The SAVE Act

If he will do that regardless, and this would make it easier to do that, why is it alarmist?

There is another aspect of the SAVE Act that is not getting much attention. It requires states to submit their complete voter registration lists to DHS for verification through the SAVE system. DHS is not a federal election agency. There is no constitutional agency that runs federal voting. But under this bill, DHS could access nearly every voter’s registration information, including in some states their party affiliation, which could theoretically be used for partisan targeting.

The DHS SAVE tool / system itself is far from perfect. It is being used to flag non-citizens, but it sometimes misidentifies real citizens as non-citizens. That means a single clerical or database error could remove legitimate voters. Depending on which demographics are most affected, this could indirectly favor one party over another. TX already documented these issues, where nearly a hundred citizens (likely much more) were misidentified as non-citizens.

The bill also allows federal agencies to share information with each other to help states verify eligibility. This creates centralized federal access to voter data that has never existed before and opens the door to profiling or misuse, even without knowing how anyone voted.

Even if no one ever sees your ballot, this bill creates a system where your voter registration and citizenship data could be scrutinized, centralized, and potentially misused in ways that could affect elections.

 

I tell you what
Everyone gets Free , Harrassment free IDs

I will think about it
Drivers License/ IDs should count for Voter ID . . .Das it
Firearms Licenses should not

Rocket River

 

Rocket River

 

I think we should have a national id establish at birth or naturalization and tied to your DNA sample.

edit, not sure why the sarcasm emoji didn’t post, but it was intended.

 

I mean, isn't that how you gin up your base.
We think it's stupid.
To them it's red meat

 

Trump says he won't sign any bills until SAVE America Act passes

“I would close government over it,” Trump said.

 

Let him rot.

DD

 

That would be a blessing. I doubt anything good would come of him signing any new bills anyway. But, I assume this is not aimed at the Democrats, but trying to force a change to the filibuster rule so he can pass the SAVE Act without any Dem votes.

 

Good
Keeping him from signing **** sounds good

Rocket River

 

I predict it will be the Democrats who eventually pass this in 5 years....because all Americans want it and Democrats do not have an original thought ever.

 

I will not be surprised nor dismayed if the Democrats pass a bill 5 years hence that changes the basis of proof of citizenship from testimonial to documented proof. The current system is fine, but documented proof is better. But, I would expect a Democratic version of this would be much more accommodating of everyone's right to vote and not have all the election-subverting elements that the SAVE Act has. I'd be okay with this Congress passing it if the Republicans were willing to compromise, take out the election-subverting elements, and just focus on moving to document-based proof of citizenship in the long run. Somehow, I suspect Trump will no longer be interested in the law if that was the compromise though. As usual, instead of offering to negotiate and compromise, Trump is trying to bully his way through.

 

Yeah I will take that bet. There is no way a pro democracy party would pass this as it is a restrictive voting bill

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-w...s-would-still-block-millions-americans-voting

HOWEVER yes I do believe within 5 years it would be good if a BIPARTISAN group in Congress got a bill passed that would make voting easier, and ease the nonsense fears about voting being unsafe, or rigged.

That being said.... ANY FEDERAL voting bill is likely to come under scrutiny with the court especially the CONSERVATIVE Supreme Court that exists today because the Constitution is very clear that states get alot of independence to run their elections independently and they have alot of discretion to implement their independent laws.

There likely needs to be a Constitutional Amendment to make large scale federal changes to voting rights in the US to include state legislatures.

The "Save Act" IMO is just a signaling bill from Trumpers to use as propaganda to say that the Democrats are "stealing" elections. Its a political tool they are going to try and user to undermine democracy themselves through fear mongering, and lies.

 

That being said IF Republicans in the Senate did decide to demolish the Filibuster in order to pass this through the Senate, and Trump signs into law, I have no doubt that this brazen MAGA Supreme Court would try to find a way to allow this to stand as federal law.

However you'd likely have California, NY, and other states bring lawsuits that get temporary stays, and then ultimately put it to the Supreme Court to decide. So I would say that even if the Trump regime was to get this passed, and even if the MAGA's on the Supreme Court wanted to do away with States Rights in order to brazenly take power for Republicans, that would likely still be years away from happening.

Maybe they fast track it through and it passes. Then comes a massive education exercise to get messaging out to educated Democratic voters on ensuring they can get on the rolls. Since Democrats are better educated, I do think they could still win elections even with the Save act made law, and sanctioned by the Supreme Court. Again.. the party with the college educated base is the Democratic party. Even though its wrong, requiring more education and complexity to vote actually could HELP the Democratic party in a base driven election.

Then you are looking at a situation where you no longer have a filibuster in the Senate, and if a Democratic Congress and President ever takes power again..... ahahahaha.... Republicans are in for a real treat then.

 

Totally. In a functioning Congress, I could totally see this bill, and the John Lewis Voting Rights bill being combined, and you get a totally fine non-controversial voting rights bill passed.

Schumer and Jefferies should be messaging as loud as they could that they would be open to bringing this bill back to committee to work on a bipartisan bill that would stand the test of time rather than being a partisan power grab that Trump wants that will just be overturned if the Democrats ever win back congress and the presidency.

 

Senate Majority Leader Thune says no to filibuster changes
even after Trump's threats about SAVE America Act


John Thune on Monday reiterated that there would not be changes to Senate rules in order to pass a Republican-led
election reform bill that Trump has demanded be sent to his desk.

"Yeah, that's not going to happen,"

 

Elements of those existed already in some Democrats' proposals, such as the Freedom to Vote Act. ID requirements are fine, but must be accessible and free of charge. Any proposal genuinely aimed at election integrity rather than disenfranchisement should pass.

But that's not what many politicians want. We know that many politicians are more interested in picking their voters than in election integrity.

 

Going forward no Laws, Rules or things needed . .. . need to be codified into law.
DO NOT give them any leeway. Everything spelled out.

Too many loop holes that are intentional made for them to slither through

Rocket River

 

The way courts have been behaving during this Administration, I would not be surprised to see them allow the SAVE Act to stand until SCOTUS says it is unconstitutional instead of suspending it until SCOTUS says it is okay

All else equal, maybe the Democrats would be able to get voters into compliance faster. But all else won't be equal. States would be more aggressive in conducting audits of voter rolls (especially in Republican controlled states where that plays well, plus because there are punishments if any non-citizen votes) and it will end up that Democratic-leaning voters will over-index in those audits and face evidentiary requirements that other voters won't have to face. That way currently Republican-led states will be able to protect their Republican incumbent positions and the status quo.