Trump’s allies are planning to take over the Senate floor this week in a bid to pass the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE America) Act, setting up a major test for Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.), who is under pressure from Trump and the MAGA base to extend the debate over voting reform for as long as possible.
GOP senators are playing their cards close to the vest ahead of this week’s marathon debate over the SAVE America Act, which would require people registering to vote to show documented proof of citizenship.
But they’re bracing for long hours and possible late nights in a bid to build momentum for the bill, which already has broad public support. A recent Harvard CAPS/Harris poll of 1,999 registered voters found that 71% support the SAVE America Act.
Trump allies, frustrated that they aren’t able to force Democrats to stage a talking filibuster to block the bill, are pressing Thune to keep the measure on the floor as long as possible to force Democrats to defend their opposition.
But they’re bracing for long hours and possible late nights in a bid to build momentum for the bill, which already has broad public support.
Checks source: oh, looks like The Hill is manufacturing consent again.
There is no way 70% of people support this.
NPR did a story on this yesterday actually. And while there is a greater than 50% Support( I say it this way because I can not find the source to give me the actual number but it was greater than 50%) it does admit that this will disinfrachise voters. And while most people who agree with mandatory id will not know the greater repercussions until after the fact.
Push polling.
the bill, which already has broad public support. A recent Harvard CAPS/Harris poll of 1,999 registered voters found that 71% support the SAVE America Act.
I highly doubt that most of those people polled have any idea of what Republicans actually mean by “proof of citizenship”. I would bet money they just think it means showing your driver’s license and/or social security card.
In reality, it means having to show a valid passport (which is a massive pain in the ass to obtain) or having a copy of your birth certificate (also a huge pain in the butt to get).
Polls lie, always have and always will. It’s not about the question but how you ask it.
In reality, it means having to show a valid passport (which is a massive pain in the ass to obtain) or having a copy of your birth certificate (also a huge pain in the butt to get).
And for people that have changed their name since birth (either marriage or other reasons), the birth certificate isn’t valid under this proposed bill. So passport book ($130+$10 for a photo), or passport card only ($30+$10 for a photo). And since passport book/card requirement doesn’t apply to every American, this is effectively a selective tax targeting largely married women.
How is this anything else besides a violation of the 24th Amendment to the Constitution:
Twenty-Fourth Amendment:
Section 1
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
Section 2
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
80% chance the traitors in SCOTUS rule is constitutional anyway.
They’ll just decline to hear the case.
Removed by mod
Yes. Very few photo ID options have citizenship status, and the combo government photo id (drivers license) and birth certificate combo affects people with name changes. 15%-20% of Americans lack the primary ID requirement, and there are fees to obtaining them. The lack of ID would skew towards lower incomes who don’t need passports (realID is a domestic travel passport).
There’s already massive voter suppression of urban areas through long lines, and specific agitation to increase voting time by challenging voters, Skewing voter eligibility to air travellers and 5 mostly blue states that include citizenship on drivers license is likely to harm rural bumfucks that don’t travel, and not obviously benefit GOP. Still, legal challenges will likely block it before mid terms, though the politics of “Democrats want massive (nonexistant) voter fraud to let illegal pet eaters vote” is probably the point.
That is the most bizarre thing about this legislation; dem voters are shown to be more likely to own passports, and are more likely to keep their original name when getting married. This will obviously fuck over poor voters the hardest, so maybe that’s the point, but it still seems ultimately self-defeating.
I think Trump is just throwing himself behind anything that vaguely sounds good for him because he’s panicking.
And for the “Trump is going to rig the midterms, we’re all screwed” crowd, yes, he’ll try, but if he was confident he was going to succeed he wouldn’t be acting so desperate right now, would he?
The political game is to avoid the actual legislation enacted into law by mid terms, but complain about the cheating radical left needing election fraud to win, and then recounts until 2028 to block change of congressional power. The less the election campaign is about policy, decline, and purposeful GOP destruction of America, the better the GOP’s chance.
That would be the smart play, yes (although I don’t believe, constitutionally, that they can actually prevent a new congress being seated… But that doesn’t change the fact that it’s politically valuable to have legislation fail so that you can invent a problem that you “tried” to fix). However Trump doesn’t seem to have gotten the memo. The thing about that gambit is that you have to look like you tried, but don’t actually, y’know, burn every bit of political capital you have trying to make it happen. Trump, on the other hand, is now saying he’s going to completely roadblack all legislation until this passes. He’s making it a do or die bill, a "If this is the only thing I pass in my entire term I’m fine with that’ piece of tentpole legislation, which is definitely not what you do when the point is to fail nobly.
Trump, on the other hand, is now saying he’s going to completely roadblack all legislation until this passes.
AFAIK, block all other future legislation. But its not as though the only other legislation he’d approve would make people angry. I doubt he’d roll back, coincidentally the only bill he passed in his first administration, “tax cuts for the rich”.
you have to look like you tried, but don’t actually, y’know, burn every bit of political capital you have trying to make it happen.
I’m not sure he wants even a budget bill, or “shutdown avoidance” vote, but political capital will as usual blame democrats for process issues. You’re using “political capital spending” as this is the last threat he will ever be able to make to anyone, when GOP is mostly supportive of the plan (though suicide if they lose philibuster after losing mid terms)
Political capital isn’t just voter approval, it’s your ability to cut deals and draw together coalitions within your own party. Trump is burning a lot of goodwill among Republican reps and senators pushing this do or die approach to this bill.
honestly any form of identification is bs. its to stop mail in voting where that would be impossible. you show id already when you register.
Not too mention 1999 people is a pretty small sample for a 160M voter population.
It’s not.
Many polls use 1000, which gives ±3%, while 2000 gives ±2%.
Now, you can do things badly and screw that up, but assuming the polling is randomized, it’s more than enough.
I’ll take your word for it. Statistics was my worst subject. It just seems small logically. I mean if you polled 1999 people in my city you’d get probably 99% Trump support. I doubt you’d get that from a random sampling in California.
if you polled 1999 people in my city
That’s why national polls would not poll people in just one location :)
But that’s like 40 people per state.
Imagine a big pot of soup - like 100 gallons of soup. I bet you could take out like a half cup of that soup and you’d know basically what the soup tasted like.
https://www.markpack.org.uk/168548/why-is-a-1000-sample-enough-for-an-opinion-poll/
To be honest that wasn’t a very good article. Also the quality of the poll means everything. If you ask 10 people if they think voters should show ID, I bet you’d get 100% agreement. It would change a lot of you asked them if we should disenfranchise women. We’d have to see the actual poll.
Yeah I understand the purpose of sampling. Now take a cup of water from the Atlantic. Can you tell the health of all the world’s oceans?
The hill can take a propaganda at my nuts if they think I’m gonna buy that poll as anything other than biased.
The Hill cannot be trusted. They’re all about the Inside Baseball view of politics.
Im 100% with you on this sentiment. I can’t for a minute believe that is accurate.
Im 100% with you
It is statistically unlikely that you are with them to that high of a percentage. /s ;-)
its on a 110% scale!
But they’re bracing for long hours and possible late nights in a bid to build momentum for the bill, which already has broad public support. A recent Harvard CAPS/Harris poll of 1,999 registered voters found that 71 percent support the SAVE America Act.
That’s pretty depressing. But then, I suppose low-information people would support any bill if they just called it “The Good Law Act.”
Oh, right, that’s basically what they did when they passed the, what was it called, Big Conservative Wet Dream Bill last year.
Edit: Oh, seeing the headlines alongside the poll that are all extremely suspect and right-washing, I wanted to check further.
Despite that TheHill reports uncritically about it and it is somehow associated with Harvard, the poll was commissioned by Stagwell Global, a marketing firm that is run by Mark Penn, who is apparently a “deep state” conspiracy theorist and Trump supporter, and contact info for the poll is not Harvard, but Stagwell, who also somehow was allowed to “release” the poll (“Stagwell (NASDAQ: STGW) today released the results of the February Harvard CAPS / Harris poll…”).
All in all I feel the most likely fit for the above is this is propaganda and not reliable.
Mark Penn, who is apparently a “deep state” conspiracy theorist and Trump supporter
Among other things.
Love how this guy calls himself a “deep state conspiracy theorist” yet has had two Clintons and a British PM as clients🤣 Bitch you are the deep state, shut the fuck up
Political cultists don’t use language to convey information or meaning, they use it as a weapon to attack people they think they can get away with intimidating or muddy definitions.
Thehill is also quite conservative, fwiw
I wonder how many of those 1999 registered voters would be disenfranchised if this came into effect, but don’t realize it because they didn’t read what ‘documented proof of citizenship’ actually entails…
IIRC, it was around 10% of registered voters on average. So, if the poll is a good sample, it would be 200 of them.
More to the point, it is overwhelingly conservative women who more often than not, change their names when they get married.
I forsee a bit of misery in parts of the GOP over this.
I wouldn’t count my chickens before they’re hatched in that case. It will also disproportionately affect poor people. People who don’t want to purchase a passport for hundreds of dollars, and who may not have their birth certificate readily available, and can’t afford the time or expense to find/replace it.
I’m a penis haver who has been adopted so my name doesn’t match my birth certificate either.
Get to your city hall and sort that asap!
They still need 60 votes to pass it and that just isn’t going to happen without major concessions. If they make the ID free and automatically issue it to all registered voters and make election day a national holiday then it may have a snowballs chance at getting through
They still need 60 votes to pass it
Only if the Dems filibuster.
National holidays have nothing to do with giving people time off to vote, unless they’re government employees or work in the finance sector.
If it’s a federal holiday, employers are forced to give you time-and-a-half, which makes smaller businesses much more likely to close for the day (and large corporations much more likely to understaff and fuck over the people who do work that day).
If it’s a federal holiday, employers are forced to give you time-and-a-half
That’s… just not true. I’ve worked through a lot of federal holidays at a lot of businesses and never received additional pay, and there’s nothing in the law (at least in most states, maybe some niche exceptions) requiring time-and-a-half pay for federal holidays.
Oh, I guess that’s just Massachusetts. Here you’re required to pay time-and-a-half for federal holidays and, for some industries, Sundays. I knew that Sunday-pay was state law, but I assumed federal holiday pay was required by federal law.
What Is The SAVE America Act: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safeguard_American_Voter_Eligibility_Act
Opposition
Non-citizens voting in federal elections has been proven to be extremely rare and is already illegal under Section 216 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.[9][10][11]
Opponents of the bill argue that it is intended to suppress voter turnout, as voter registration forms already require driver’s license numbers or the last four digits of the applicant’s Social Security number in compliance with the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), which registrars are required to use under HAVA to confirm eligibility through databases maintained by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the Social Security Administration, and the U.S. Postal Service.[7][12] An analysis by the Center for American Progress found some voters in Alaska and Hawaii would need to fly to reach their election office in accordance with the in person requirement to vote by mail.[13] The analysis also found that an estimated 69 million women and 4 million men have a last name that does not match their birth certificate.[14] This provision would similarly impact transgender people whose legal names do not match their birth certificates.[15][10]
Research from the Brennan Center, “indicates that more than 9 percent of American citizens of voting age, or 21.3 million people, don’t have proof of citizenship readily available”.[16] The center said the act “would compel voter roll purges that are bound to sweep in eligible American voters” and that “when Arizona and Kansas implemented similar policies at the state level, tens of thousands of eligible citizens were blocked from registering”, concluding, “the SAVE Act’s proof-of-citizenship requirement is a solution in search of a problem”.[2]
According to the U.S. Vote Foundation, the SAVE Act would jeopardize voting registration access for US military service members serving abroad and other US citizens resident overseas.[17]
It does not have support from the public, but his goons have probably supported the measure in the public sphere. You don’t get invited to vote if you are not a citizen. There is not some giant conspiracy where a bunch of illegal immigrants are voting at the polling booths. Those are lies, the only people caught cheating are good ol boys voting for dead grandma. The rest of it has been fair and heavily scrutinized, you’re a complete fool if you believe otherwise.
Most people in a democracy care about clean, fair elections and work towards making them so. This only adds a roadblock to the disenfranchised and the poor.
You mean undocumented?
How many republican women have access to a qualifying passport with their maiden name?!
I’m sure their conservative husbands are just fine with them not being able to vote, but probably don’t realize that it might not be the flex they actually want…
Isn’t a passport enough to prove citizenship? I thought the issue is you need drivers license + birth certificate or passport or real ID. That’s at least what this Source says.
Nope, you have to match your birth name, not driver’s license
Read the conclusion, married women have to produce more documents to be able to vote than unmarried women
Sorry I’ve got to down vote you, but its in your own article:
A passport alone would be sufficient to register under the bill
Hard to link to the specific line, but this is only one of a few instances where they state a passport is enough.
Edit: If a passport wasn’t enough, the percentage impacted by the bill would be a lot higher.
The name on a woman’s passport has to match her birth certificate. A passport is enough if there have been no name changes
Oh my god, read the article:
The bill does not make women ineligible to vote if they have changed their names after marriage. But its documentation provisions could make voter registration harder for people who change their names and don’t have valid passports.
I’m pretty sure you can’t get a passport with your maiden name.
I feel like Democrats shouldn’t have been fighting the Republicans on this. The law is popular, not entirely unreasonable, and potentially going to hurt Republicans rather than Democrats at the polls.
Poll taxes are, and always have been unreasonable. Not only will it disenfranchise 40 million women, and force them to pay to vote, no matter what they pay, they will miss the mid term elections. Because the government cannot process 40 million passports or name changes before then.
Just look at how long it took to roll out Real IDs. I think it took over a decade, there is now way to implement the Save act correctly by the midterms. Hell even by the next presidential election.
Thanks for saying “I don’t care who gets sent as collateral, dems should just roll over again” Every singlr trans person gets banned from voting. Thanks for supporting my disenfranchisement.
It would be reasonable if there were documented, regular, and widespread instances of fraud involving non citizens voting. There are not.
Portraying it as unreasonable is saying you are okay with disenfranchising millions of disproportionately poor and minority voters because you are scared of a literal fantasy. Which is to say, you’re being ignorant either willfully or not.
It’s not enough to have fair elections - a democracy needs elections generally perceived as fair. It would have been better if the Republicans hadn’t created the widespread, false perception that voter fraud is common, but the fact of the matter is that they did and merely trying to convince the public that there is really no problem hasn’t worked so far. If 71% of the voters want to have to show proof of citizenship, and if most of the ones prevented from voting because of that are low-information voters likely to vote for Republicans anyway, I say let the Republicans shoot themselves in the foot.
You are an enemy of democracy and should be regarded as such if you truly believe what you’re espousing. No voter should be disenfranchised based on a lie.
A majority thinking something should be done doesn’t make it a good idea.
I didn’t expect someone explicitly opposed to majority rule to call me an enemy of democracy…
As a matter of fact, I agree with you that there’s a difference between maximal democracy and good government. Sometimes it’s good to have a barrier between people’s whims and power, whether that barrier is anti-majoritarian procedure in Congress which is preventing Republicans from passing this law or a rule that prevents someone who didn’t go through the process of getting valid ID from voting.
If a majority is in favor of sizably reducing a voting populace by introducing measures that will inordinately affect lower socioeconomic classes, I think I would call opposing such an action democratic. I would call the other a trait of fascism.
Being a majority opinion doesn’t automatically entitle something to be democratic. Restricting voting is automatically undemocratic.
In a vacuum, most people are not opposed to the general idea of needing an ID to vote. I’m certainly not.
What people are opposed to is the federal government running elections when the Constitution says they’re run by the states, or requiring people to pay to get an ID, or disenfranchising people by making it difficult to get one.
It’s a step towards taking the right to vote away from women and trans. That’s their goal. It’s step one.
That’s why it’s a big problem.and why we can’t allow it even if it might look like it would benefit Dems in the short term.
So they should allow a corrupt government to decide who gets the documents needed to vote? Sorry metro Atlanta, couldn’t get your passports in time. Rural counties, we got yours done first!
and from the democrats we have
?
