How likely for save act to pass senate?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And so how does the SAVE act protect us from the proven cases of fraud like the one posted above? He would still have had his IDs when he voted illegally.

That is why you need to prove citizenship to register. That is what the SAVE Act is about.

You’re not answering the question. How does SAVE protect us from proven voter fraud like the below:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/georgia-republican-party-official-voted-illegally-nine-judge-rules-rcna145563

If you are saying this is your answer to voter fraud…why doesn’t it address voter fraud?

This is already a law.

It’s also already a law that only U.S. citizens can vote.

But not enforced in many places.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And so how does the SAVE act protect us from the proven cases of fraud like the one posted above? He would still have had his IDs when he voted illegally.

That is why you need to prove citizenship to register. That is what the SAVE Act is about.

You’re not answering the question. How does SAVE protect us from proven voter fraud like the below:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/georgia-republican-party-official-voted-illegally-nine-judge-rules-rcna145563

If you are saying this is your answer to voter fraud…why doesn’t it address voter fraud?

This is already a law.

It’s also already a law that only U.S. citizens can vote.

But not enforced in many places.

This is a lie. Why are you lying? What are these places that are not enforcing that only US Citizens vote in US federal elections? I would like to see the proof on this. Be specific.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And so how does the SAVE act protect us from the proven cases of fraud like the one posted above? He would still have had his IDs when he voted illegally.

That is why you need to prove citizenship to register. That is what the SAVE Act is about.

You’re not answering the question. How does SAVE protect us from proven voter fraud like the below:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/georgia-republican-party-official-voted-illegally-nine-judge-rules-rcna145563

If you are saying this is your answer to voter fraud…why doesn’t it address voter fraud?

This is already a law.

It’s also already a law that only U.S. citizens can vote.

But not enforced in many places.

This is a lie. Why are you lying? What are these places that are not enforcing that only US Citizens vote in US federal elections? I would like to see the proof on this. Be specific.

They’re still saying illegals are voting in places that require proof of citizenship to vote.

They don’t care about facts. They don’t think for themselves. They just parrot the outrage of the day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And so how does the SAVE act protect us from the proven cases of fraud like the one posted above? He would still have had his IDs when he voted illegally.

That is why you need to prove citizenship to register. That is what the SAVE Act is about.

You’re not answering the question. How does SAVE protect us from proven voter fraud like the below:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/georgia-republican-party-official-voted-illegally-nine-judge-rules-rcna145563

If you are saying this is your answer to voter fraud…why doesn’t it address voter fraud?

This is already a law.

It’s also already a law that only U.S. citizens can vote.

But not enforced in many places.

This is a lie. Why are you lying? What are these places that are not enforcing that only US Citizens vote in US federal elections? I would like to see the proof on this. Be specific.

If you don't check it, it can be abused. In Virginia, there is a little box at the top of the application where you can self-certify.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women that marry get the form to change your voters registration when you have a name change and also change your ID at the same time.

You change your drivers license and passport at the same time so all of your ID's match.

That doesn’t change the name on your birth certificate. If you do not have a passport, the SAVE Act would require you to show a drivers license and a birth certificate to register to vote. If the name on the birth certificate doesn’t match the drivers license (like because you got married), it’s a problem according to the law.

Just keep your name. You can answer to whatever name you want whenever you want, but officially just keep your own name.

Ever heard of a marriage certificate?
This is not hard.

Then make men present their marriage verification if their wives changed their names so men can vote

+1. Putting in measures that disproportionately disenfranchise only women is discriminatory.

I don’t think disparate impact is sufficient, must also show discriminatory purpose/intent. Also remember that any challenged could end up st Supreme Court and, today’s win regarding tariffs excepted, they have not been very amenable to complaints of discrimination these days!

This is one of the most ridiculous claims ever on DCUM. This is NOT going to disenfranchise women. It has been debunked countless times on this thread, but it does not fit your story board.

Women are NOT that dumb--except for the ones who want to believe this is what the SAVE act does.

Please point to exactly where it was “debunked.”

1. Birth certificate
2. Marriage Certificate

Do you think women do not work or have a Social Security card? Guess what you need to change your name?
And, if you don't change your name, there is no need for the marriage certificate.

You really think women are not smart enough to present their documents?

“Marriage certificates aren’t listed in either the original bill or the amended bill as an accepted form of additional documentation if you don’t have a passport.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/hollycorbett/2026/02/13/how-the-save-america-act-could-block-millions-of-eligible-voters/

What do you think additional documentation means? Also, some people legally change their names for other reasons--in which case, they would have legal documents.

Here is actual wording from SAVE ACT. "Additional documentation" can be accepted.

PROCESS IN CASE OF CERTAIN DISCREPANCIES IN DOCUMENTATION.—Subject to any relevant guidance adopted by the Election Assistance Commission, each State shall establish a process under which an applicant can provide such additional documentation to the appropriate election official of the State as may be necessary to establish that the applicant is a citizen of the United States in the event of a discrepancy with respect to the applicant’s documentary proof of United States citizenship.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women that marry get the form to change your voters registration when you have a name change and also change your ID at the same time.

You change your drivers license and passport at the same time so all of your ID's match.

That doesn’t change the name on your birth certificate. If you do not have a passport, the SAVE Act would require you to show a drivers license and a birth certificate to register to vote. If the name on the birth certificate doesn’t match the drivers license (like because you got married), it’s a problem according to the law.

Just keep your name. You can answer to whatever name you want whenever you want, but officially just keep your own name.

Ever heard of a marriage certificate?
This is not hard.

Then make men present their marriage verification if their wives changed their names so men can vote

+1. Putting in measures that disproportionately disenfranchise only women is discriminatory.

I don’t think disparate impact is sufficient, must also show discriminatory purpose/intent. Also remember that any challenged could end up st Supreme Court and, today’s win regarding tariffs excepted, they have not been very amenable to complaints of discrimination these days!

This is one of the most ridiculous claims ever on DCUM. This is NOT going to disenfranchise women. It has been debunked countless times on this thread, but it does not fit your story board.

Women are NOT that dumb--except for the ones who want to believe this is what the SAVE act does.

Please point to exactly where it was “debunked.”

1. Birth certificate
2. Marriage Certificate

Do you think women do not work or have a Social Security card? Guess what you need to change your name?
And, if you don't change your name, there is no need for the marriage certificate.

You really think women are not smart enough to present their documents?

“Marriage certificates aren’t listed in either the original bill or the amended bill as an accepted form of additional documentation if you don’t have a passport.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/hollycorbett/2026/02/13/how-the-save-america-act-could-block-millions-of-eligible-voters/

What do you think additional documentation means? Also, some people legally change their names for other reasons--in which case, they would have legal documents.

Here is actual wording from SAVE ACT. "Additional documentation" can be accepted.

PROCESS IN CASE OF CERTAIN DISCREPANCIES IN DOCUMENTATION.—Subject to any relevant guidance adopted by the Election Assistance Commission, each State shall establish a process under which an applicant can provide such additional documentation to the appropriate election official of the State as may be necessary to establish that the applicant is a citizen of the United States in the event of a discrepancy with respect to the applicant’s documentary proof of United States citizenship.

This is meaningless until such guidance is issued.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And so how does the SAVE act protect us from the proven cases of fraud like the one posted above? He would still have had his IDs when he voted illegally.

That is why you need to prove citizenship to register. That is what the SAVE Act is about.

You’re not answering the question. How does SAVE protect us from proven voter fraud like the below:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/georgia-republican-party-official-voted-illegally-nine-judge-rules-rcna145563

If you are saying this is your answer to voter fraud…why doesn’t it address voter fraud?

This is already a law.

It’s also already a law that only U.S. citizens can vote.

But not enforced in many places.

This is a lie. Why are you lying? What are these places that are not enforcing that only US Citizens vote in US federal elections? I would like to see the proof on this. Be specific.

If you don't check it, it can be abused. In Virginia, there is a little box at the top of the application where you can self-certify.

Oh good, then I can "self-certify" to buy a firearm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And so how does the SAVE act protect us from the proven cases of fraud like the one posted above? He would still have had his IDs when he voted illegally.

That is why you need to prove citizenship to register. That is what the SAVE Act is about.

You’re not answering the question. How does SAVE protect us from proven voter fraud like the below:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/georgia-republican-party-official-voted-illegally-nine-judge-rules-rcna145563

If you are saying this is your answer to voter fraud…why doesn’t it address voter fraud?

This is already a law.

It’s also already a law that only U.S. citizens can vote.

But not enforced in many places.

If this were true you would have proven (meaning, convicted) voter fraud. What you have is allegations of voter fraud, and a bill that does nothing to address proven voter fraud.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women that marry get the form to change your voters registration when you have a name change and also change your ID at the same time.

You change your drivers license and passport at the same time so all of your ID's match.

That doesn’t change the name on your birth certificate. If you do not have a passport, the SAVE Act would require you to show a drivers license and a birth certificate to register to vote. If the name on the birth certificate doesn’t match the drivers license (like because you got married), it’s a problem according to the law.

Just keep your name. You can answer to whatever name you want whenever you want, but officially just keep your own name.

Ever heard of a marriage certificate?
This is not hard.

Then make men present their marriage verification if their wives changed their names so men can vote

+1. Putting in measures that disproportionately disenfranchise only women is discriminatory.

I don’t think disparate impact is sufficient, must also show discriminatory purpose/intent. Also remember that any challenged could end up st Supreme Court and, today’s win regarding tariffs excepted, they have not been very amenable to complaints of discrimination these days!

This is one of the most ridiculous claims ever on DCUM. This is NOT going to disenfranchise women. It has been debunked countless times on this thread, but it does not fit your story board.

Women are NOT that dumb--except for the ones who want to believe this is what the SAVE act does.

Please point to exactly where it was “debunked.”

1. Birth certificate
2. Marriage Certificate

Do you think women do not work or have a Social Security card? Guess what you need to change your name?
And, if you don't change your name, there is no need for the marriage certificate.

You really think women are not smart enough to present their documents?

“Marriage certificates aren’t listed in either the original bill or the amended bill as an accepted form of additional documentation if you don’t have a passport.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/hollycorbett/2026/02/13/how-the-save-america-act-could-block-millions-of-eligible-voters/

What do you think additional documentation means? Also, some people legally change their names for other reasons--in which case, they would have legal documents.

Here is actual wording from SAVE ACT. "Additional documentation" can be accepted.

PROCESS IN CASE OF CERTAIN DISCREPANCIES IN DOCUMENTATION.—Subject to any relevant guidance adopted by the Election Assistance Commission, each State shall establish a process under which an applicant can provide such additional documentation to the appropriate election official of the State as may be necessary to establish that the applicant is a citizen of the United States in the event of a discrepancy with respect to the applicant’s documentary proof of United States citizenship.

Nothing stopped the drafters of the bill from including marriage licenses in the list of acceptable documents, explicitly proving they weren’t trying to disenfranchise 70 million women. They chose not to.

[Anonymous]

From Vox:

""Their policy is so bad that the only way they can get elected is to cheat," Trump said on Tuesday night. "We're going to stop it. We have to stop it."

Think about that for a second. The is the president of the United States, speaking to the country in a ritualized national address, claiming that the opposition party is not only wrong on policy but fundamentally illegitimate, so much so that if they win an election it must be because they cheated.

Taken literally, that is the president announcing that the stated policy of his administration is preventing the opposition from winning any future election."

[Anonymous]

I still don't understand how the GOP won the white house and both houses of the congress with all this cheating by the Dems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I still don't understand how the GOP won the white house and both houses of the congress with all this cheating by the Dems.

2024 doesn't count as cheating, they say

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:From Vox:

""Their policy is so bad that the only way they can get elected is to cheat," Trump said on Tuesday night. "We're going to stop it. We have to stop it."

Think about that for a second. The is the president of the United States, speaking to the country in a ritualized national address, claiming that the opposition party is not only wrong on policy but fundamentally illegitimate, so much so that if they win an election it must be because they cheated.

Taken literally, that is the president announcing that the stated policy of his administration is preventing the opposition from winning any future election."

We know

There is nothing shocking to me about what he said. I just need the Democrats and "Independents" to realize it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And so how does the SAVE act protect us from the proven cases of fraud like the one posted above? He would still have had his IDs when he voted illegally.

That is why you need to prove citizenship to register. That is what the SAVE Act is about.

You’re not answering the question. How does SAVE protect us from proven voter fraud like the below:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/georgia-republican-party-official-voted-illegally-nine-judge-rules-rcna145563

If you are saying this is your answer to voter fraud…why doesn’t it address voter fraud?

This is already a law.

It’s also already a law that only U.S. citizens can vote.

But not enforced in many places.

This is a lie. Why are you lying? What are these places that are not enforcing that only US Citizens vote in US federal elections? I would like to see the proof on this. Be specific.

If you don't check it, it can be abused. In Virginia, there is a little box at the top of the application where you can self-certify.

Wow, sounds scary!

But just wondering, how many illegal immigrants voted in Virginia's 2024 election when it was so easy to simply self-certify? I mean, you're so confident it's a problem surely you have the statistics readily available to back up your claim.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And so how does the SAVE act protect us from the proven cases of fraud like the one posted above? He would still have had his IDs when he voted illegally.

That is why you need to prove citizenship to register. That is what the SAVE Act is about.

You’re not answering the question. How does SAVE protect us from proven voter fraud like the below:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/georgia-republican-party-official-voted-illegally-nine-judge-rules-rcna145563

If you are saying this is your answer to voter fraud…why doesn’t it address voter fraud?

This is already a law.

It’s also already a law that only U.S. citizens can vote.

But not enforced in many places.

This is a lie. Why are you lying? What are these places that are not enforcing that only US Citizens vote in US federal elections? I would like to see the proof on this. Be specific.

If you don't check it, it can be abused. In Virginia, there is a little box at the top of the application where you can self-certify.

Wow, sounds scary!

But just wondering, how many illegal immigrants voted in Virginia's 2024 election when it was so easy to simply self-certify? I mean, you're so confident it's a problem surely you have the statistics readily available to back up your claim.

They have the "feels" when they lose

When they win, no problem

Sounds like the solution is no election at all