TUESDAY, MARCH 17, 2026
Could the SAVE Act possibly pass? Will the SAVE Act really go down to defeat, in spite of the sitting president's insistence that it must pass?
People still seem to think that the GOP won't be able to assemble the 60 votes in the Senate and won't vote out the filibuster. At this site, we can only hope those predictions are accurate.
Along the way, if only as a learning experience, consider what Jonathan Capehart said last Friday night. We take you live and direct to that evening's PBS Newshour.
At the end of his weekly segment with Brooks and Capehart, Geoff Bennett raised this topic. He spoke first with David Brooks. Their exchange went like this:
BENNETT (3/13/26): In the time that remains, I want to get to the SAVE Act, which you both know. It's this bill that would require proof of citizenship to register to vote in federal elections. It would require stricter voter I.D. rules. Supporters say it's about election integrity. Critics say it could make voting harder for millions of eligible Americans, to include Republicans.
David, for years, there's been this theory in Republican politics that higher turnout benefits Democrats. Recent elections have proven that not to be the case. But how much of this is still rooted in that old political thinking?
BROOKS: Yes, it is true now that higher turnout benefits the Republicans, and lower turnout benefits the Democrats because they're more the party of the college-educated who vote in low-turnout elections. But what the Republicans are doing, they're playing on this pure electoral politics.
You might agree with the SAVE Act. You may disagree with the SAVE Act. It's hugely popular. You take every group in American society and you get 70 or 80 percent approval. It sounds decent to people that, if you can have to hand over your driver's license to get on an airplane, you should be able to have to hand it over to show you're voting. And there's some truth to that.
The problem is, it's not a problem. The studies that have been done looking at how many times U.S. noncitizens—or the times noncitizens voted in U.S. elections, it's like fewer than 100 cases. in the last 25 years.
This is not a problem. And the idea that we are going to paralyze the Senate for a solution looking for a problem, and the idea, especially egregious, that we're going to get rid of the filibuster, which to me is the only thing left that gives us a shred of hope of bipartisanship in the next few years, that just seems like a mistake.
In our view, that was a very limited answer, one which skirted the likely motivation behind this proposal.
By the way, is it true that the SAVE Act is "hugely popular?" We'll guess that Voter ID is hugely popular, and that no one has the slightest idea what's actually in the SAVE Act.
That struck us as an empty exchange between Messrs. Bennett and Brooks. But then, the analysts screamed—some tore their hair—when they saw Capehart say this:
BENNETT: Jonathan?
CAPEHART: The idea that you could have a law that says it's OK—you can prove that you're able to vote with, say, like a gun permit, but if you have a college I.D., you're not allowed to vote, or handing over voter rolls to the Department of Homeland Security, for what purpose?
When I look at the SAVE Act, I look at it as an attempt by the president, who has made it very clear that he does not want Republicans to lose the 2026 midterms, and that is what this is all about.
BENNETT: Jonathan Capehart, David Brooks, our thanks to you both, as always.
Good God! Over here in Blue America, there they went again—or at least, so the analysts thought.
A few weeks back, we saw Rep. Ro Khanna make a similar statement about the SAVE Act when he made a surprising appearance on The Big Weekend Show. We were puzzled by his statement at the time—but then, three weeks later, this!
Let the question go forth to the nations! What do gun permits (or fishing licenses) have to do with the SAVE Act? Like Khanna before him, Capehart seemed to have reverted to a talking-point from battles past—a talking-point about being allowed to vote in Texas with a fishing license or a gun permit, but not with a college ID.
Capehart's statement seemed like a residual talking-point about Voter ID in Texas. But how was it related to what the SAVE Act would require?
We don't think we've ever seen so little effort devoted to the overall attempt to explain so consequential a proposal. So it goes, perhaps, with the flooding of the zone by a very unusual president, in which new battles break out on a round-the-clock basis, choking all other kudzu out.
Friend, can you explain the contents of this consequential proposal? Can you explain how the SAVE Act actually works?
Bob asks an excellent question. I think most people understand and approve of women athletes not being
ReplyDeleteforced to compete against men. I think most people understand and approve of prohibiting the removal of a young boy's penis or girl's breasts, whether surgically or chemically. And, I think most of us understand and approve of presenting an ID with our picture on when we register, just as we do for many other purposes.
However, while I understand in principle what it means to allow only citizens to register to vote, I do not know how this would work in practice. I'd feel better about supporting the bill if I knew that there was a reasonable, convenient method that would not be a problem for women whose name changed due to marriage or for people whose birth certificate is not conveniently available.
Go take a flying fuck, dickhead, you fucking pervert fascist fantasizing over children’s genitals. Fuck you
DeleteHow about being more likely to favor the bill if you knew that it would correct a problem? Because try as they may to perpetuate the theme that voter fraud is a serious issue in our elections, Republicans have never provided any evidence of such. So it can be reasonably assumed that this phoney issue is being perpetuated by Republicans for an end that has nothing to do with their stated purpose. And that is to disenfranchise legitimate voters.
DeleteDems - it is not that hard to explain that many millions of married women and adopted people would be screwed by the Save Act. Only sounds good if you don't understand the mechanics. Nearly all of us now have to have locally accepted IDs to vote. Many of these would not pass the Save Act requirements. i.e. If you don't have a Real ID license you can't vote unless you have something like a passport. Getting a Real ID can be very difficult for married women and adopted folks with name changes. People support as it sounds good when you don't know the details, or if you a a weirdo cultist fascist wrong about everything like David in Cal.
ReplyDeleteI know what’s in the SAVE Act! In fact I wrote a whole blog post about it:
ReplyDeletehttps://thepaulstory.wordpress.com/2026/03/10/lets-save-voting/
Here's a part of the bill that isn't mentioned enough:
ReplyDeleteThe SAVE America Act also calls for states to remove noncitizens from their voter rolls as soon as officials are notified of it. And within 30 days of the bill's passage, states would be forced to submit their voter rolls to the Department of Homeland Security, which would review the records for noncitizens.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2026/03/17/whats-in-the-save-act/89192065007/