.'
Estimated impact: Could affect a moderate number of mail-in voters, particularly in rural areas or those with limited access to technology.
Requires states to ensure, to the extent practicable, public access to digital imaging devices (printer, copier, image scanner, or multifunction machine) at state and local government buildings (courts, libraries, police stations) for individuals to make free copies of valid photo identification.
Section 2(b)
Why it matters:This provision aims to mitigate a potential barrier created by the ID requirement, making it a practical implementation detail.
Case for: Proponents would argue this provision directly addresses a practical barrier to compliance for voters who lack home access to copying technology, making the ID requirement more equitable and feasible.
Case against: Opponents might argue that 'to the extent practicable' provides a loophole for states to avoid full implementation, and that the administrative burden and cost on state and local governments for providing and maintaining such equipment could be significant and unfunded.
Estimated impact: Could significantly ease compliance for voters needing to copy IDs for mail-in ballots, depending on state implementation.