Dem
47
GOP
53
The House has passed the SAVE Act, which allegedly eliminates voting fraud (of which there is nearly none). In reality, it is carefully designed to effectively disenfranchise low-income voters (who skew Democratic) by creating barriers that make it more difficult for them to vote. One of the provisions is that, in order to vote, people would have to show proof of citizenship in the form of a passport, birth certificate, naturalization certificate, military ID, or tribal ID. Over 20 million eligible voters have none of these and obtaining one of them is often difficult and expensive. Also, a larger percentage of eligible Black voters lack documentation than white voters. These are features, not bugs.
A less discussed—but nevertheless important—issue is that for married women who use their husband's name, a birth certificate won't do, since that shows the woman's maiden name. In that case, a marriage certificate or court order showing the name change is also needed. In the case of women who are divorced or who have been married multiple times, the process of proving citizenship can be very complex and time consuming. For Republicans, this is also a feature, not a bug, because women also skew Democratic, and at all income levels. Additionally, the SAVE Act could disenfranchise American expats because it requires in-person verification of citizenship in order to qualify for an absentee ballot.
The House-passed bill could come up for a vote in the Senate this week. Democrats are sure to filibuster it. Unless the filibuster is abolished, or a carve-out is made for election laws, it will fail to get the 60 votes needed for cloture. Although Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) supports the bill, he is against abolishing or weakening the filibuster in order to pass the SAVE Act, no matter how much that angers Donald Trump. But even if Thune decided to nuke the filibuster, his nose counters have determined that the votes to do so are not there. The problem is that Republican senators know they could be in the minority some day, possibly as soon as Jan. 3, 2027, and they fear what the Democrats might do if they could pass bills with a simple majority.
Some House members, who don't know (or care) anything about Senate traditions, are calling for the Senate to go back to its roots and require senators to actually stand there and filibuster. Rep. Eric Burlison (R-MO) said: "It's pathetic that our Senate is, you know, acting like a nursing home where people don't actually have to do anything. A filibuster is supposed to be them standing and talking, but they don't want to do that." Some senators have had similar thoughts. Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) urged his colleagues to "stop worrying about getting reelected and pass it." Tuberville is probably not the brightest senator, and telling the other senators not to worry about getting reelected sort of clinches that. (V)