RedState91%

Democrats’ Voter Suppression Lie Implodes As Their Own Voters Back ID Requirements 26%

By Ben Smith50%

7/24/2026, 12:45:05 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 28 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Pessimism Bias, and Confirmation Bias, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 15.2% saturation with 116 hits. Analysis detected 1,039 faulty-reasoning hits from 764 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 37.6% and a BS Rank of 26% (16,360 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 74.70% of the article peer group.

Democrats have spent years attacking voter identification requirements as voter suppression. 
A new national poll found that argument is collapsing, including with their own voters. 
Eighty-three percent of registered voters support requiring a valid photo ID proving U.S. citizenship before someone can register to vote, while 77 percent support requiring one before a ballot can be cast. 
Among Democrats, support stood at 72 percent for registration and 62 percent for voting. 
The numbers caught Bret Baier's attention during Thursday's "Special Report." 
He called the results "pretty overwhelming" before asking panelist Ben Domenech, a conservative commentator, whether Republicans should make voter ID a bigger issue heading into November. 
Baier said: 
“Our latest Fox News poll is pretty overwhelming. 
Registering to vote, 83 percent overall, even 72 percent of Democrats. 
And there you see voting at 77 percent. 
Ben, this is kind of rich territory as we get closer to the midterms.” 
Domenech agreed and sounded baffled that Republican candidates were not already hammering the issue around the country. 
“It is rich territory, and I don’t know why Republicans aren’t going around the country and talking about it more. 
This is classic Republican politics. 
You find 80/20 issues and you lean into them as hard as you can. 
This is stuff the American people believe is rational and reasonable.” 
He also rejected the left’s insistence that requiring identification to vote is racist, comparing the requirement to showing ID for routine transactions such as buying alcohol. 
With Republicans facing the usual historical headwinds for the president’s party during a midterm election, Domenech called voter ID an opportunity that the GOP is “just leaving on the table.” 
The partisan breakdown makes his point. 
Republicans backed the ID requirement by 96 percent for registration and 95 percent for voting. 
Independents came in at 83 percent and 77 percent, respectively. 
Support also demolished the demographic arguments Democrats rely on most, targeting the very voters they claim would be harmed. 
Hispanic voters backed photo ID by 85 percent for registration and 76 percent for voting. 
Voters under 30 supported the requirements by 82 percent and 75 percent. 
The poll question was narrower than every provision contained in the SAVE America Act. 
Respondents were specifically asked whether voters should have to show a valid state or federally issued photo ID to prove citizenship when registering or casting a ballot. 
Read More: BIG BEAUTIFUL WIN: California Voter ID Push Makes 2026 Ballot 
The broader survey also contained a warning for Republicans. 
Sixty-four percent favored allowing every American to vote by mail, while 70 percent said ballots postmarked by Election Day should be counted even if they arrive afterward. 
Panelist Robert Traynham, a Republican strategist and political commentator, flagged the one area where the GOP is bleeding support it does not need to lose. 
Two-thirds of the country is comfortable with mail-in voting, and many states use it without incident. 
Fighting it everywhere dilutes the stronger hand: voter ID, where the numbers are overwhelming, and the political ground is solid. 
The survey ran July 17 through July 20, one day after President Donald Trump used a nationally televised address to renew his call for Congress to pass the SAVE America Act. 
It covered 1,003 registered voters by landline, cellphone, and online, with a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points. 
The legislation passed the House on February 11 by a vote of 218-213. 
It would require documentary proof of citizenship when registering for federal elections and photo identification when voting in person. 
The Senate later used S. 1383 as the legislative vehicle for the proposal, but a March 26 cloture attempt failed 53-47, seven votes short of the 60 needed to advance. 
The bill has remained stalled since then. 
Sen. 
Roger Marshall (R-KS) said Thursday that Republicans still need 10 Democratic votes and urged Senate Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota (R-SD) to force separate votes on voter ID, proof of citizenship, and restrictions on unsolicited mail ballots. 
That would put senators on the record before November. 
When a voter ID proposal draws 83 percent support nationally and wins clear majorities among Democrats, independents, Hispanic voters, and younger voters, failing to press the issue and forcing every Senate Democrat on the record against it would be political malpractice. 
Editor’s Note: Republicans are fighting for election integrity by requiring proper identification to vote. 
Help us continue to report why Democrats oppose such obvious measures by joining RedState VIP and using promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 11.3%Ben Smith: 2.8%RedState: 7.0%Confirmation Bias11.3%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 2.4%RedState: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 5.5%Ben Smith: 2.8%RedState: 3.4%Availability Heuristic5.5%This article: 0.7%Ben Smith: 0.7%RedState: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.7%This article: 1.8%Ben Smith: 0.5%RedState: 0.9%Hindsight Bias1.8%This article: 1.0%Ben Smith: 2.1%RedState: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias1.0%This article: 15.2%Ben Smith: 11.1%RedState: 9.2%Framing Effect15.2%This article: 6.5%Ben Smith: 1.5%RedState: 0.5%Loss Aversion6.5%This article: 1.8%Ben Smith: 0.4%RedState: 0.4%Status Quo Bias1.8%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.3%RedState: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 1.4%Ben Smith: 0.8%RedState: 1.7%Optimism Bias1.4%This article: 11.5%Ben Smith: 1.0%RedState: 1.7%Pessimism Bias11.5%This article: 3.3%Ben Smith: 8.8%RedState: 13.9%Negativity Bias3.3%This article: 1.4%Ben Smith: 2.6%RedState: 1.8%Self-Serving Bias1.4%This article: 5.1%Ben Smith: 1.4%RedState: 2.0%Fundamental Attribution Error5.1%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.2%RedState: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 5.2%Ben Smith: 1.8%RedState: 4.7%In-Group Bias5.2%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 1.0%RedState: 3.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 1.0%RedState: 2.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.2%RedState: 0.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.0%RedState: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.8%Ben Smith: 1.1%RedState: 1.2%Recency Bias5.8%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.2%RedState: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.0%RedState: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 4.2%RedState: 6.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 1.1%RedState: 2.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 2.7%RedState: 3.3%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 5.1%Ben Smith: 1.6%RedState: 2.4%False Dilemma5.1%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.5%RedState: 1.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.8%Ben Smith: 0.1%RedState: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.8%This article: 7.9%Ben Smith: 5.1%RedState: 10.1%Hasty Generalization7.9%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.9%RedState: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.4%RedState: 0.9%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 8.8%Ben Smith: 4.7%RedState: 8.5%Appeal to Emotion8.8%This article: 1.6%Ben Smith: 1.1%RedState: 1.8%Begging the Question1.6%This article: 1.8%Ben Smith: 2.6%RedState: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)1.8%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.5%RedState: 0.9%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.5%RedState: 1.2%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.0%RedState: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.3%RedState: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 2.1%Ben Smith: 1.5%RedState: 2.6%Anecdotal2.1%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.1%RedState: 0.3%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 3.4%Ben Smith: 1.5%RedState: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.4%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.0%RedState: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.0%RedState: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 2.6%Ben Smith: 0.1%RedState: 0.2%Personal Incredulity2.6%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.0%RedState: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.1%RedState: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 1.7%RedState: 2.4%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 1.1%RedState: 1.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 11.8%Ben Smith: 10.1%RedState: 21.5%Biased Writer Voice11.8%This article: 1.8%Ben Smith: 2.8%RedState: 4.8%Indoctrination1.8%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.4%RedState: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 7.3%Ben Smith: 9.1%RedState: 15.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias7.3%This article: 3.4%Ben Smith: 2.6%RedState: 3.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…3.4%

764 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker5.1%attributed speech725writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageRoger Marshall (R-KS) • 39 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Roger Marshall (R-KS)

100%flagged-word coverage
39 attributed words100% of attributed speech60% writer coverage
0%7.5%15.0%Biased Writer Voice-12.4 ptsWriter: 12.4%Roger Marshall (R-KS): 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -7.7 ptsWriter: 7.7%Roger Marshall (R-KS): 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -3.6 ptsWriter: 3.6%Roger Marshall (R-KS): 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-1.9 ptsWriter: 1.9%Roger Marshall (R-KS): 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.