If the GOP really wants the SAVE Act, they can add a requirement that all states make getting an ID suitable for registration and voting absolutely free of charge at every step of the way.
One can also ask the GOP what forms of ID are acceptable to them - that would be very enlightening.
Getting this ID, in whatever form it is, must be free, or it would be considered a poll tax, which is illegal. Better to just get rid of the requrement and the act itself, as it "solves" a nonexistent problem.
"The SAVE Act addresses a problem that does not exist and would have devastating consequences regarding the right to vote."
This statement is the crux of the whole issue. At the least, it's a cheap act of revenge for all of the court findings that no voter fraud existed in the 2020 election. At the worst, it's an unconstitutional invasion of privacy and an individuals' rights.
A possible scenarion: The Senate will finally pass this so close to the date of the midterm election that the courts will not have time to put a stop to it before it's enforcement hinders voting and tampers with the process. This illegal act needs to be done away with forthwith.
Should that happen, it ought to be a candidate for an instant appeal to the Supreme Court, and a provisional stay granted on the "emergency docket" that the Court seems to be so fond of. Also, "a cheap act of revenge" seems to me to hit the nail right on the head.
The hyper-partisan Republicans on court only take "emergency docket" cases that benefit Trump and Republicans. They'll go on vacation and dither until next year.
Why did the government push this real ID program if they are now going to turn around and say you can use your real ID for every purpose in life, except voting, for which you have to purchase an expensive passport?
Yep, to get my REAL ID I had to provide birth certificate and marriage and divorce documents to show how I got to my current last name. Surely having that ID should satisfy all their requirements?????? I'm wondering how many of the people ICE has picked up have REAL IDs?
There are only 5 states that issue, as a Real ID, an "Enhanced Drivers License," which certifies that you have also prove your citizenship. ONLY those Real ID licenses will be accepted as proof of citizenship, Those states are VT, NY, MI, MN, WA.
A birth certificate or valid passport are required and establish citizenship. One or the other are required in PA, for example, along with a document proving social security number and two proving PA residency. If that's not "real" enough, then that entire program was also bullshit.
Rep. Tim Walberg of Michigan's 5th dist. told me at a Bedford Township Town Hall on 2/20/25 "if you can't afford a passport, maybe you shouldn't vote". He's a co sponsor.
Republicans, in passing this, would be nakedly admitting to what is already obvious: Trump wants permanent power and a one-party state with himself at the head of it. Rule of the most ruthless and an end to the American experiment.
A birth certificate doesn’t always match your current name. States require payment to obtain it. Nobody I know of changes their name on a birth certificate. To avoid poll taxation states would have to issue them for free. No state will ever do that. A birth certificate is really not a solution. Many if not most people don’t have a passport. That’s another huge charge.
So what’s the real solution? If one has a social security number and/or a valid driver license or non driver’s identification then that’s a photo identification. Driver’s licenses have to be renewed every 4 years. If that counts as a poll taxation then what do we use for voter identification?
The SAVE Act scares me. If passed, millions will be disenfranchised. Since the congressional GOP has decided that their job is to collect their paychecks and rubber stamp anything and everything Trump wants, I have no confidence that they'll stop the bill.
Right now they need 60 votes, which they don't have. Trump is urging them to scrap the filibuster entirely, so they would only need 50 plus Vance. So far it looks like they won't do it, but.....
I agree that voters should be able to get a free ID suitable for registration and voting. I think for people to have an ID is quite useful in daily life, not just voting. Perhaps having IDs would either negate the need for the SAVE Act and/or make it useless/fangless.
The elderly, who don't get out [much] don't have much use for an ID. This is asking them to somehow get to a motor vehicles office, for example, to get an ID they won't show to anyone, just to vote by mail.
I think by the time we reach "elderly" age [I am 74], we are no longer in the process of either registering to vote, nor without some form of identification for other needs of life.
In that case you're fine, of course. But your comment that "we" -- the elderly - have "some other form of identification" suggested something more minimal. Congratulations.
You are not "most people." Half of American do NOT have a passport, and can't afford one. Because passports are for crossing international borders, and nothing else. 39% of elderly Americans rely solely on Social Security for their income. They can barely get by on that.
I do not approve of the restrictive SAVE Act. My comments about ID, especially us, the elderly [to both you and Tom Quinn] refers to these facts: [1] we are long time voters & are hardly going to be registering for the first time; [2[ we are no longer subject to a name change [3] i would like for anyone who needs ID to be provided access to one free of charge. There are other options besides passports. I think we could lay this aspect to rest, for now anyway.
This illegitimate SCOTUS will NOT save us. If the Republicans eliminate the filibuster, Senate Democrats should keep talking until the opening of the next congress in January 2027. If that means reading the entire Epstein files or all the phone books in each senator's state into the record, so be it.
A really well-argued opinion piece!! A layman, like me, can grasp and appreciate the power in evidence. Every point made here is supported, given a strong basis in research, common sense and the law. How fascinating that even the Heritage Foundation that backs this legislation has done the research to recognize that what it attempts to "fix" is not problem ... but would create a massive problem, in that it would "fix" the election, and break any semblance of a Constitutional democracy. With a Supreme Court that struck down most of the Voting Rights Act, though, it is difficult to anticipate their view, however discriminatory it may be.
When a person registers to vote in my state, they are carefully vetted as to the accuracy of the information they have provided. The Republicans seem to imply that registering to vote automatically adds the person to the voter rolls, and this is not how it works. The rare instances of non-citizens voting attests to the fact that this vetting works well. Requiring each voter to essentially requalifiy each time they vote is ridiculous and unnecessary.
If the GOP really wants the SAVE Act, they can add a requirement that all states make getting an ID suitable for registration and voting absolutely free of charge at every step of the way.
One can also ask the GOP what forms of ID are acceptable to them - that would be very enlightening.
Getting this ID, in whatever form it is, must be free, or it would be considered a poll tax, which is illegal. Better to just get rid of the requrement and the act itself, as it "solves" a nonexistent problem.
SAVE Act, as written, is a poll tax, plain and simple. Poll taxes are still illegal.
"The SAVE Act addresses a problem that does not exist and would have devastating consequences regarding the right to vote."
This statement is the crux of the whole issue. At the least, it's a cheap act of revenge for all of the court findings that no voter fraud existed in the 2020 election. At the worst, it's an unconstitutional invasion of privacy and an individuals' rights.
A possible scenarion: The Senate will finally pass this so close to the date of the midterm election that the courts will not have time to put a stop to it before it's enforcement hinders voting and tampers with the process. This illegal act needs to be done away with forthwith.
Should that happen, it ought to be a candidate for an instant appeal to the Supreme Court, and a provisional stay granted on the "emergency docket" that the Court seems to be so fond of. Also, "a cheap act of revenge" seems to me to hit the nail right on the head.
The hyper-partisan Republicans on court only take "emergency docket" cases that benefit Trump and Republicans. They'll go on vacation and dither until next year.
Why did the government push this real ID program if they are now going to turn around and say you can use your real ID for every purpose in life, except voting, for which you have to purchase an expensive passport?
It's a poll tax.
Yep, to get my REAL ID I had to provide birth certificate and marriage and divorce documents to show how I got to my current last name. Surely having that ID should satisfy all their requirements?????? I'm wondering how many of the people ICE has picked up have REAL IDs?
There are only 5 states that issue, as a Real ID, an "Enhanced Drivers License," which certifies that you have also prove your citizenship. ONLY those Real ID licenses will be accepted as proof of citizenship, Those states are VT, NY, MI, MN, WA.
A birth certificate or valid passport are required and establish citizenship. One or the other are required in PA, for example, along with a document proving social security number and two proving PA residency. If that's not "real" enough, then that entire program was also bullshit.
Rep. Tim Walberg of Michigan's 5th dist. told me at a Bedford Township Town Hall on 2/20/25 "if you can't afford a passport, maybe you shouldn't vote". He's a co sponsor.
Republicans, in passing this, would be nakedly admitting to what is already obvious: Trump wants permanent power and a one-party state with himself at the head of it. Rule of the most ruthless and an end to the American experiment.
The only thing the GOP does is solve non-existent problems and add to the federal deficit.
A birth certificate doesn’t always match your current name. States require payment to obtain it. Nobody I know of changes their name on a birth certificate. To avoid poll taxation states would have to issue them for free. No state will ever do that. A birth certificate is really not a solution. Many if not most people don’t have a passport. That’s another huge charge.
So what’s the real solution? If one has a social security number and/or a valid driver license or non driver’s identification then that’s a photo identification. Driver’s licenses have to be renewed every 4 years. If that counts as a poll taxation then what do we use for voter identification?
sending photo id with vote, discloses how you vote
The SAVE Act scares me. If passed, millions will be disenfranchised. Since the congressional GOP has decided that their job is to collect their paychecks and rubber stamp anything and everything Trump wants, I have no confidence that they'll stop the bill.
Right now they need 60 votes, which they don't have. Trump is urging them to scrap the filibuster entirely, so they would only need 50 plus Vance. So far it looks like they won't do it, but.....
I agree that voters should be able to get a free ID suitable for registration and voting. I think for people to have an ID is quite useful in daily life, not just voting. Perhaps having IDs would either negate the need for the SAVE Act and/or make it useless/fangless.
The elderly, who don't get out [much] don't have much use for an ID. This is asking them to somehow get to a motor vehicles office, for example, to get an ID they won't show to anyone, just to vote by mail.
I think by the time we reach "elderly" age [I am 74], we are no longer in the process of either registering to vote, nor without some form of identification for other needs of life.
But the odds are VERY good that the ID you have will NOT suffice under the proposed new law.
Actually I have a passport, a birth certificate, and a Real ID.
In that case you're fine, of course. But your comment that "we" -- the elderly - have "some other form of identification" suggested something more minimal. Congratulations.
You are not "most people." Half of American do NOT have a passport, and can't afford one. Because passports are for crossing international borders, and nothing else. 39% of elderly Americans rely solely on Social Security for their income. They can barely get by on that.
I do not approve of the restrictive SAVE Act. My comments about ID, especially us, the elderly [to both you and Tom Quinn] refers to these facts: [1] we are long time voters & are hardly going to be registering for the first time; [2[ we are no longer subject to a name change [3] i would like for anyone who needs ID to be provided access to one free of charge. There are other options besides passports. I think we could lay this aspect to rest, for now anyway.
This illegitimate SCOTUS will NOT save us. If the Republicans eliminate the filibuster, Senate Democrats should keep talking until the opening of the next congress in January 2027. If that means reading the entire Epstein files or all the phone books in each senator's state into the record, so be it.
A really well-argued opinion piece!! A layman, like me, can grasp and appreciate the power in evidence. Every point made here is supported, given a strong basis in research, common sense and the law. How fascinating that even the Heritage Foundation that backs this legislation has done the research to recognize that what it attempts to "fix" is not problem ... but would create a massive problem, in that it would "fix" the election, and break any semblance of a Constitutional democracy. With a Supreme Court that struck down most of the Voting Rights Act, though, it is difficult to anticipate their view, however discriminatory it may be.
When a person registers to vote in my state, they are carefully vetted as to the accuracy of the information they have provided. The Republicans seem to imply that registering to vote automatically adds the person to the voter rolls, and this is not how it works. The rare instances of non-citizens voting attests to the fact that this vetting works well. Requiring each voter to essentially requalifiy each time they vote is ridiculous and unnecessary.
Excellent, fact based report on thjs critical issue!