I spent a recent weekend hosting family from Minnesota, and it didn’t take long before the conversation turned to how we run things. After listening to the “hot dish” people describe the system that still exists at their polling places, I was reminded of a simple truth: Iowa just does it better.
I’ll be honest — I thought the debate over voter ID was settled years ago. In any other area of life — boarding a plane at DSM, picking up Cyclone tickets at will-call, or even buying Sudafed — showing a photo ID is a non-event. It is the baseline of participation in a modern society. Yet, watching the national outrage sparked by the SAVE Act, you’d think we were asking Chuck Grassley to turn down Dairy Queen.
The critics tell us that requiring a photo ID is an insurmountable “barrier” that specifically targets minority and disadvantaged communities. To that, I say we should look to the wisdom of George W. Bush, who famously decried the “soft bigotry of low expectations.” When activists claim that certain Iowans are somehow incapable of obtaining a free state ID, they aren’t defending civil rights — they are practicing that exact brand of bigotry. They assume, quite patronizingly, that these citizens lack the agency to navigate a basic administrative task. In Iowa, we have more respect for our voters than that. We believe every Iowan is capable of meeting a high standard of integrity.
Minnesota thinks ID matters for drivers; why not voters?
Compare our approach to the mess currently unfolding in Minnesota. In 2023, Gov. Tim Walz signed a law authorizing illegal immigrants to obtain driver’s licenses. While they’ll tell you it’s about “road safety,” they’ve effectively undermined their own arguments against voter ID.
Think about the logical fallacy: To get that Minnesota license, an individual must provide identity documentation like a foreign passport or birth certificate. If activists believe requiring a document to drive is reasonable, then their claim that requiring a document to vote is a “racist barrier” collapses. You can’t have it both ways.
The distinction couldn’t be sharper. Minnesota remains one of only 14 states (plus the District of Columbia, naturally) where no documentation is required to cast a ballot at the polls. While Minnesota pats itself on the back for its “inclusivity,” Iowa has spent the last decade building a system that actually works. We don’t provide licenses to those here illegally, and we certainly don’t allow people to walk into a polling place without proving who they are.
Voter suppression? Just look at the numbers.
The “voter suppression” narrative has always had one major flaw: reality.
When Iowa passed its voter ID law in 2017, doomsayers predicted a collapse in participation. Instead, we saw the exact opposite. In 2018, the first general election with the law, Iowa saw its highest midterm turnout in decades. In 2020, we shattered records with over 1.7 million ballots cast. Even in 2024, turnout remained historically robust with over 1.67 million Iowans participating — over 80,000 more than in the pre-ID 2012 cycle.
The data are clear: When people have confidence that the system is secure, they show up. Security and participation are partners, not enemies. While the rest of the country argues over the basics, Iowa has already proven that you can have a secure election and a record-breaking electorate. It’s time our neighbors to the North started taking notes.
Luke Martz is a Republican political consultant with 20 years of experience managing campaigns across the United States. A graduate of Iowa State University residing in Ames, he serves on the board of the International Association of Political Consultants (IAPC) and has served as an international election observer in Europe and the Middle East.
This article originally appeared on Des Moines Register: Voter ID yet another thing Iowa does better than Minnesota | Opinion
Reporting by Luke Martz, Guest columnist / Des Moines Register
USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect
