During his SiriusXM show Straight Shooter, Smith made clear he supports voter ID requirements, arguing they align with everyday expectations.
His point was blunt: identification is required for routine activities, so applying that standard to voting doesn’t strike him as unreasonable. He directed particular frustration at progressive critics of voter ID laws, dismissing their objections outright.
At the same time, he didn’t give blanket approval to every proposal. Smith raised concerns about how some voter ID measures are structured, especially when they require multiple forms of documentation beyond what most people typically carry.
He pointed to scenarios where a driver’s license or even a passport might not be sufficient on its own, suggesting that kind of layering can cross from verification into excess.
The timing of his comments aligns with ongoing debate in Washington. The House has already passed the SAVE Act, which would require proof of U.S. citizenship to register for federal elections, and the Senate is now weighing the proposal. That context makes Smith’s remarks part of a broader national conversation about access, security, and how far requirements should go.
He also questioned how voter fraud is discussed politically. Referencing data from Utah, he argued that documented cases are extremely rare relative to total votes cast, and suggested the issue is often overstated in political messaging.
From there, Smith widened the scope. He shifted to economic concerns, pointing to rising gas prices and tying part of the burden—particularly in California—to state-level policies under Gov. Gavin Newsom. He then moved to federal leadership, criticizing spending levels and the national debt.
President Trump wasn’t spared either. Smith questioned whether campaign promises on economic gains and foreign policy outcomes have matched reality, especially as tensions abroad continue. He also challenged claims about tariff revenue, asking where the projected financial benefits have materialized.
The throughline wasn’t ideological consistency—it was dissatisfaction across the board. Smith backed voter ID in principle, pushed back on how it’s sometimes implemented, and then expanded his critique to include both parties and multiple layers of leadership.
