Dem
47
GOP
53
The Senate voted 51-48 to start debate on the SAVE America Act, which really should be called the "Suppress the Vote Act." All Democrats opposed it, as did Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK). Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) was traveling and missed the vote but opposes the bill. Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) also opposes the bill but voted to start debate as a courtesy to Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD). This preliminary vote suggests that a final vote could be close. The debate will certainly be spirited.
A vote is not expected for a while because Republicans are squabbling among themselves over the bill, which would require proof of citizenship to vote and other things that would make voting more difficult. It would also require states to share voting data with the federal government, which is unprecedented and possibly unconstitutional since the Constitution gives the states alone power to run elections. If the states are forced to share information, the federal government could then order states to remove voters it believes are not eligible to vote. Nothing in the Constitution grants it that power.
The debate could take a while because Republicans disagree on the procedure. Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) wants a Jimmy Stewart-style talking filibuster to wear the Democrats out. Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) wants to attach the bill to some other must-pass bill. Murkowski thinks the whole thing is grandstanding because no Democrats will ever vote for it and not even all Republicans.
Donald Trump wants the bill to ban almost all absentee voting. So do some House conservatives, who have vowed to block all legislation in the House until the Senate passes the bill. They have actually started, voting against bipartisan bills like one to provide some special funding for small businesses. However, senators do not take kindly to being given marching orders by House members.
Many Republican senators, especially those from rural states like Montana, depend on absentee votes from far-flung voters and are opposed to banning the practice. Some of them have floated the idea of "hardship exemptions," but only for voters from rural areas. Having laws apply only to certain areas could inspire future Democratic administrations to pass other laws that apply only to urban areas. Some Republicans see that danger and don't want to go down that road.
Another thing Trump wants in the bill is a provision that trans girls cannot compete in girls sports. Also a provision banning transgender care for minors. This has nothing to do with elections, of course. It is just red meat for the base. And including this just makes it harder to pass the bill. With Murkowski, Tillis and McConnell already against the bill, all it takes is one more Republican defection to kill debate. Throwing trans girls under the bus may not play well in blue states and Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), who is up in a blue state in the fight of her life, might just be that fourth vote against the bill.
Almost all observers think the bill will fail in the end, so why is a weeks-long debate planned? When you come down to it, Thune needs to put on a big show to impress Trump that he tried hard but the votes weren't there. With any other president, Thune could have just said "the votes aren't there" and left it at that.
The ironic thing about the bill is that it may not be the silver bullet Trump is expecting and may not help the Republicans at all. We are starting to see articles digging into this, such as this one in The Washington Post and this one from Reuters.
The Act would not apply to actual voting, but only to registering. However, whenever people move they have to reregister. Also, many states scrap inactive voters who have missed two or more elections, so they have to register again to vote. These people would be affected. The Post study showed that in 54% of Republican-held House districts, over 5% of voters are inactive and would have to register. In Democratic-held seats, the number is 36%.
To register—either after a move, becoming active again, or turning 18—a voter would have to show proof of citizenship, typically a passport, original birth certificate, or a naturalization certificate. One study showed that 7% of Republicans, 10% of Democrats, and 14% of independents don't have easy access to proof of citizenship. Advantage Republicans.
The study also showed that citizenship requirements affected men more than women, with 11% of men and 8% of women not having proof of citizenship. Men tend to be more Republican than women. Advantage Democrats.
One group of women who will be hard-hit are married women who have taken on their husband's last name. It has been estimated that about 70 million married women do not have a birth certificate that matches their current legal name. For them, an original birth certificate is not enough to vote. They also need official documentation showing the name change. Studies show that women in red states are more likely to take on their husband's name than women in blue states and thus more likely to be disenfranchised. Married women voted for Trump 52% to 47% while single women favored Harris 61% to 38%. But disenfranchising women in general works for the Republicans. It is hard to tell here. Advantage unknown.
If the bill passes, both parties will try to help their supporters acquire that proof. This is easier in cities than in rural areas. Going door to door asking: "Do you need help registering to vote?" is easier when the doors are close together. Also, rural voters may have long drives to election offices. Murkowski said that one-fifth of her constituents don't live on the road system and would have to fly to the election office (or go by dog sled). Advantage Democrats.
Related to that, if the bill were to pass, the 19 blue states the Democrats control could make getting a birth certificate easier by opening more offices where people can apply, lengthening the hours they are open including evenings, and/or reducing the fee. Blue cities in red states could try to do that but red state legislatures might ban that. Advantage mixed.
Affluent college-educated voters are more likely to travel internationally than dirt farmers and are thus more likely to have a valid passport. Fourteen of the seventeen states with the highest rates of people having passports voted for Kamala Harris. The dozen states with the lowest percentage of voters having passports all voted for Trump. These are largely rural states, where getting a passport would be more difficult than in urban states. Also, a passport costs $165 and the Trump-supporting rural states are poorer than the Harris-supporting urban states. Some eligible voters might decide voting isn't worth the money. Advantage Democrats.
Immigrants who have been naturalized are almost always proud of their naturalization and are very likely to have their naturalization certificate. Given how the administration is treating immigrants, this group is likely to skew Democratic, be motivated to vote, and have proof of citizenship. Advantage Democrats.
In short, it is very hard to see which party is hurt more by the bill, and it could be a wash. However, it seems likely that Democrats are in better shape to try to counter the effects by actively helping voters get the necessary documentation because their voters are heavily clustered. (V)