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 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.
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
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.
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?
I’m still expecting it to be enforced only against people who “look like” undocumented immigrants
I mean, that’s a reasonable assumption in most cases, but with the way this legislation is written I don’t see how that’s possible. It changes the entire process for registering to vote, and you have to be registered in order to vote. This isn’t like bathroom bills where they’ll target people who “look trans”, this is an actual bureaucratic process that they’re rewriting. Stuff goes on file. There are records. There are whole departments of people involved in processing this stuff, not just one single guard at the gate who can wave you through.
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.
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”.
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)
As long as there’s no budget, he gets to say “see, government is a swamp”, and convince all too many to vote against their legislators to “drain the swamp” (ie redirect the blame), and convince all too many it’s ok for him to act without regard to constitutional checks and balances
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.
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.
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.
Go find your own article. Pardon me for trying to help. I won’t make that mistake with you again in future.
You can choose not to understand, or you can go fucking educate yourself then. Or don’t. I don’t fucking care.
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?
One final comment before I block you for your other comment: Polling doesn’t take a cup of water from the Atlantic, it takes water from the ENTIRE OCEANS. Not very much water, but enough.
Now. Goodbye.