January 3, 2026

Bill Ackman is a Harvard-educated hedge fund manager with deep connections in business and politics. His actions command national media attention. When it comes to his business, he is undoubtedly a sophisticated consumer of experts from a wide range of industries and professions.

Yet when it comes to voting rules — specifically voter ID laws — he did what any high school student would warn against: he turned to social media.

Ackman recently asked on X, “Can someone please explain the best argument for why we don't require citizens to show state or federal ID to vote?” His question was prompted by a post from Scott Pressler, a right-wing activist with a long history of controversy.

Pressler had attacked a Minnesota law that allows registered voters to vouch for the residency of a person seeking same-day voter registration in their precinct. Under the law, no one person can vouch for more than eight others, unless they work in a residential facility like a nursing home. 

Pressler suggested that this provision of the law promotes voter fraud.

Allowing a friend to swear, under penalty of law, that their roommate lives at the same address — or in the same dorm — is hardly evidence of fraud. Nor is permitting an elder care nurse to attest to where their patient lives. In fact, seven states, including several red states, have provisions allowing election officials or other voters to vouch for a person’s identity in lieu of presenting an ID in some circumstances.

Nevertheless, Pressler labeled this Minnesota practice “voter fraud,” prompting Ackman to question why all states do not require voter ID. The irony is that Minnesota does require ID — the sworn vouching Pressler criticized is an accepted form of identification.

Had Ackman asked me, I would have explained that, according to Ballotpedia, 16  states allow some or all voters to sign an affidavit themselves, without any witness with personal knowledge of the voter. Again, this list includes several red states.

I also would have cautioned Ackman against treating Pressler as a reliable source of information. For example, Pressler has described the events at the U.S. Capitol on Jan.  6, 2021, as “the largest civil rights protest in American history.”

Unfortunately, the misinformation did not stop there. Shortly after Ackman posed his question, Harmeet Dhillon responded by attacking me by name. “That's easy,” she wrote. “Marc Elias and his henchmen will tell you minorities are too dumb to figure out how to get an ID.”

Unlike Pressler, Dhillon is not a fringe activist. She is a senior government official who should know better. She currently heads the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, which oversees voting rights. She is also an experienced voting lawyer — albeit one with a history of defending vote-suppressive policies.

I have no idea whom she considers my “henchmen,” but her claim that I believe minorities are “too dumb” to obtain ID is false and offensive. It is the kind of ignorant lie that earns praise in the Trump orbit while causing embarrassment nearly everywhere else.

The truth is that my law firm and I have selectively litigated voter ID cases, targeting only laws that create genuine barriers to voting or impose additional burdens on specific communities. Of the 78 voting and election cases my firm is currently handling, only two involve voter ID laws.

Contrary to Dhillon’s suggestion, neither case involves claims of racial discrimination. Both concern students.

We are challenging an Idaho law that removed student IDs from the list of acceptable identification for in-person voting. Before the change, acceptable forms included an Idaho driver’s license, a passport or other U.S.-issued government photo ID, a tribal identification card with a photo, a concealed-carry license, or a current student ID with a photo issued by a high school or accredited higher education institution. Under the new law, student IDs were eliminated from the list.

We also sued Indiana over a similar change. Historically, voters there could use any state or federal ID containing their name, photograph and expiration date. Earlier this year, Indiana amended its law to explicitly prohibit the use of student IDs as voter identification — even when those IDs otherwise met all legal requirements.

I understand that my firm’s efforts to protect student voting are harder for Dhillon to demonize. But lying is what this administration does best.

Most importantly, I wonder how Bill Ackman would respond if he understood what these voter ID battles are about. They rarely turn on the question of voter ID or not. Rather, they typically involve the details: what counts as ID, what is excluded.

I don’t know Ackman, but I am willing to take his question in good faith. I just wish that next time he has a question about voting rules and laws, he turns to an expert rather than social media.

Now, here's a little joy from our pawtners in the opposition.