The measure, known as Question 7, passed with more than 62 percent of voters backing the statewide ballot question. It requires people voting in-person or by mail to provide identification before submitting their ballots and is set to take effect ahead of the 2028 presidential election.

The official ballot question asked: “Should the Nevada Constitution be amended to require voters to either present photo identification to verify their identity when voting in-person or to provide certain personal information to verify their identity when voting by mail ballot?”

Tim Rosales, a Republican political strategist with Rosales Agency, and Athar Haseebullah, executive director of the ACLU of Nevada, agreed that the concept can sound straightforward at first glance. But they sharply disagreed over whether the change will improve election security or amount to voter suppression and an unconstitutional “poll tax” because state-issued identification costs money.

“It is one of those common sense type issues. People sit there and say, ‘Well, of course. Why wouldn’t I have to present an ID to go vote’,” Rosales said.

Haseebullah argued that voter ID requirements have historically been used to disenfranchise voters. “Voter ID is a relic of Jim Crow. This is not something that has been designed to enfranchise voters. It has specifically been a tool used to disenfranchise voters,” he said.

Rosales said the requirement will make elections more secure. “I think it will make our elections a little bit more secure and ensure that anybody who is eligible to vote will be voting in the state of Nevada,” he said.

Haseebullah disputed that and said the practical challenge of obtaining an ID close to an election could be significant, particularly because the Nevada DMV does not have walk-in appointments. “The ability to go and simply jump in front and change your name is not realistic. People struggle, often times, even dealing with the DMV,” he said.

Haseebullah said groups with a history of voter suppression, as well as people who cannot afford to obtain an ID, could be most affected. He also raised concerns about how poll workers might judge whether a voter matches their identification.

“If somebody shows up and you have a poll worker that is there and they decide that you do not look like your picture, are they going to be given a provisional ballot in that moment. What is going to end up happening? How is that going to be processed? These are all elements that are going to need to be considered in order for this to be effectuated,” Haseebullah said.

Rosales said he doubts it will be a major issue, noting that identification is already required for many routine activities. “I have to present an ID to do all sorts of things that I do in my daily life that are much less important and simple than voting,” he said.

Haseebullah said the requirement should be considered a poll tax because people have to pay for a state-issued ID or driver’s license. “This is a constitutional right. If somebody cannot afford an ID, they are going to have that right infringed upon,” he said.

The current cost is $41.50 for a non-commercial driver’s license and $21.50 for a Nevada ID card. The fee to renew or duplicate an existing Nevada ID is the same as the original cost, meaning another $21.50 for those seeking another card. It is $17.50 to replace the driver's license.

Rosales rejected the poll-tax argument and said access to IDs and driver’s licenses is widespread. “We have made it so easy and simple for virtually anyone to get IDs, drivers licenses. Very accessible. Just like voting has become so accessible and easy for people. I think that claim is reaching and it suggests to me that folks who are making that counter argument maybe have other interests at play,” he said.

Rosales also argued the measure’s passage shows broad support for conservative values even in an election where Republicans performed poorly down ballot. “Nevada voters, very much, are in line with things like voter ID. And that should be a caution to Democrats not to get too comfortable and push too far to the left,” he said.

Haseebullah did not describe the issue as ideological, but said the change could be costly for taxpayers if the state must ensure residents can obtain IDs. “I do not know that there is a way to do this for free. This is going to cost taxpayers money no matter what because they are going to be required to make sure that IDs are covered by cost. That will come out of our budget. So I am not sure which service people want cut or if they want to pull this from our reserve funding but it has to happen in order for them to move this. I do not see how there is going to be a way around that,” he said.

It also remains unclear what will count as identification under the new requirements, including whether it will be limited to documents such as a birth certificate and Social Security card or extend to items such as utility bills and paychecks, which are used to obtain an ID at the Nevada DMV.

Haseebullah suggested a lawsuit is likely, pointing to what he sees as a poll tax as long as it costs money to produce an ID. Rosales said that argument is a reach, given how many other situations require identification.

Voter ID laws are common nationwide. About 36 states require voter ID at the polls, and some states allow voters to cast a provisional ballot while additional identification is verified. Bordering states with some form of voter ID rules include Arizona, Idaho and Utah, while California and Oregon do not.

Groups that help people obtain an ID in Southern Nevada with little to no cost depending on the situation include VoteRiders, HELP of Southern Nevada and Shine A Light. The Nevada DMV may also be able to assist some applicants with reduced fees for an ID card.