How likely for save act to pass senate?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What you're also asking for is that one state accept the results of another state's votes in a national election. So pass the Save Act.

No more excuses.

It's been working fine for 250 years. Literally only Trump and his MAGA cult followers have an issue with this.

No, it hasn't been working fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:71% of democrats and 95% of republicans approve of requiring to show ID to vote.

https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=929320492989042&id=100077332989811


As usual, DCUM is on the 20% side of an 80/20 issue.

As usual that’s not what Republicans actually want to impose with the SAVE Act, but thanks for demonstrating your cherry-picking skills.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The SAVE Act is predicated on the false belief promoted by the GOP that elections are being stolen by Dems because they have illegals voting in large numbers to swing elections blue.

Except, that's completely false. Study after study shows that the numbers of illegals proven to have voted in elections are astronomically small, nowhere near enough to swing an election.

So - passing the SAVE Act doesn't actually help Republicans from that perspective.

Will it disenfranchise legitimate, legal voters? Very likely yes. But what happens then? Likely lawsuits to hold up implementation, or legal challenges for voters purged from rolls, or challenges around provisional ballots - and longterm I don't see how Republicans come out on top there either.

Serious question to Republicans - WHY are you so heavily invested in the SAVE Act when it's probably ultimately still going to fail you?

Why are you so invested in background checks for firearms purchases that are actually implemented and not just nice words in law that never are followed?

You're either naive and uninformed or dishonest. When you say "actually implemented" it's implemented with holes so big you could float the USS Abraham Lincoln through them.

The core weakness in America’s background‑check system is that it was never designed to cover the full universe of gun transfers. Federal law only requires checks for sales by licensed dealers, leaving a massive parallel market: private sales, gun‑show transactions, online listings, and informal person‑to‑person transfers, where no check is required at all. That gap is not theoretical: a large national survey found that 45% of people who bought a gun online in the previous two years did so with no background check, meaning millions of firearms move through channels where prohibited buyers can shop freely. This loophole is so large that only 19 states and D.C. have closed it with universal background‑check laws; everywhere else, a buyer who would fail a check at a gun store can simply walk around the system and buy privately.

And even when a background check is performed, the system is built on incomplete, inconsistent, and often outdated records. The federal NICS database depends on states voluntarily submitting criminal, mental‑health, and domestic‑violence records, and the quality of those submissions varies dramatically. Domestic‑violence cases are especially prone to falling through the cracks: restraining orders, misdemeanor domestic‑violence convictions, and related court records are often missing or delayed, even though they are supposed to disqualify a buyer. Mental‑health disqualifications are even narrower - only certain adjudications or involuntary commitments count, meaning that people with documented histories of violence, threats, or severe instability often remain legally eligible to buy guns because their records never meet the technical threshold for reporting. The system screens for a tiny subset of mental‑health‑related risks, not the broader reality of dangerous behavior.

The result is a background‑check regime that looks strict on paper but is porous in practice. It blocks some prohibited buyers at licensed dealers, but it leaves open a vast unregulated market, relies on incomplete state reporting, and fails to capture many of the behavioral red flags: domestic abuse patterns, escalating threats, violent outbursts, untreated crises - red flags that correlate most strongly with gun violence. Policymakers have begun tightening rules around private sales and trafficking, but the underlying structure still allows guns to flow easily to people who would never pass a check in a fully functional system.

Sorry but you walked right into that one and it blew up on you.

Oh. You don't like incomplete and outdated records? Why?

But slipshod voter rolls are OK?

I see nothing in the Constitution about background checks to keep and bear arms. Do you?

I do see in the Constitution qualifiers such as being over 18 and being a citizen to vote.

Policymakers mean nothing. The Constitution is the highest law in the land and is not to be abrogated by statutes, US Code, state laws, or policy created by bureaucrats.

What did you walk into, pal?

You mean the constitution that says the STATES administer elections, not the federal government? You mean the Constitution that bars a sitting president from accepting emuluments from other countries? You mean the Constitution that has amendments that gaurantee free speech, which doesn't mean the state can arrest you for blowing a whistle?

Please, go on about the Constitution.

I mean that the Constitution specifies you must be 18 to vote in a national election and states have an obligation to follow that through positive verification. See the Supremacy Clause.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What you're also asking for is that one state accept the results of another state's votes in a national election. So pass the Save Act.

No more excuses.

It's been working fine for 250 years. Literally only Trump and his MAGA cult followers have an issue with this.

No, it hasn't been working fine.

Oh, can you show us an example where immigrants voted illegally in numbers that would even remotely affect the outcome of an election. Just one example. Since the problem is SO widespread according to you, it should be very easy for you to demonstrate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:71% of democrats and 95% of republicans approve of requiring to show ID to vote.

https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=929320492989042&id=100077332989811


As usual, DCUM is on the 20% side of an 80/20 issue.

Again, that poll doesn't show the caveat that the government has to make the ID's free. Why does the GOP oppose that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The SAVE Act is predicated on the false belief promoted by the GOP that elections are being stolen by Dems because they have illegals voting in large numbers to swing elections blue.

Except, that's completely false. Study after study shows that the numbers of illegals proven to have voted in elections are astronomically small, nowhere near enough to swing an election.

So - passing the SAVE Act doesn't actually help Republicans from that perspective.

Will it disenfranchise legitimate, legal voters? Very likely yes. But what happens then? Likely lawsuits to hold up implementation, or legal challenges for voters purged from rolls, or challenges around provisional ballots - and longterm I don't see how Republicans come out on top there either.

Serious question to Republicans - WHY are you so heavily invested in the SAVE Act when it's probably ultimately still going to fail you?

Why are you so invested in background checks for firearms purchases that are actually implemented and not just nice words in law that never are followed?

You're either naive and uninformed or dishonest. When you say "actually implemented" it's implemented with holes so big you could float the USS Abraham Lincoln through them.

The core weakness in America’s background‑check system is that it was never designed to cover the full universe of gun transfers. Federal law only requires checks for sales by licensed dealers, leaving a massive parallel market: private sales, gun‑show transactions, online listings, and informal person‑to‑person transfers, where no check is required at all. That gap is not theoretical: a large national survey found that 45% of people who bought a gun online in the previous two years did so with no background check, meaning millions of firearms move through channels where prohibited buyers can shop freely. This loophole is so large that only 19 states and D.C. have closed it with universal background‑check laws; everywhere else, a buyer who would fail a check at a gun store can simply walk around the system and buy privately.

And even when a background check is performed, the system is built on incomplete, inconsistent, and often outdated records. The federal NICS database depends on states voluntarily submitting criminal, mental‑health, and domestic‑violence records, and the quality of those submissions varies dramatically. Domestic‑violence cases are especially prone to falling through the cracks: restraining orders, misdemeanor domestic‑violence convictions, and related court records are often missing or delayed, even though they are supposed to disqualify a buyer. Mental‑health disqualifications are even narrower - only certain adjudications or involuntary commitments count, meaning that people with documented histories of violence, threats, or severe instability often remain legally eligible to buy guns because their records never meet the technical threshold for reporting. The system screens for a tiny subset of mental‑health‑related risks, not the broader reality of dangerous behavior.

The result is a background‑check regime that looks strict on paper but is porous in practice. It blocks some prohibited buyers at licensed dealers, but it leaves open a vast unregulated market, relies on incomplete state reporting, and fails to capture many of the behavioral red flags: domestic abuse patterns, escalating threats, violent outbursts, untreated crises - red flags that correlate most strongly with gun violence. Policymakers have begun tightening rules around private sales and trafficking, but the underlying structure still allows guns to flow easily to people who would never pass a check in a fully functional system.

Sorry but you walked right into that one and it blew up on you.

Oh. You don't like incomplete and outdated records? Why?

But slipshod voter rolls are OK?

I see nothing in the Constitution about background checks to keep and bear arms. Do you?

I do see in the Constitution qualifiers such as being over 18 and being a citizen to vote.

Policymakers mean nothing. The Constitution is the highest law in the land and is not to be abrogated by statutes, US Code, state laws, or policy created by bureaucrats.

What did you walk into, pal?

You mean the constitution that says the STATES administer elections, not the federal government? You mean the Constitution that bars a sitting president from accepting emuluments from other countries? You mean the Constitution that has amendments that gaurantee free speech, which doesn't mean the state can arrest you for blowing a whistle?

Please, go on about the Constitution.

I mean that the Constitution specifies you must be 18 to vote in a national election and states have an obligation to follow that through positive verification. See the Supremacy Clause.

please show where people under 18 are voting in federal elections.

(hint: they aren't)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What you're also asking for is that one state accept the results of another state's votes in a national election. So pass the Save Act.

No more excuses.

It's been working fine for 250 years. Literally only Trump and his MAGA cult followers have an issue with this.

No, it hasn't been working fine.

Yes, it has. There is no proof that undocumented people are voting in any numbers that would sway an election. In fact, most of the voter fraud that is documented has been by republicans. See Meadows, Mark as a prime example.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The SAVE Act is predicated on the false belief promoted by the GOP that elections are being stolen by Dems because they have illegals voting in large numbers to swing elections blue.

Except, that's completely false. Study after study shows that the numbers of illegals proven to have voted in elections are astronomically small, nowhere near enough to swing an election.

So - passing the SAVE Act doesn't actually help Republicans from that perspective.

Will it disenfranchise legitimate, legal voters? Very likely yes. But what happens then? Likely lawsuits to hold up implementation, or legal challenges for voters purged from rolls, or challenges around provisional ballots - and longterm I don't see how Republicans come out on top there either.

Serious question to Republicans - WHY are you so heavily invested in the SAVE Act when it's probably ultimately still going to fail you?

Why are you so invested in background checks for firearms purchases that are actually implemented and not just nice words in law that never are followed?

You're either naive and uninformed or dishonest. When you say "actually implemented" it's implemented with holes so big you could float the USS Abraham Lincoln through them.

The core weakness in America’s background‑check system is that it was never designed to cover the full universe of gun transfers. Federal law only requires checks for sales by licensed dealers, leaving a massive parallel market: private sales, gun‑show transactions, online listings, and informal person‑to‑person transfers, where no check is required at all. That gap is not theoretical: a large national survey found that 45% of people who bought a gun online in the previous two years did so with no background check, meaning millions of firearms move through channels where prohibited buyers can shop freely. This loophole is so large that only 19 states and D.C. have closed it with universal background‑check laws; everywhere else, a buyer who would fail a check at a gun store can simply walk around the system and buy privately.

And even when a background check is performed, the system is built on incomplete, inconsistent, and often outdated records. The federal NICS database depends on states voluntarily submitting criminal, mental‑health, and domestic‑violence records, and the quality of those submissions varies dramatically. Domestic‑violence cases are especially prone to falling through the cracks: restraining orders, misdemeanor domestic‑violence convictions, and related court records are often missing or delayed, even though they are supposed to disqualify a buyer. Mental‑health disqualifications are even narrower - only certain adjudications or involuntary commitments count, meaning that people with documented histories of violence, threats, or severe instability often remain legally eligible to buy guns because their records never meet the technical threshold for reporting. The system screens for a tiny subset of mental‑health‑related risks, not the broader reality of dangerous behavior.

The result is a background‑check regime that looks strict on paper but is porous in practice. It blocks some prohibited buyers at licensed dealers, but it leaves open a vast unregulated market, relies on incomplete state reporting, and fails to capture many of the behavioral red flags: domestic abuse patterns, escalating threats, violent outbursts, untreated crises - red flags that correlate most strongly with gun violence. Policymakers have begun tightening rules around private sales and trafficking, but the underlying structure still allows guns to flow easily to people who would never pass a check in a fully functional system.

Sorry but you walked right into that one and it blew up on you.

Oh. You don't like incomplete and outdated records? Why?

But slipshod voter rolls are OK?

I see nothing in the Constitution about background checks to keep and bear arms. Do you?

I do see in the Constitution qualifiers such as being over 18 and being a citizen to vote.

Policymakers mean nothing. The Constitution is the highest law in the land and is not to be abrogated by statutes, US Code, state laws, or policy created by bureaucrats.

What did you walk into, pal?

Which part of the constitution says you can only vote if you have a hundred-dollar passport or special type of driver’s license only available in five states?

REAL ID is available in all 50 states.

REAL ID does not suffice for 45 states. In those 45 states, it DOES NOT SHOW CITIZENSHIP. Only in Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Vermont and Washington will a REAL ID suffice and only then if you have paid the additional 30 dollars to get the "enhanced" version.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I changed my last name but have a passport. I’m registered to vote in PA. My sister thinks it will definitely pass and screw over all married women who changed names. I think she’s jumping the gun along with a lot people apparently on social media. Why isn’t anyone talking about this on dcum?

it will 100% screw over women who have changed names...that is part of the point.

I’m sure it’s in project 2025 or heritage documents somewhere.

This is a ludicrous claim. I took my husband’s name and have NEVER had an issue voting in states where photo ID is required. Same with all my friends.
You all are going to have to find an excuse that is not this lame.

It is not. Read the SAVE Act, it is very explicit that the birth certificate MUST match the ID, so if you were born Mary Jones but are now Mary Smith due to marriage, then you are not in compliance.

You have a marriage certificate that shows your change in name. This is not complicated.

Meanwhile, we have many states where all you have to do is check a box that says you are a US citizen. You think that is secure? It's not. There have been many instances of illegal aliens voting or registering to vote. There are other states where anyone who gets a driver's license has a voting ballot mailed to them automatically. Ironically, some of these states also permit illegal aliens to get a driver's license.

Here are just a few of the articles written about noncitizens voting. There are plenty more like this.....

https://www.justice.gov/usao-nj/pr/aliens-charged-illegally-voting-federal-election-and-making-false-statements-while
https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/19-foreign-nationals-indicted-illegally-voting-2016-elections
https://tennesseelookout.com/2025/11/03/tn-secretary-of-state-finds-42-possible-non-citizen-voters-out-states-4-3-million-voters/
https://www.opb.org/article/2024/09/23/voter-registration-noncitizen-oregon-motor-voter/
https://www.mlive.com/politics/2026/01/michigan-voter-fraud-probe-finds-noncitizen-voted-us-citizens-wrongly-flagged.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I changed my last name but have a passport. I’m registered to vote in PA. My sister thinks it will definitely pass and screw over all married women who changed names. I think she’s jumping the gun along with a lot people apparently on social media. Why isn’t anyone talking about this on dcum?

it will 100% screw over women who have changed names...that is part of the point.

I’m sure it’s in project 2025 or heritage documents somewhere.

This is a ludicrous claim. I took my husband’s name and have NEVER had an issue voting in states where photo ID is required. Same with all my friends.
You all are going to have to find an excuse that is not this lame.

It is not. Read the SAVE Act, it is very explicit that the birth certificate MUST match the ID, so if you were born Mary Jones but are now Mary Smith due to marriage, then you are not in compliance.

You have a marriage certificate that shows your change in name. This is not complicated.

Meanwhile, we have many states where all you have to do is check a box that says you are a US citizen. You think that is secure? It's not. There have been many instances of illegal aliens voting or registering to vote. There are other states where anyone who gets a driver's license has a voting ballot mailed to them automatically. Ironically, some of these states also permit illegal aliens to get a driver's license.

Here are just a few of the articles written about noncitizens voting. There are plenty more like this.....

https://www.justice.gov/usao-nj/pr/aliens-charged-illegally-voting-federal-election-and-making-false-statements-while
https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/19-foreign-nationals-indicted-illegally-voting-2016-elections
https://tennesseelookout.com/2025/11/03/tn-secretary-of-state-finds-42-possible-non-citizen-voters-out-states-4-3-million-voters/
https://www.opb.org/article/2024/09/23/voter-registration-noncitizen-oregon-motor-voter/
https://www.mlive.com/politics/2026/01/michigan-voter-fraud-probe-finds-noncitizen-voted-us-citizens-wrongly-flagged.html

Wow! All those links covering years and years of elections all around the country, and the total number of non-citizens who voted… is under 100. And over 40 of them were only “potential” cases. And all the articles point out how there was zero impact on the outcome of any election.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I changed my last name but have a passport. I’m registered to vote in PA. My sister thinks it will definitely pass and screw over all married women who changed names. I think she’s jumping the gun along with a lot people apparently on social media. Why isn’t anyone talking about this on dcum?

it will 100% screw over women who have changed names...that is part of the point.

I’m sure it’s in project 2025 or heritage documents somewhere.

This is a ludicrous claim. I took my husband’s name and have NEVER had an issue voting in states where photo ID is required. Same with all my friends.
You all are going to have to find an excuse that is not this lame.

It is not. Read the SAVE Act, it is very explicit that the birth certificate MUST match the ID, so if you were born Mary Jones but are now Mary Smith due to marriage, then you are not in compliance.

You have a marriage certificate that shows your change in name. This is not complicated.

Meanwhile, we have many states where all you have to do is check a box that says you are a US citizen. You think that is secure? It's not. There have been many instances of illegal aliens voting or registering to vote. There are other states where anyone who gets a driver's license has a voting ballot mailed to them automatically. Ironically, some of these states also permit illegal aliens to get a driver's license.

Here are just a few of the articles written about noncitizens voting. There are plenty more like this.....

https://www.justice.gov/usao-nj/pr/aliens-charged-illegally-voting-federal-election-and-making-false-statements-while
https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/19-foreign-nationals-indicted-illegally-voting-2016-elections
https://tennesseelookout.com/2025/11/03/tn-secretary-of-state-finds-42-possible-non-citizen-voters-out-states-4-3-million-voters/
https://www.opb.org/article/2024/09/23/voter-registration-noncitizen-oregon-motor-voter/
https://www.mlive.com/politics/2026/01/michigan-voter-fraud-probe-finds-noncitizen-voted-us-citizens-wrongly-flagged.html

The Act itself has no provision to use a marriage certificate as a bridge between a birth certificate and a driver's license. It is merely anticipated that it iwll be acceptable. Moreover, a copy of your birth certificate is not sufficient. It must be an authenticated copy. Presumably, a marriage certificate will also need to be authenticated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What you're also asking for is that one state accept the results of another state's votes in a national election. So pass the Save Act.

No more excuses.

It's been working fine for 250 years. Literally only Trump and his MAGA cult followers have an issue with this.

No, it hasn't been working fine.

Yes, it has. There is no proof that undocumented people are voting in any numbers that would sway an election. In fact, most of the voter fraud that is documented has been by republicans. See Meadows, Mark as a prime example.

That excuse is crap. If ONE noncitizen votes in our elections, that is one too many.
I will remind you that 10 years ago, a race in VA was decided by drawing a name out of a hat because the election ended in a tie.
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/366050-tied-virginia-election-proves-every-vote-actually-does-count/amp/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I changed my last name but have a passport. I’m registered to vote in PA. My sister thinks it will definitely pass and screw over all married women who changed names. I think she’s jumping the gun along with a lot people apparently on social media. Why isn’t anyone talking about this on dcum?

it will 100% screw over women who have changed names...that is part of the point.

I’m sure it’s in project 2025 or heritage documents somewhere.

This is a ludicrous claim. I took my husband’s name and have NEVER had an issue voting in states where photo ID is required. Same with all my friends.
You all are going to have to find an excuse that is not this lame.

It is not. Read the SAVE Act, it is very explicit that the birth certificate MUST match the ID, so if you were born Mary Jones but are now Mary Smith due to marriage, then you are not in compliance.

You have a marriage certificate that shows your change in name. This is not complicated.

Meanwhile, we have many states where all you have to do is check a box that says you are a US citizen. You think that is secure? It's not. There have been many instances of illegal aliens voting or registering to vote. There are other states where anyone who gets a driver's license has a voting ballot mailed to them automatically. Ironically, some of these states also permit illegal aliens to get a driver's license.

Here are just a few of the articles written about noncitizens voting. There are plenty more like this.....

https://www.justice.gov/usao-nj/pr/aliens-charged-illegally-voting-federal-election-and-making-false-statements-while
https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/19-foreign-nationals-indicted-illegally-voting-2016-elections
https://tennesseelookout.com/2025/11/03/tn-secretary-of-state-finds-42-possible-non-citizen-voters-out-states-4-3-million-voters/
https://www.opb.org/article/2024/09/23/voter-registration-noncitizen-oregon-motor-voter/
https://www.mlive.com/politics/2026/01/michigan-voter-fraud-probe-finds-noncitizen-voted-us-citizens-wrongly-flagged.html

Your New Jersey article mentions two people.
Your ICE article mentions 19 people in North Carolina.
Your Tennesse article mentions 42 "potential non-US citizens" out of a total of 4.3 million voters.
Your Oregon article mentions that 10 people who were improperly registered went on to vote (and one of those had become a citizen before voting). The issue there was due to poorly designed software that has now been fixed.
Your Michigan article mentions one noncitizen who voted in 2018.

Does voter fraud happen? Sure, but in very small numbers. You can bet that in any election close enough for such a margin to matter the recount process will verify the citizenship status of each voter.

Fraud also happens when people vote in states where they don't actually live (like Mark Meadows). Does the SAVE act address that situation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I changed my last name but have a passport. I’m registered to vote in PA. My sister thinks it will definitely pass and screw over all married women who changed names. I think she’s jumping the gun along with a lot people apparently on social media. Why isn’t anyone talking about this on dcum?

it will 100% screw over women who have changed names...that is part of the point.

I’m sure it’s in project 2025 or heritage documents somewhere.

This is a ludicrous claim. I took my husband’s name and have NEVER had an issue voting in states where photo ID is required. Same with all my friends.
You all are going to have to find an excuse that is not this lame.

It is not. Read the SAVE Act, it is very explicit that the birth certificate MUST match the ID, so if you were born Mary Jones but are now Mary Smith due to marriage, then you are not in compliance.

You have a marriage certificate that shows your change in name. This is not complicated.

Meanwhile, we have many states where all you have to do is check a box that says you are a US citizen. You think that is secure? It's not. There have been many instances of illegal aliens voting or registering to vote. There are other states where anyone who gets a driver's license has a voting ballot mailed to them automatically. Ironically, some of these states also permit illegal aliens to get a driver's license.

Here are just a few of the articles written about noncitizens voting. There are plenty more like this.....

https://www.justice.gov/usao-nj/pr/aliens-charged-illegally-voting-federal-election-and-making-false-statements-while
https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/19-foreign-nationals-indicted-illegally-voting-2016-elections
https://tennesseelookout.com/2025/11/03/tn-secretary-of-state-finds-42-possible-non-citizen-voters-out-states-4-3-million-voters/
https://www.opb.org/article/2024/09/23/voter-registration-noncitizen-oregon-motor-voter/
https://www.mlive.com/politics/2026/01/michigan-voter-fraud-probe-finds-noncitizen-voted-us-citizens-wrongly-flagged.html

I have been married more than 25 years. We do not live in the state where we were married. I have NO idea where our license is. Get real, this is a huge burden to try to fill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What you're also asking for is that one state accept the results of another state's votes in a national election. So pass the Save Act.

No more excuses.

It's been working fine for 250 years. Literally only Trump and his MAGA cult followers have an issue with this.

No, it hasn't been working fine.

Yes, it has. There is no proof that undocumented people are voting in any numbers that would sway an election. In fact, most of the voter fraud that is documented has been by republicans. See Meadows, Mark as a prime example.

That excuse is crap. If ONE noncitizen votes in our elections, that is one too many.
I will remind you that 10 years ago, a race in VA was decided by drawing a name out of a hat because the election ended in a tie.
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/366050-tied-virginia-election-proves-every-vote-actually-does-count/amp/

What about republicans who have been caught voting in multiple states during the same election cycle. Are you upset about that? Because that happens more often than what you are expressing outrage over.