How likely for save act to pass senate?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This seems like a massive own goal by the GOP. Think about it: which demographics are more likely to have passports/other forms of proof valid under this act?

- Naturalized citizens: more likely to vote Democratic
- Wealthy people who travel frequently: more likely to vote Democratic
- Young, unmarried women: one of the most Democratic-leaning demographics
- Married women who kept their maiden name: Very Democratic leaning.

On the other hand, let's think about the type of people who may not have the required ID:

- People from rural areas who rarely, if ever, leave the USA: likely a heavily Republican-leaning demographic
- Married women who change their last name: probably more Republican-leaning than their counterparts who kept their maiden names (think "tradwives")

The Democrats should still oppose this act on principle, but it would be really funny if it passes and immediately boosts Democratic chances immensely

If you think the SAVE Act would be enforced the same in white rural areas from multicultural urban areas....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, so most people register to vote at age 18. I guess they’ll need a passport or certified birth certificate. People aren’t married at age 18, mostly (I do know exceptions).

To vote during election, this person would then need to show a drivers permit, or license, or a passport/card. If they married after registering to vote, they’d need to show updated photo id or the marriage record.

If they divorce, they’d need to show updated photo id or court order showing name change.

What’s the issue?

The issue is that the United States does not have a voter fraud problem.

Then what’s the issue? If there’s no fraud, requiring ID won’t change anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, so most people register to vote at age 18. I guess they’ll need a passport or certified birth certificate. People aren’t married at age 18, mostly (I do know exceptions).

To vote during election, this person would then need to show a drivers permit, or license, or a passport/card. If they married after registering to vote, they’d need to show updated photo id or the marriage record.

If they divorce, they’d need to show updated photo id or court order showing name change.

What’s the issue?

The issue is that the United States does not have a voter fraud problem.

Then what’s the issue? If there’s no fraud, requiring ID won’t change anything.

Read this thread. The issue isn't the ID's, its the barriers to obtaining them. The GOP refuses to pass legislation to make it free for eligible people, so it becomes a poll tax. Poll taxes are illegal. Get it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, so most people register to vote at age 18. I guess they’ll need a passport or certified birth certificate. People aren’t married at age 18, mostly (I do know exceptions).

To vote during election, this person would then need to show a drivers permit, or license, or a passport/card. If they married after registering to vote, they’d need to show updated photo id or the marriage record.

If they divorce, they’d need to show updated photo id or court order showing name change.

What’s the issue?

The issue is that the United States does not have a voter fraud problem.

Then what’s the issue? If there’s no fraud, requiring ID won’t change anything.

The issue is that it is an infringement on states’ rights. The federal government has no constitutional role in qualifying voters. None.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, so most people register to vote at age 18. I guess they’ll need a passport or certified birth certificate. People aren’t married at age 18, mostly (I do know exceptions).

To vote during election, this person would then need to show a drivers permit, or license, or a passport/card. If they married after registering to vote, they’d need to show updated photo id or the marriage record.

If they divorce, they’d need to show updated photo id or court order showing name change.

What’s the issue?

The issue is that the United States does not have a voter fraud problem.

Then what’s the issue? If there’s no fraud, requiring ID won’t change anything.

The issue is that it is an infringement on states’ rights. The federal government has no constitutional role in qualifying voters. None.

The federal government does have some role, which certain southern states found out the hard way during the 1960s.

[Anonymous]

there is no way in hell it does not pass.

GOP knows they can not leave office.

Thank you MAGA welcome to the USSR and North Korea

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:there is no way in hell it does not pass.

GOP knows they can not leave office.

Thank you MAGA welcome to the USSR and North Korea

It only passes if the senate breaks the 60 vote rule.

[Anonymous]

It passes and immediately goes to court where it will be challenged and may well either be shot down or delayed before the Republicans can use it to cheat their way through the midterms.

[Anonymous]

I’ve been saying for months that Trump will arrest election workers to try to throw elections. This law gives a mechanism for arresting election workers.

I don’t think it will pass in the senate, and it won’t succeed in court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All available data, investigations and studies show that we DO NOT have any kind of serious or meaningful non-citizen voting fraud.

So why then is passing a bill to "fix" a non-issue the top GOP priority rather than affordability or other things that are actually hurting Americans?

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, so most people register to vote at age 18. I guess they’ll need a passport or certified birth certificate. People aren’t married at age 18, mostly (I do know exceptions).

To vote during election, this person would then need to show a drivers permit, or license, or a passport/card. If they married after registering to vote, they’d need to show updated photo id or the marriage record.

If they divorce, they’d need to show updated photo id or court order showing name change.

What’s the issue?

The issue is that the United States does not have a voter fraud problem.

Then what’s the issue? If there’s no fraud, requiring ID won’t change anything.

It's poor public policy to legislate on something that won't change as a result of the legislation. It also involves costs, whether to individuals, local election staff, federal oversight. It is a pointless expansion of government which is inherently wasteful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All available data, investigations and studies show that we DO NOT have any kind of serious or meaningful non-citizen voting fraud.

So why then is passing a bill to "fix" a non-issue the top GOP priority rather than affordability or other things that are actually hurting Americans?

+1

I'm far from right wing and used to view Cato with suspicion but these days I love that they are showing some integrity and bringing receipts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It passes and immediately goes to court where it will be challenged and may well either be shot down or delayed before the Republicans can use it to cheat their way through the midterms.

It only passes if the GOP decides to break the filibuster. I don't think that is going to happen, because there would be a lot of pressure on the GOP to then rubber stamp a lot of Trump's BS, which people like Murkowski don't want to do. It would also open the door for the Dems to pass all sorts of stuff if they ever get back into power.

[Anonymous]

That it may not pass shows how out of touch democrats still are

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That it may not pass shows how out of touch democrats still are

Keep thinking that. Elections the last 12 months are going so well for the gop.

So well.