Americans woke up Monday to shocking news: a majority of voters reportedly support requiring identification before voting, sending professional democracy interpreters into full-scale emotional triage.
The announcement reportedly caused several cable news panels to cancel scheduled discussions on "saving democracy" in favor of emergency segments titled "When Democracy Betrays Democracy."
"This is deeply concerning," said Dr. Avery Consensus, Director of the Institute for Unexpected Election Outcomes. "For years we've taught Americans that showing ID to board a plane, cash a check, buy cold medicine, or adopt a puppy was perfectly reasonable. But asking for it at the ballot box? That's where freedom apparently becomes fascism."
Political consultants immediately launched a nationwide campaign encouraging voters to remember that identification is a colonial concept invented sometime between the invention of paperwork and common sense.
Meanwhile, state election offices reportedly received thousands of confused phone calls.
"So… should I bring my driver's license?" one voter asked.
"Please stop asking practical questions," an exhausted official replied. "You're disrupting the narrative."
Several universities quickly introduced a new seminar titled Advanced Identity Without Identification, where students can earn three credit hours by proving attendance without ever entering the classroom.
Progressive advocacy groups held candlelight vigils for endangered hypotheticals.
"We're standing with every imaginary person who theoretically cannot obtain any of the seventeen forms of identification they already use every week," one organizer declared while scanning a QR code to enter the event.
Economists estimate the nation's supply of op-eds warning about "the end of democracy" may exceed available internet bandwidth by Tuesday afternoon.
One constitutional scholar attempted to calm tensions.
"The Constitution doesn't actually contain the phrase 'Feelings Counted Once Per Election,'" he explained before being escorted away for unauthorized context.
Election technology companies unveiled a compromise system allowing voters to verify their identity by answering deeply personal questions such as favorite Taylor Swift album, preferred pronouns, and whether pineapple belongs on pizza.
Critics immediately praised the proposal as "far more inclusive than government-issued identification."
Congress briefly considered solving the issue by mailing every citizen a complimentary laminated card proving they are who they say they are before realizing they had accidentally reinvented an ID.
"We reject this dangerous cycle of logic," one lawmaker announced.
The proposal was tabled indefinitely.
As the debate continued, one elderly voter quietly reached into his wallet.
"I've carried this driver's license for twelve years," he said. "Nobody ever accused it of threatening civilization until today."
Political analysts now predict the controversy will continue until someone suggests requiring photo ID to log into social media, at which point every activist will suddenly discover the beauty of verification.
