Senator Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, went on ABC's "This Week" to argue against voter ID laws. He told host Jonathan Karl that Virginia requires photo ID to vote. Virginia does not require photo ID to vote.
Karl — not exactly a right-wing operative — corrected him on the spot.
Warner was making his case against the SAVE America Act, which would require documentary proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote in federal elections. Standard stuff for Democrats: the bill is "voter disenfranchisement," it'll stop married women from voting, the usual parade of lies.
"You know what? In Virginia, we have voter voter ID and photo ID," Warner said confidently, apparently unaware that his own state allows voters to present multiple forms of identification — and that anyone who shows up without acceptable ID can simply sign an ID Confirmation Statement and vote anyway.
Karl didn't let it slide. "That's actually not the case. I mean, I'm a Virginia voter. You don't need to show a photo ID in Virginia. There are a wide range of things you can show for ID. And if you don't show one of those, you can sign an affidavit," he said.
Warner then pivoted to the familiar talking points. "The SAVE Act is going to take anybody that changed their name when they got married. They don't get to vote unless they go back and find proof of a name change," he claimed. He also floated the argument that "certain states will say we're going to let you show your … NRA gun license but you can't show your student ID" — a line that's been recycled so many times it should qualify for carbon credits.
Here's what makes this more than just a gaffe. Warner isn't some backbencher who wandered in front of a camera by accident. He chairs one of the most powerful intelligence committees in Congress. He routinely cites election security — from Russia, Iran, North Korea, and China — as a top national priority. But the actual mechanics of how his own constituents cast ballots? Apparently that's someone else's department.
The Democratic argument against voter ID has always rested on the premise that these laws are unnecessarily restrictive. Warner could have made that case without inventing a version of Virginia law that doesn't exist. Instead, he told a national audience that his state requires photo ID — which would actually undercut his own argument, since Virginia manages to hold elections just fine under the rules he described.
Except those aren't the rules.
Karl, a fellow Virginia voter, knew the policy better than the senator who represents 8.6 million Virginians in Washington. Warner didn't misspeak. He stated something specific and factual-sounding about a policy he's actively legislating against. He was wrong. And the only reason anyone noticed is that the interviewer happened to vote in the same state.
You can argue voter ID is good policy or bad policy. You can debate the SAVE America Act on its merits. But if your headline argument is that voter ID laws are dangerous and disenfranchising, you should probably know what your own state's voter ID law actually says before you go on national television to talk about it.
The guy leading the charge against voter ID requirements doesn't know the requirements. That's not a talking point. That's the whole story.