Trump Orders Proof of Citizenship to Vote
Yet another test of Executive power for the courts to resolve.
WaPo (“Trump signs executive order requiring proof of citizenship in federal elections“):
President Donald Trump signed an executive order Tuesday requiring people to provide documents proving they are citizens when they register to vote, a mandate that experts said could prevent millions of Americans from voting.
The order reflects Trump’s long-standing fixation on election administration as well as his baseless claims following the 2016 and 2020 presidential races that both were riddled with fraud, particularly illegal voting by noncitizens. There is no evidence that widespread corruption, by noncitizens or others, tainted either contest.
Republicans in dozens of states have sought for decades to require voters to present identification to cast ballots, but Trump has taken that effort to a new level with an executive order establishing a federal mandate to provide proof of citizenship to register to vote.
The U.S. Constitution designates the power to regulate the “time, place and manner” of elections to the states, with the proviso that Congress can step in and override those laws. It gives no specific power to the president to do so. Election experts said that Trump was claiming power he does not have and that lawsuits over the measure were all but guaranteed.
“This executive order is unlawful,” said Wendy Weiser, vice president for democracy at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University’s School of Law. “The president does not have the authority to require this. The president cannot override a statute passed by Congress that says what is required to register to vote on the federal voter registration form.”
Others suggested that the order reflects Trump’s desire to expand executive power — and for the Supreme Court to allow it. His order directs the Election Assistance Commission — an agency governed by statute enacted by Congress — to change the federal voter registration form to require government-issued documentary proof of citizenship.
“The Court is well on the way to establishing that all federal agencies must be conceived as within the executive branch, no matter how Congress denominates or structures them,” Richard Pildes, a constitutional law professor at New York University, wrote on a widely read election law blog.
Less clear is whether states would be required to adopt the federal form. States typically produce their own voter registration forms, and voters are free to use either to register in federal elections.
Only citizens can vote in federal elections, but most states do not require voters to provide proof of citizenship. Instead, voters must sign statements swearing they are citizens. Noncitizens who sign such statements can be charged with crimes and deported.
The order allows voters to use passports or certain driver’s licenses to prove citizenship, but not birth certificates. Separately, it also attempts to bar states from counting mail ballots that officials receive after Election Day. Last year, 18 states allowed mail ballots that arrived later so long as they were postmarked by Election Day.
Trump specified that he would withhold federal election funding from states that do not comply with theraft of directives included in his order.
AP (“Trump signs order seeking to overhaul US elections, including requiring proof of citizenship“) adds:
Voting rights groups have expressed concerns that the requirement could disenfranchise people. An estimated 9% of U.S. citizens of voting age, or 21.3 million people, do not have proof of citizenship readily available, according to a 2023 report by the Brennan Center for Justice and other groups.
There are also concerns that married women who have changed their names will encounter trouble when trying to register because their birth certificates list their maiden names. Such hiccups happened in recent town elections in New Hampshire, which has a new state law requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote.
[…]
Colorado’s Democratic secretary of state, Jena Griswold, called the order an “unlawful” weaponization of the federal government and said Trump is “trying to make it harder for voters to fight back at the ballot box.”
Democratic Rep. Joe Morelle of New York, the ranking member of the House committee that oversees elections, said the executive order “is not just misguided — it is immoral and illegal.”
At least one Democratic attorney on Tuesday threatened legal action. Marc Elias, who has been the subject of Trump’s ire, said in a social media post: “This will not stand. We will sue.”
The executive branch does have some authority over elections, said Justin Levitt, a constitutional law expert and former White House senior policy adviser during the Biden administration. He said some federal agencies provide election support, including the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, which distributes federal grant money to states and runs a voluntary certification program for voting systems. The U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency helps election officials protect their systems.
Former President Biden issued an executive order in 2021 directing federal agencies to take steps to boost voter registration, which drew complaints from Republicans who called it federal overreach. Trump has rescinded that order.
Let’s leave aside for now whether the President has the legal authority to order this. I’m skeptical, but the courts will adjudicate that soon enough. And, rather clearly, the administration is working overtime to create a series of test cases to force a ruling on the Unitary Executive Theory that they have championed and to which at least a couple of Supreme Court Justices have shown sympathy.
As a matter of public policy, I have no theoretical objection to requiring people to prove their identity and citizenship to vote. We require photo ID for rather mundane things, including getting into R-rated movies. The other day, I had to present my driver’s license for scanning in order to buy a bottle of bitters! And, to the extent we wish to restrict voting to citizens rather than all those who have to abide by our laws, it seems prudent to take measures to prevent non-citizen voting.
And the forms of ID that are acceptable are reasonable enough:
A) a United States passport;
(B) an identification document compliant with the requirements of the REAL ID Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-13, Div. B) that indicates the applicant is a citizen of the United States;
(C) an official military identification card that indicates the applicant is a citizen of the United States; or
(D) a valid Federal or State government-issued photo identification if such identification indicates that the applicant is a United States citizen or if such identification is otherwise accompanied by proof of United States citizenship.
Alas, in reality, it’s more complicated. For one thing, neither driver’s licenses nor military ID cards have citizenship information on them. I’ve had a REAL ID-compliant Virginia driver’s license for a very long time now; it doesn’t state that I’m a citizen. Ditto my DOD ID card.
That could, of course, be sorted out, although certainly not in time to go into effect for the 2026 election cycle. Hell, the Real ID Act is twenty years old, and states are still dragging their feet.
The bigger issue, of course, is that studies have long shown that even ordinary voter ID laws disproportionately impact the poor, racial minorities, and the elderly. They’re less likely to own a car, and thus to have driver’s licenses. And, even if states provided free photo ID, it’s harder for them to get to issuing facilities and wait in line.
Interestingly, while the longstanding conventional wisdom is that these rules harm the electoral chances of Democrats—which explains why most of the push comes from Republicans—I’m not sure that remains true. Given the fact that the top predictor of party alignment has become educational attainment, it may well be that Democratic voters are more likely to have the ability to easily prove citizenship. Certainly, they’re much more likely to have a passport.
An interesting coda to all of this is the first paragraph of the order:
Despite pioneering self-government, the United States now fails to enforce basic and necessary election protections employed by modern, developed nations, as well as those still developing. India and Brazil, for example, are tying voter identification to a biometric database, while the United States largely relies on self-attestation for citizenship. In tabulating votes, Germany and Canada require use of paper ballots, counted in public by local officials, which substantially reduces the number of disputes as compared to the American patchwork of voting methods that can lead to basic chain-of-custody problems. Further, while countries like Denmark and Sweden sensibly limit mail-in voting to those unable to vote in person and do not count late-arriving votes regardless of the date of postmark, many American elections now feature mass voting by mail, with many officials accepting ballots without postmarks or those received well after Election Day.
It’s an interesting twist to see a Republican administration relying on international precedent to justify policy changes. That’s usually a Democratic move. Then again, once Canada becomes the 51st state, we’ll have a leg up on implementation since they’re already ahead on this.
Maybe it is time to propose a national ID card instead of a patchwork of 50 plus state/territory systems.
@Scott: That would certainly make Musk’s infiltration, download, analyze, and sabotage work easier.
Not to mention any attempts to purge voter rolls – one-stop shopping!
Executive orders direct executive branch agencies to take certain actions.
How exactly does this EO work? Trump signs this paper and then what, the state department walks over to Maine and changes their voter ID laws?
IIRC, in order to get a REAL-ID compliant driver’s license, I had to bring either my birth certificate or my passport, so the fact that you have it means you complied with that part, right?
That raises the question, how do long-term green card holders get driver’s licenses?
People who feel as though it’s “not a problem” to require these documents don’t apparently have much exposure to marginalized people. There are plenty of US citizens, who have a RIGHT to vote, who do not possess either a driver’s license or a passport.
A similar law passed in NH resulted in approximately 100 (qualified!) voters from being prevented to vote. One was a 70 year old woman who had briefly moved away to Maine, and got divorced. She was denied voting because her driver’s license didn’t match her birth certificate name–fairly common for women who change their names after marrying.
This EO, either by design or by happenstance, will affect the following most directly: women, those with disabilities (less likely to have driver’s licenses), and the elderly. But don’t discount how this will impact the poor, who are unlikely to have shelled out the $$ for passports. I think we’re likely drawing near to the end of people who were born at home, but there are still some rural poor who might not have documentation for their births.
Voting is a RIGHT.
@Neil Hudelson:
Not anymore, clearly.
The executive branch now legislates. (Weird, I seem to remember the Supreme Court having an opinion about this recently, when someone else was in the White House. And Congressional Republicans look on in silence.)
Federalism is effectively dead.
The odds of this being a good faith effort, inspiring concerned lawmakers to create a brand new infrastructure of national IDs (costly, prone to identity theft, complicated to get to marginalized voters) is practically zero.
This is merely the first step in skewing the elections from 2026 onward. We’re only 2 months in.
Republicans howled whenever Barack Obama issued an EO, claiming he was trying to “rule by executive order.” Same shoe, different foot makes all the difference, apparently. Voting fraud is akin to tariffs for Trump – he doesn’t understand the mechanics of it and he doesn’t want to learn its real world effects. He’s convinced it screws Dems, and that’s all that matters. Once again, he is daring Congress to do its job.
No it isn’t. They are liars, first and foremost and their lies are always in service to racism and misogyny.
They will grab whatever pretext handy to justify their actions even if it flatly contradicts what they said yesterday.
Anytime a Trumpist starts with “I have a highly principled stance of…” just stop listening because they are lying.
I wish it was more sophisticated and lent itself to more erudite and refined language but it really is that simple.
@Scott: I’m sympathetic to this idea, provided that Uncle Sam shoulders the full cost of making it happen. Yes, I know we taxpayers will pay, but I don’t want His Orangeness off-loading any of the cost onto states or cities.
This is the leader of the party that crows about states rights, leave it to the states. The U.S. Constitution leaves it to the States.
It would not surprise me if Trump issues an EO stating that only citizens registered as members of the Republican party be allowed to vote. Then after the election he will execute another EO to deport all non voters since they did not exercise their civic duty to vote.
@Mister Bluster: The Constitution is even more specific on this point in Article I Section 4:
This EO is in violation of that provision of the Constitution (not that this Congress will GAF).
From WAPO in James’ first quote,
WTF? I have a passport and a driver’s license. What did I present as proof of citizenship to get them? My birth certificate. Has this changed? This sounds like a move by EO to end birthright citizenship, at least for voting. Gotta maintain kayfabe.
If they get serious about birthright citizenship, how far do they take it? I don’t know that I could prove any of my Norwegian immigrant ancestors were naturalized.
You have to show your ID when you buy booze because there are underage teens who try to illegally buy booze. You need an ID at the library because people have tried to steal books and people do keep them out too long and they need to track you down. The same logic does not apply to voting. There is essentially no fraudulent voting that will be eliminated by having voter ID and/or showing proof of citizenship. Republicans have been making these claims since at least when Bush was in office. They keep forming commissions, offering bounties, replacing DOJ officials who arent ardent enough at looking for fraudulent voting with those who will be devoted. We have I am sure spent billions of dollars looking for this fraudulent voting and we have zilch to show for it.
What we have found is that dead people vote, meaning that when a spouse dies their 85 y/o surviving spouse (thoughtfully) mails in the vote they thought the dead person would have wanted. We find voters like the lady in Texas who asked her parole officer if it was OK to vote and when told yes, went and voted and even then cast a provisional vote. For that Texas sentenced her to jail.
Wife and I decided we are finally going to have to get our Real ID card to travel. Because of this stupid unproven fantasy on the part of conservatives I am going to have to find all our documents and then go sit in an office somewhere for a couple of hours so I can present those papers to the comrade in charge so I can get more official papers to present to other comrades who will then let me travel.
Steve
@gVOR10: He issued an EO trying to get rid of birthright citizenship on Day 1. It will almost certainly be struck down by SCOTUS.
@steve:
Aye, that’s the rub.
Voter ID rules like the one being proposed in the EO eliminate a minuscule amount of potential voter fraud. But it also had the potential to shut out far, far, far more legitimate votes.
A system that shuts out more legitimate voters than it does illegal ones, especially on orders of magnitude, is unjust. Full stop.
As I frequently have said, I do not object to voter ID in principle. But it should be free, universal, and automatic. Any other system has too much arbitrariness in it, which affects disaffected groups more than anyone else, to be acceptable.
Look, I have a passport. As does most of my family. But I am an overeducated white guy.
@steve:..comrade in charge… other comrades …
I wonder if these poor saps would actually welcome the extra workload including listening to applicants bitch and gripe about the situation?
I admit to being biased. I have been a municipal employee in the past so I don’t want to disrespect public servants without cause.
Birth certificates typically require going to a government office during the day, standing in line, and paying a fee.
That is a cost, especially if one is a wage employee, or like some members of my family, you work night and find yourself you know, having to sleep during the day.
And people in rural areas may have to travel or have other limited access to government offices.
All of this matters and does not affect everyone equally.
Right. To get a REAL ID-compliant license requires you show either citizenship or legal resident status. Virginia didn’t issue REAL ID-compliant licenses until October 2018, so ‘very long time’ for you is at most six years. No state issued REAL ID-compliant licenses before December 2012.
@Steven L. Taylor: I have a family member who does not drive, because of the side effects of necessary medications. She passed a driving test years ago, so has a valid license, but her circumstances made me very, very aware of the potential downsides to requiring driver’s licenses. Someone always comes back with “well, you can get an official state ID”–sure. But doing so *when one doesn’t have a driver’s license to begin with* then involves the participation of another individual, etc.
Putting up barriers that prevent people from exercising a RIGHT is obviously problematic from a constitutional standpoint. Whether this particular SCOTUS will GAF is up in the air.
@Steven L. Taylor:
Almost all states will issue a certified copy of a birth certificate by mail. Certainly California did when I needed one while I was living in New Jersey. IIRC — and it’s been a long time — it takes a few weeks. The state’s web site(s) still detail the process.
I’ve let my passport expire because I had no intention of traveling out of country. Note to self, I should fix that.
Putting aside that this EO is baloney and will be struck down in court, is this not a move that will anger as many folks on the GOP side as the Democratic side, maybe even more-so on the GOP side?
Also, this very white male who would not be accused of being a foreigner (despite my Mom being Italian by birth and having grown up in Turkey, a mom who went through frustrating hoops to renew her green card several years back I might add) does not have a passport, so that is something I hope would not become common to need to have in hand to obtain certain services by the Gov..
I do have a birth certificate in my apt, but I am glad that I do not have to pull it out all that often because I, like many others, would prefer not risk losing, or damaging it as it is not fun to get an official replacement (proof I have a CA Real ID should be more than acceptable for me to vote). I bet tons of Trump voters do not have passports and would prefer that a passport not be a required doc to be able to eventually vote, and I bet they would also not prefer to have to constantly pull out their BC, as again…lots of folks on both sides of the political aisle are not fans of constantly having to whip out this particular doc to get something done.
Trump has shown an ability to get a massive number of folks to vote, so I am willing to bet that a rather significant percentage of “his” voters are in the same boat as many elderly, or low income/low education folks on the Democratic side, it is just as onerous for the average Democratic party member to have certain docs at their fingertips as it is for Republican party members.
Because of this I think that there will be some sort of bi-partisan agreement that this EO would be more than onerous to comply with on both sides of the political aisle, and in its current form can actually harm the political ambitions of politicians who are Republicans so it needs to be ignored or quickly litigated in the courts.
I get it, folks will claim that Republicans feel that they can just stay in office forever and are not worried about disenfranchising their voters, but I think in their heart of hearts even ridiculously hyper-partisan GOP members know that actions like this one can fork them over as much as their political opponents and needs to eviscerated in public opinion and the courts.
@Michael Cain: Fair point on the mail-in issue. I was thinking in terms of needing one of a deadline (as I recall, as I did for once of my kids for something, I forget what it was now, which required me to drive across town and stand in line).
If you plan enough in advance, then the mail-in option is there.
I was born in Monroe County, New York in 1948. I was living in Illinois (still am) in the mid ’80s when I needed a copy of my birth certificate. I needed it to apply for a passport. My parents could not find their copy. We had lived in seven different homes in four towns in two states since I was born before I left the house and then they moved again. At least six time in the 20 years that they lived in Chicago.
First I placed a direct-dialed, station to station telephone call* to the Monroe County Courthouse and then made a written request for the document. Don’t remember what the requirements were to prove that I was who I claimed to be. Mother’s maiden name? Don’t know. In any event I sent them a check for the fee along with the written request and received a copy of my birth certificate in the mail. I did apply for and get a passport but never used it.
That copy of my birth certificate is in my safe deposit box.
My only travel out of the United States, visits to Canada and Estados Unidos Mexicanos were in the early ’70s when no passport was required for American Citizens to enter those countries.
*Since that call was placed during a weekday it likely cost as much as the fee for the birth certificate. Maybe more.
There is ZERO statistical evidence that non-citizens are now voting. Yet, because Trump has for 10 years been claiming that there is widespread voter fraud we are subjected to more of his Executive Level diarrhea.
Lessons learned the hard way: Stupid people should not be ignored. Stupid people are dangerous. If there are enough of them this is what you get in the White House.
I think the EO is going to be used as a pretext to bring in Jan 6th-type mobs to attack polling places which aren’t following the ‘will of the electorate’. And it will also be used as a basis for legal challenges against any Democrats who might win.
Every Trump voter has already announced their views on violence, so there’s no drawback in attacking the right to vote.
I was born overseas and have a US State Department birth certificate. I cannot imagine the process I’d need to go through to get a copy of that. Mine is kept in a fireproof box in our home.
@Neil Hudelson:
Li’l Marco’s gonna have a pretty full plate, looks like.
@Kingdaddy:
Always has been. It’s the newest incarnation of poll taxes and literacy tests.
@James Joyner:
Things being how they are, I’m no longer sure that assertion is true.
@Scott:
We should have a national ID card, and would have done by now but for Evangelicals fearing 666. Germany, Spain, Portugal and Belgium all have compulsory ID cards, and the rest of Europe has the functional equivalent in various cards required for services, and most Europeans already have passports.
I’m not concerned that the data thus collected would be dangerous given that much more complete databases are already logged and available. Apple has my fingerprint and my face. CVS knows what meds I take. Amazon Prime, YouTube and Netflix know what interests me. And I go everywhere with a tracking device in my pocket. There is no privacy in the 21st century.
@al Ameda:
Stupid people are dangerous. And smart people are equivocal and unfocused. 100 idiots following one clear leader are more effective than 100 geniuses with no common goal.
Lord help me, but I’m going to agree with Michael Reynolds about what he calls being a victim.
Democrats and liberals try to get to the bottom, in an honest way, of what has transpired. Republicans don’t. They might ‘believe’ that the 2020 election was fixed, but they aren’t trying to offer solution by convincing unbelievers that it was. Do you see Republicans investigating the actual evidence? It’s like Hunter Biden–they had his laptop filled with daily chronicling of smoking crack and hanging with escorts. If he had been up to something with his dad, it would have been there with everything else he recorded. That fact did not even occur to them because they weren’t interested in any analysis. No, they’re using their beliefs to take power not only regardless of truth or convincing others, but because both of these ideas can be used against people who actually believe in them.
Unlike Michael, I don’t have any real solutions. I happen to like getting to the bottom of things and being educable. My personal solutions to the type of people who are Republicans and Trump supporters is to put as much space between me and them as possible. It’s not to engage or have a debate. But Democrats really need to start thinking past these responses Trump as if there’s anything there other than an ideological power grab. Think past responding or analyzing in this consensus-building way and do something different.
@Neil Hudelson:
In this EO Trump lays out what he would like to see in Federal Law. So, not going to the legislative branch (cuz “it takes too long”) the workaround is to ORDER his subordinates to cancel any federal grants, cost sharing, etc with the recalcitrant state until that state bends to his desires.
I consider that to be “legislation” by extortion.
ETA: I’m amused by his analogy of a voter casting a vote three days AFTER an election has been declared. I’m not aware on any declarations (then than media) that are made for weeks after election day,
@Jen:
There’s an interesting twist to the birth certificate issue. Person’s that were adopted may or may not have a valid birth certificate.
(My wife ran into this problem years ago when the State Department, in processing her passport application, declared her birth certificate to be invalid. The only remedy was to go back to the foundling home where she was born (said foundling home having been shuttered 40 years earlier and the State had no records) to request a valid BC.
It took almost two years to finally get a BC that satisfied the State Department, but my wife is not totally convinced that her “new” BC is correct
@Steven L. Taylor:
Right. Or if they moved across the country when they were a child.
To be fair, pretty sure I didn’t have to fly to the West Coast to get my birth certificate replaced. Probably varies by state though.
@Bobert: Thank you for that additional information/context. It basically further reinforces my opinion that this is a bad idea.
Bottom line, in attempting to address a problem that doesn’t exist, this executive order will prevent citizens from voting.
A postmark? Outdated. I’m guessing these folks don’t actually open their own mail, they have other people do it for them (or are totally nonobservant types). Many of the letters I get with stamps are not postmarked. My mail-in ballot is a prepaid business reply envelope that wouldn’t get a postmark (I use an armored drop box myself, two within a 5 minute drive).
When I renewed my passport I also got a passport card for convenience if I make a jaunt to Canada. – and cheaper than an EDL
If I write to a government office and ask for a certified copy of a birth certificate for a white man I know a fair amount about (to answer questions), what other ID do I have to produce to get it. If I walk in to a government office with a certified birth certificate for a white man about my age and say it’s mine, how many government offices are going to check the footprints?
@Modulo Myself:
SFX: The sound of labored, mechanical breathing.
SFX: The sound of labored, mechanical breathing.
OK. Here’s Texas’ procedures:
•Download the “Mail Application for Birth Record” form (Form VS-140) from the Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS) website.
•Fill out the application completely and accurately, ensuring no cross-outs, white-outs, or correction tape.
•Sign the application in front of a notary and obtain a notary seal.
•Include a photocopy of a valid, acceptable ID (State Issued I.D., Driver’s License, Passport, etc.).
Anybody see the problem here? Step 4 requires valid ID. To get valid ID, you need birth certificate.
@Scott: Also, a notary cannot provide a seal without confirming identification, at least not here in New Hampshire.
@Michael Reynolds: I’ll take 666. It’ll go with my Driver’s License. When I had it renewed recently, I was required to get a new photo. After the kind clerk did several tries, I decided to use the worst one. I look like I just got out of prison: grim face, baggy eyes, and unkempt gray hair. Kids thought it was hilarious.
I just checked. In Mexico City, you can get a certified copy of your birth certificate within 72 hours (on business days), for a fee of about US $4.50, all done online.
The catch is you need some of the data in the certificate (date, time, number, among others). I suppose it’s possible to obtain it without all that info, but then you might need to go to the civil registry office to do it.
We have a national voter ID card, issued by the National Electoral Institute (INE). First big difference, is elections are far more centralized in Mexico (and far fewer elected offices). Obtaining it is not that easy, yet most people have one. Why? because it’s the most dependable form of ID for banks, travel, government stuff, etc.
The problem is there’s one INE office per municipality (roughly equivalent to a county), and some are rather far away.
@Michael Reynolds:..@Scott:..666…
What is the mark & the number of the beast?
I have NOT been asked to show any form of ID at a voter precinct since I lived in the East Bay back in 1983 (coming up on 42 years ago). I’ve lived at my current location, north of San Francisco, since 1991 and I have not once been asked to show ID. The polling place workers request my name and address, they locate them on their registers, hand be a ballot and marker, and … that’s it … for 34 years.
All that said, it is not difficult to understand the motivation here. We know why Trump wants this de facto Poll Tax – to supress the vote. Period, end of story.
Trump knows that acquiring proof of citizenship is often problematic, especially for those who have moved far from their place of birth, so acquiring a certified copy of a birth certificate or whatever else might be required could be daunting. I expect that many peope just will not do this. A lot of names will be purged from the rolls.
I wonder if Trump is trying to flood the federal judicial zone with BS. He has now a practically unlimited budget for legal issues, and there are only so many federal judges. Roughly 95% of LE in the US is handled by the States and our federal court system (in relation to the size of the nation) is actually very small. He may be thinking that if they are overwhelmed his hand will be freer.
@Jen:
IMO, the majority aren’t convinced the marginalized ARE people.
YMMV
@Michael Cain: Neat. Is that for free? If not…that is a de facto poll tax.
Also the last time I looked into it, NJ quoted me a three to six week turn time to process.
@Steven L. Taylor: I may share this tomorrow, since I doubt anyone is still reading. As some of you know, I lost my home and all my possessions to a fire several years ago. I was able to replace virtually all my documents (the sole exception being my passport) for minimal fees and using online applications — no waiting in line anywhere. It does require internet access, use of a computer, and the ability to accurately remember and answer identity-verifying questions about previous addresses, places of employment, and financial history (such as car loans). I do recognize that not everyone has access to the above.
Once online applications were completed and fees paid (like $8 – 25), my documents were sent to me in the mail. On the other hand, I did have to go in person to replace my daughter’s documents, because as a minor, she didn’t have a work/life/financial history to verify online. A few phone calls helped me find out that they would accept school and medical records as identifying documents for a child.
@Monala:
Another demonstration where we can see the use, potential, and value of public libraries.