Mastodawn

Trump allies plan Senate floor takeover to pass SAVE America Act

https://lemmy.world/post/44338937

Trump allies plan Senate floor takeover to pass SAVE America Act - Lemmy.World

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.

KoboldCoterie 5d ago

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…

BillyClark 5d ago

IIRC, it was around 10% of registered voters on average. So, if the poll is a good sample, it would be 200 of them.

foodandart 5d ago

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.

BillyClark 5d ago

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.

atomicbocks 5d ago

I’m a penis haver who has been adopted so my name doesn’t match my birth certificate either.

foodandart 5d ago

Get to your city hall and sort that asap!

NekoKoneko 5d ago

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.

UnderpantsWeevil 5d ago

Mark Penn, who is apparently a “deep state” conspiracy theorist and Trump supporter

Among other things.

Throbbing_banjo 5d ago

Love how this guy calls himself a “deep state conspiracy theorist” yet has had two Clinton’s and a British PM as clients🤣 Bitch you are the deep state, shut the fuck up

whotookkarl 4d ago

Political cultists don’t use language to convey information or meaning, just to attack people they think they can get away with intimidating or muddy definitions.

crusa187 5d ago

Thehill is also quite conservative, fwiw

we are all 5d ago

and from the democrats we have

/n /n

ArbitraryValue 5d ago

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.

fedupwithbureaucracy 5d ago

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.

mikenurre 5d ago

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!

blackbearjesus27 5d ago

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.

ArbitraryValue 5d ago

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.

blackbearjesus27 5d ago

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.

ArbitraryValue 5d ago

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.

blackbearjesus27 5d ago

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.

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.

jacksilver 5d ago

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.

cattywampas 5d ago

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.

How many republican women have access to a qualifying passport with their maiden name?!

CharlesDarwin 5d ago

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…

I’m pretty sure you can’t get a passport with your maiden name.

jacksilver 5d ago

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.

What forms of ID would the SAVE Act require

Executive summary The SAVE Act would force applicants to present “documentary proof of United States citizenship” at registration and the bill explicitly...

Factually

Nope, you have to match your birth name, not driver’s license

politifact.com/…/save-act-would-make-it-harder-no…

Read the conclusion, married women have to produce more documents to be able to vote than unmarried women

SAVE Act complicates voter registration for some spouses

Congressional Republicans are pushing to pass a bill that would require documentary proof of citizenship to register to

@politifact

jacksilver 5d ago

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.

The name on a woman’s passport has to match her birth certificate. A passport is enough if there have been no name changes

jacksilver 4d ago

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.

Reasonable_Guy 5d ago

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

cattywampas 5d ago

National holidays have nothing to do with giving people time off to vote, unless they’re government employees or work in the finance sector.

pjwestin 5d ago

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.

pjwestin 4d ago

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.

phutatorius 4d ago

They still need 60 votes to pass it

Only if the Dems filibuster.

The hill can take a propaganda at my nuts if they think I’m gonna buy that poll as anything other than biased.

HubertManne 5d ago

Im 100% with you on this sentiment. I can’t for a minute believe that is accurate.

🌞 Alexander Daychilde 🌞5d ago

Im 100% with you

It is statistically unlikely that you are with them to that high of a percentage. /s ;-)

HubertManne 4d ago

its on a 110% scale!

phutatorius 4d ago

The Hill cannot be trusted. They’re all about the Inside Baseball view of politics.

AlexLost 5d ago

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.

Quirky Quinn 4d ago

You mean undocumented?

There is no way 70% of people support this.

phutatorius 4d ago

Push polling.

facelessbs 4d ago

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.

collapse_already 3d ago

Remember which idiots actually respond to polls. Do you answer phone calls from unknown numbers? If for some reason you did and it was a political poll would you remain on the line?

True true. I don’t even have a landline. And isn’t that how most of these run ?

Also, They might have actually asked them “do you think ID should be required to vote?”.

buddascrayon 5d ago

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.

HubertManne 5d ago

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.

partial_accumen 5d ago

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.

phutatorius 4d ago

They’ll just decline to hear the case.

Paranoid Factoid 5d ago

President Caligula

Professorozone 5d ago

Not too mention 1999 people is a pretty small sample for a 160M voter population.

🌞 Alexander Daychilde 🌞5d ago

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.

Professorozone 5d ago

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.

🌞 Alexander Daychilde 🌞5d ago

if you polled 1999 people in my city

That’s why national polls would not poll people in just one location :)