If this bill passes in the Senate, it would require a license or REAL ID as well as proof of citizenship in order to vote. If your name is different on your license/REAL ID than it is on your birth certificate, you will need to get a passport in order to be eligible to vote. This would disenfranchise an estimated 70 million married and trans people.
They need 60 votes to pass this in the Senate, which would require all Republicans as well as seven Democrats. Call and message your Senators and tell them to vote NAY on the SAVE Act!
And by married, it’s mostly women. So left/democrat leaning.
And trans people. And a large number of Latino people who use a simplified name.
It’ll affect Republican women more than Democrat women (because they’re more likely to take their husband’s surname than Democrats are), but there are more Democrat women for it to affect
deleted by creator
The sort of bizarre thing about this kind of trash legislation is, if you take a moment to consider it as being in good faith (which it’s not but…), it lays the groundwork for delegitimizing its own supporters.
If the elections were so insecure and widely defrauded as to justify and demand this legislation, then there’s zero reason to believe those seeking to pass the legislation have any legitimacy whatsoever. After all, they may have only gotten their positions by exploiting the elections’ insecurity, and if not exploiting it, benefiting from it nonetheless and should in turn resign instead of further diminishing the integrity of the governments’ institutions.
However, obviously they don’t want people to consider that angle, and this is mainly a means to disenfranchise voters and sow further institutional distrust while encouraging party loyalty, as there is no genuine basis for this legislation.
well they can just say their support is so strong that they won despite widespread voter fraud against them. believe it or not, their supporters will eat it all up.
This is sadly exactly the kind of shit they have been saying. Especially as it’s pertained to the Judiciary pushing back and them saying “How dare you! The God-King was elected by the people! Who is this judge to tell the King what to do??”
Before we preemptively doom about it, it also needs to pass the senate filibuster meaning 7 senate dems need to vote in favor. Call your senators and tell them to vote against it
The bill appears to face long odds in the Senate, where it would need 60 votes to overcome an expected Democratic filibuster.
[…]
“I am leading the fight in the Senate to push back against this effort to disrupt our already safe and secure elections. This bill cannot pass the Senate — and I will fight every step of the way to block it,” Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) said in a statement.
[…]
Last year, the House passed a similar bill but it stalled in the Senate and then-President Joe Biden vowed to veto it
Honestly, I wouldn’t be super shocked if this is where the GOP revises the rules to get rid of the filibuster.
I think it’s unlikely they will do so directly given their other actions. Senate Majority Leader Thune has been pretty adamant about keeping it even stating he wanted to keep it in his very first speech this year as the new senate majority leader. I think the bigger threat to the filibuster at the moment is Republicans abusing reconciliation beyond what is supposed to be in there. Republicans appear likely to test the waters with bending the rules in the near future. This would be one of those piece by piece kinds of things, so more of a medium-term to longer-term issue
Reconciliation is supposed to be strictly for budget related policies and allows a strict majority vote without going through the filibuster and is only allowed to be used a limited number of times among other restrictions. The senate parliamentarian is the one who is supposed to interprets the senate rules and procedures including what’s allowed in reconciliation. One of the requirements the Byrd Rule gives to reconciliation is that the bill passed through the senate it may not add to the deficit overall.
Republicans appear likely to ignore the senate parliamentarian and declare by themselves that extending Trump’s 2017 tax cuts for the rich that will expire are “current policy” and not counted in deficit computations. By itself that doesn’t sound that interesting, but the reason that’s a little concerning is that the senate parliamentarian is also the one who decides if the bills are strictly budget related. For instance, in 2021 the senate parliamentarian was the one who frustratingly ruled that a minimum wage increase to $15/hr couldn’t be included via reconciliation. If ignoring the senate parliamentarian becomes the norm, they could stuff non-budget thing into these massive reconciliation spending packages without anyone to say no
(It’s also possible the Senate parliamentarian rules in their favor and they don’t override what they say)
At least we used it to block progressive legislation.
🫠
Our representatives will keep voting for this, democrat and republican.
We have to physically stop them to make them stop.
