How is an address verified when using a passport as identification when voting in person?

HB458 went into law in April 2023 which allows a passport to be used as a photo-id when voting in person at the polls. Since there is no address on a passport, how can poll workers verify the person's address is their current permanent residential address?

THEY CAN'T. This is one of the many flaws in the new law.

At least one county Board of Elections Director gave assurance that voters would still be asked to confirm their current address by saying it out loud. Does saying an address out loud verify the address is their current residential address? NO.

Can an individual who is registered at more than one address in Ohio use a passport to vote at both addresses? YES.

But wait, how can an individual be registered to vote at more than one address in Ohio? It happens. In fact, the current voter registration system is designed to have duplicate voter registrations for a period of time when moving from one Ohio precinct or county to another. A new voter record with the new address is created without the voter record at the old address being removed within a day, potentially allowing a person to vote at both addresses. The voter record for the old address is supposed to be flagged in order for the voter to provide identification to verify their current residential address before being allowed to vote; however, this process doesn't always happen.

SOLUTION:

Issue changes to Ohio law that requires ALL eligible voters to show a valid Ohio driver's license or state id when registering to vote and when voting.

Were Ohio's Voting Machines Legally 'Certified' for Use in 2020 Election?

"The Board of Advisors supposedly exists to assist the EAC in setting standards and guidelines to help states comply with the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) through their certification program. Oddly enough, . . . the accreditations for the election equipment testing labs, Pro V&V and SLI Compliance, had lapsed. The lapse in accreditation effectively shut down the ability of all states to legally certify their election systems as required by HAVA. No vendors, anyone in the EAC, or anyone on their Board of Advisors appeared to have noticed this indefensible oversight. As a result, most of the country's election systems were not legally "certified" for the 2020 election."

More details here.

DO THREE US SUPREME COURT DECISIONS MAKE ALL ELECTRONIC VOTING MACHINES ILLEGAL?

The Right to Vote consists of TWO parts.

reprinted from watchthevoteUSA.com

Three Supreme Court Decisions have ruled clearly and emphatically that your right to vote consists of TWO parts:

1) the Right to cast a ballot, i.e., put a paper ballot into a ballot box; and,

2) the Right to KNOW that your vote was counted accurately.

We still are allowed to cast a ballot, but we HAVE NO IDEA if our ballot is being counted accurately or not on these mysterious, secret computerized programs. In fact, you will see that these Supreme Court decisions make secret computer counts illegal, precisely because no one can see what’s happening inside the election computer. The following research was done by Dan Gutenkauf of Arizona and the Watch The Vote USA board: ALL Americans HAVE A RIGHT to a verifiable and transparent vote count in line with THREE standing Supreme Court decisions. One of those US Supreme Court decisions, Wesberry v. Sanders, 1964, stated that all other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined. The other two relevant US Supreme Court decisions, namely, US v Mosley (1915) and Reynolds v Sims (1964) say that our right to vote consists of two parts: a) the right to cast a ballot; b) the right to KNOW that our vote has been counted accurately. Excerpts from these vitally important U.S. Supreme Court rulings follow below:

Wesberry v. Sanders 1964 OPINION OF THE COURT Justice Black: “Not only can this right to vote not be denied outright, it cannot, consistently with Article I, be destroyed by alteration of ballots, see United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, or diluted by stuffing of the ballot box, see United States v. Saylor, 322 U.S. 385. No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live. Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined.” https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/376/1 (Please note that once a paper ballot is turned into an electronic impulse it can easily be altered by the computer program or election machine, as was proven in the Bernecker case in Louisiana in 1996, and in the Trump case in the Texas Primary in 2016. Also, altering thousands of votes by computer fraud in the blink of an eye, as is indicated in Chapter 2 and Appendix 2 of the book, Black Box Voting, by Bev Harris, and in the HBO documentary, Hacking Democracy, — amounts to blatant stuffing of the ballot box with falsified votes. US v Mosley 1915 Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court: “It is not open to question that this statute is constitutional, and constitutionally extends some protection, at least, to the right to vote for members of Congress. Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651 , 28 L. ed. 274, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 152; Logan v. United States, 144 U.S. 263, 293 , 30 S. L. ed. 429, 439, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 617. We regard it as equally unquestionable that the right to have one’s vote counted is as open to protection by Congress as the right to put a ballot in a box. ” http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/238/383.html The court added: “We regard it as equally unquestionable that the right to have one’s vote counted is as open to protection by Congress as the right to put a ballot in a box.” The court then traced the history of § 19 from its origin as one section of the Enforcement Act of May 31, 1870, which contained other sections more specifically aimed at election frauds, and the survival of § 19 as a statute of the United States notwithstanding the repeal of those other sections. The conclusion was that § 19 protected personal rights of a citizen including the right to cast his ballot, and held that to refuse to count and return the vote as cast was as much an infringement of that personal right as to exclude the voter from the polling place. The case affirms that the elector’s right intended to be protected is not only that to cast his ballot but that to have it honestly counted. Page 387 c. 114, 16 Stat. 140, as amended by c. 99, 16 Stat. 433. https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-mosley-6/case/united-states-v-saylor#cited-link-1 Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) [Footnote 40] As stated by MR. JUSTICE BLACK, dissenting, in Colegrove v. Green, 328 U. S. 549, 328 U. S. 569-571: “No one would deny that the equal protection clause would . . . prohibit a law that would expressly give certain citizens a half-vote and others a full vote. . . . [T]he constitutionally guaranteed right to vote and the right to have one’s vote counted clearly imply the policy that state election systems, no matter what their form, should be designed to give approximately equal weight to each vote cast. . . . [A] state legislature cannot deny eligible voters the right to vote for Congressmen and the right to have their vote counted. It can no more destroy the effectiveness of their vote in part and no more accomplish this in the name of ‘apportionment’ than under any other name.” https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fe…