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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.