SEPTEMBER 16, 2026 – Ever since the Charlatan in Chief introduced the falsehood of “voter fraud” after the unfavorable (to him) election results in 2020, the Republicans have carried forth on the red herring issue of “voter integrity.” The banner sound-byte of this campaign has been framed in an ostensibly unassailable rhetorical question, “How can you oppose requiring some kind of government issued I.D. in order to vote?” To garner support for the campaign, Republican operatives scattered across the country and under the guise of a “non-partisan poll,” asked people on the street, “Do you favor requiring all voters first to show a government-issued I.D.?” The overwhelming affirmative response rate has been touted as proof of widespread support for the initiative.
Those of us who have faith in the credibility of non-partisan commission investigations of elections know that of all the cracks, breaks, and flaws, not to mention gaping deficiencies in American democracy, “voter integrity” is NOT among them. We can see straight through the red herring like Superman can see through a piece of cardboard. Yet, if you listen to Trump appointees testifying in Senate confirmation hearings, you’ll hear them dodge and weave and otherwise prevaricate around the question, “Did Joe Biden win the 2020 presidential election?” And if you tune in to the many interviews with MAGA members who are asked the same question, you’ll hear the more direct response, “No.”
What Republicans on the bandwagon of voter fraud overlook, however, is the elephant in the room: voter ignorance.
For the sake of perspective, look around at how things work in this country: to drive a car, to ride a bicycle, to own a dog, to build a garage, to turn up your sound system for a garage party, to fly a plane, to sell magazines door-to-door, to fit and sell eye-glasses, to sell booze, to run a candy shop, to be a hot-dog vendor, to practice law or medicine, to design buildings, to survey property boundaries, to act as a therapist, to fix plumbing for hire . . . you need some kind of government-issued license or permit. Furthermore, depending on the context, to qualify for a license or permit, you must submit to (and pass) a test of some kind, in many cases, a rather rigorous one.
I’ve seen and heard it argued that this is all a big sham; at best, unnecessary “government interference” with the free market and at worst, attempts by unions and guilds to limit competition. As a passenger aboard a commercial airliner, I’m all in favor of rigorous tests—and passing grades—among the personnel in the cockpit (as well as in all the supporting roles). As a licensed attorney—one of the hordes—I can attest that having to submit to and pass a two-day, rigorous bar exam hasn’t stifled competition.
In any event, despite the low-level rumblings of (and occasional disregard by) hot-dog vendors and guys with a hammer and saw working out of the back of a pickup, by and large we accept this whole environment of permitting and licensure in what is by consensus the most capitalist society in the world. At least so far, I haven’t heard the Chief of Laissez-Faire Fossil Fuel or a single Republican—officeholder, candidate or voter—equate the requirement of a permit or license with “communism” or “socialism.”
All of which brings me to the big drum roll; to the case for displacing the red herring of “voter fraud” with the aquatic equivalent of a Black Angus steer: “voter ignorance” and its obvious fix, “voter testing” kinda, sorta like . . . the test that our foreign-born daughter-in-law had to take and pass to gain U.S. citizenship. In any event, given how 77 million untested voters in November 2024 have put the nation and everyone in it at such grave risk, why shouldn’t we insist that people with the collective power to do so be subjected to scrutiny just as the guy working on a toilet is?
My proposed voter test could be rolled out in an experimental phase. It could be introduced in random precincts that are solidly red in voting patterns since and including 2016. The prototypical quiz would be short and simple and in the trial run, optional. Moreover, the questions would be “true or false,” thus giving every test-taker a 50% shot at coming out right . . . er, correct. The downside, however, is that in the case of three or fewer questions, the voter would have to score 100% to qualify to vote. Also, just as most licenses require renewals—based on renewed testing—once the experiment became a requirement, the “voter eligibility” test would have to be administered every four years. Furthermore, different levels of eligibility must be established—national (presidential, senate, congress); state (governor and other constitutional offices); and local (county, city, school board)—and multiple-choice questions added, to improve the odds of correct answers even when chosen at random. Finally, it goes without saying that the questions would be devised and the answers formulated by . . . AI, just to make sure everyone’s hair is on fire.
Let’s try a few questions on for size:
- True or False:
All communists like to raise taxes; Senator A voted against the Big Beautiful Bill, and therefore, Senator A is a communist.
- True or False:
A military conflict initiated by an American president is not a war unless and until s/he and s/he alone calls it “a war.”
- True or False:
Biden stole the 2020 presidential election from Trump.
I’m sure there would an uproar if anyone with “a following” were to espouse “voter testing.” But if, as the Republicans claim, presenting a government-issued I.D. “shouldn’t be a problem for an honest voter,” then passing a simple test that even an ostrich could pass shouldn’t be a problem either.
Given two facts—that Trump was re-elected president in 2024 and that current polls do not yet indicate a slam-dunk Democratic sweep of both house and senate in November—I think the concept of “voter testing” should be a central issue over the remaining days of the current campaign season, just in case the Republic survives past January 3 (the day the newly constituted Congress takes shape).
I’ll close with one small spiff to the idea: to incentivize support for “voter testing,” the U.S. Treasury (via legislation signed into law by the president) would hand a freshly printed facsimile C-Note (suitable for framing or sale on FB Marketplace) to each and every adult American who simply sits (or stands) for the voter eligibility test; except that the portrait of Ben Franklin would be switched out for a mug shot of Donald Trump. That and $5.00 (and counting at the current annual inflation rate of 3.4%) will buy you a cup of coffee.
Subscribe to this blog and received notifications of new posts by email.
© 2026 by Eric Nilsson
