Anonymous wrote:

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.

How does one positively confirm a person matches a voter registration if they don't show an ID?

Please cite the number of times someone showed up to vote to discover someone had impersonated them and voted in their place.

(it doesn't happen, this is a non-issue)

Yes it does happen. Not only that, but people in the household are getting multiple ballots of people who don't even live in their house.

More than that, how do you have XX number of people in voter registration records with an address of a UPS store?

Don't tell us this stuff doesn't happen. It certainly does and it's in the news all the time. That you don't seek out alternative news feeds and only read ones that validate your worldview is not my fault. These are from state and local news reporting before you accuse anyone of a conspiracy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Oh, I think it will pass and in fact am pretty sure it will pass. That it will pass but immediately hit a whole bunch of legal roadblocks and likely be killed after it passes shows how out of touch Republicans still are.

Really? You think Thune will drop the filibuster for this?

He has already said he won't.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

You are in the deep minority on this when people understand what this bill actually does.

Voter ID is just common sense that falls well within the mainstream of public opinion, transcending party lines and demographics.

Polls consistently show overwhelming support: A recent CNN poll revealed that 85 percent of white Americans, 82 percent of Latinos, and 76 percent of black Americans favor requiring photo ID to vote.

And Democrat Elites continue to make up reasons to reject.

But that is a good one, so People are for the Save Act , but until they understand it like the Elites understand it , they will change their mind.

thank you for that morning chuckle.

I am not against voter ID; however, it is onerous to force people to go above and beyond to prove they are who they say they are. A Real ID should be sufficient to prove citizenship — if not, then the onus should be on the states to ensure everyone's Real ID shows this. A woman should not have to track down her marriage certificate(s) if she already has a Real ID.

The thing is, this is going to hurt the Red States more than the Republicans think it will. Older people are overwhelmingly Republican AND they vote — but putting the onus on 89 year old Matilda and 75 year old Gertrude to track down their marriage licenses and get a proper ID is going to limit their ability to vote in the end. All these old women will ultimately not vote because it’s going to be too difficult for them to manage it. Good luck, Republicans!

Anonymous wrote:

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

Oh, I think it will pass and in fact am pretty sure it will pass. That it will pass but immediately hit a whole bunch of legal roadblocks and likely be killed after it passes shows how out of touch Republicans still are.

Really? You think Thune will drop the filibuster for this?

Anonymous wrote:

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

Oh, I think it will pass and in fact am pretty sure it will pass. That it will pass but immediately hit a whole bunch of legal roadblocks and likely be killed after it passes shows how out of touch Republicans still are.

It needs 60 votes and Murkowski is already a no.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How does one positively confirm a person matches a voter registration if they don't show an ID?

Please cite the number of times someone showed up to vote to discover someone had impersonated them and voted in their place.

(it doesn't happen, this is a non-issue)

The only instance I know of was a guy who voted twice, once for himself and once for his dead mother. He used her photo ID to get an absentee ballot.
He was a republican and voted for trump.
https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-government-and-politics-d34effeea6c341d6c44146931127caff#

The SAVE Act sounds like “common sense” at first glance. Of course only citizens should vote. On that basic principle, there’s no disagreement.

But if we’re serious about governing like adults, we have to ask two questions:
- Is the problem real and significant?
- Does this solution fix it without creating bigger problems?

On the first question, the data are clear: proven cases of non‑citizens voting are vanishingly rare: just a few dozens of bad ballots out of hundreds of millions cast over the last decade. That’s not a talking point, that’s just what the investigations and prosecutions show. If this were happening at any meaningful scale, we’d see real numbers, real cases, and real prosecutions. We don’t.

So what does the SAVE Act actually do?

It creates new layers of paperwork and documentation requirements for people who are already citizens and already eligible to vote. That means:
- More bureaucracy for ordinary Americans
- More cost (fees for documents, time off work, travel to offices)
- More chances for government error to wrongly block a legitimate voter

All of that to maybe catch a handful of improper votes that haven’t been shown to exist at scale in the first place.

From a conservative perspective, that’s a bad trade:
- Big new federal rules
- New burdens and costs (which constitute an unconstitutional de-facto poll tax) on law‑abiding citizens
- No demonstrated, large‑scale problem being solved

If this were really about election integrity and not about making voting harder, the bill would look very different. It would:
- Make underlying documents (passports, certified birth certificates, etc.) free to obtain so as to not be unconstitutional if required for voting
- Fund fast, local access to those documents, especially in rural areas
- Build in strong safeguards so that no eligible citizen is turned away because of paperwork glitches

But that’s not what’s happening. In fact, we’re seeing the opposite: resistance to making documentation easier and cheaper, and even efforts to stop libraries and community groups from helping people get the paperwork they need.

That’s the tell.

If you believe in:
- Election integrity and
- Limited government and
- Protecting the rights of law‑abiding citizens

then you should be skeptical of a law that:
- Targets a problem that hasn’t been shown to exist at scale
- Expands federal red tape
- Shifts the burden and cost onto legal voters, especially the elderly, the poor, students, and rural citizens

You don’t have to be a Democrat to see the imbalance here. You just have to apply the same standard you’d use anywhere else:

If a law adds bureaucracy, costs money, burdens law‑abiding people, and doesn’t clearly solve a real, documented problem, is that actually “common sense,” or is it something else?

That’s the real question the SAVE Act raises.

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

Oh, I think it will pass and in fact am pretty sure it will pass. That it will pass but immediately hit a whole bunch of legal roadblocks and likely be killed after it passes shows how out of touch Republicans still are.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How does one positively confirm a person matches a voter registration if they don't show an ID?

Please cite the number of times someone showed up to vote to discover someone had impersonated them and voted in their place.

(it doesn't happen, this is a non-issue)

The only instance I know of was a guy who voted twice, once for himself and once for his dead mother. He used her photo ID to get an absentee ballot.
He was a republican and voted for trump.
https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-government-and-politics-d34effeea6c341d6c44146931127caff#

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

You are in the deep minority on this when people understand what this bill actually does.

Voter ID is just common sense that falls well within the mainstream of public opinion, transcending party lines and demographics.

Polls consistently show overwhelming support: A recent CNN poll revealed that 85 percent of white Americans, 82 percent of Latinos, and 76 percent of black Americans favor requiring photo ID to vote.

And Democrat Elites continue to make up reasons to reject.

But that is a good one, so People are for the Save Act , but until they understand it like the Elites understand it , they will change their mind.

thank you for that morning chuckle.

Please show a poll that isn't totally partisan, that demonstrates popular support for the SAVE Act.

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.

How does one positively confirm a person matches a voter registration if they don't show an ID?

Please cite the number of times someone showed up to vote to discover someone had impersonated them and voted in their place.

(it doesn't happen, this is a non-issue)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

You are in the deep minority on this when people understand what this bill actually does.

Voter ID is just common sense that falls well within the mainstream of public opinion, transcending party lines and demographics.

Polls consistently show overwhelming support: A recent CNN poll revealed that 85 percent of white Americans, 82 percent of Latinos, and 76 percent of black Americans favor requiring photo ID to vote.

And Democrat Elites continue to make up reasons to reject.

But that is a good one, so People are for the Save Act , but until they understand it like the Elites understand it , they will change their mind.

thank you for that morning chuckle.

The SAVE Act is a voter suppression bill. An actual voter ID bill would be pretty simple. Outline the requirements for eligibility and fund voter ID's for every American. That isn't what the SAVE ACT is, and when people actually dig into it, they agree and oppose it. Example...SAVE requirements were installed in the state of Kansas. Something like 37 ineligible people were identified on the voter rolls. NONE of those people had voted in any elections. But the move removed thousands of people from the rolls who had been voting and were/are native born Americans. That is stripping people of their inalienable rights for no reason but political gain.

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.

How does one positively confirm a person matches a voter registration if they don't show an ID?

Anonymous wrote:

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

You are in the deep minority on this when people understand what this bill actually does.

Voter ID is just common sense that falls well within the mainstream of public opinion, transcending party lines and demographics.

Polls consistently show overwhelming support: A recent CNN poll revealed that 85 percent of white Americans, 82 percent of Latinos, and 76 percent of black Americans favor requiring photo ID to vote.

And Democrat Elites continue to make up reasons to reject.

But that is a good one, so People are for the Save Act , but until they understand it like the Elites understand it , they will change their mind.

thank you for that morning chuckle.

https://www.texastribune.org/2026/02/13/save-voter-citizenship-tool-mistakes-confusion/


27 states have already agreed to the DOGE SAVE system.

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

You are in the deep minority on this when people understand what this bill actually does.