Tag: voter id
Why The Save America Act Could Be Political Suicide For Republicans

Why The Save America Act Could Be Political Suicide For Republicans

It's common sense, Republicans say. You have to show ID to buy a beer, board a plane, or land a job as a snow shoveler. Why not require proof of identity from those who seek to exercise our most sacred civic right, casting a vote?

According to the polls, the GOP has won the argument. Most Americans favor a voter ID law.

What Republicans are currently pressing for, the SAVE America Act, however, is not a voter ID law, a requirement that registered voters prove who they are when they go to the polls. SAVE is a "prove you're a citizen" law.

Why is the GOP pushing SAVE America? Republican voters will be hit hardest. Clearly, neither President Donald Trump nor the Republican Party knows what's good for them.

A voter ID law — something most states, especially red ones, currently have — passes the common-sense test for most Americans because it requires a form of identity nine out of 10 people have, or can obtain fairly easily, like a driver's license or non-driver's state identification card. Some states even take non-photo IDs. Voter ID laws have been promoted by Republicans primarily because they limit or eliminate mail-in voting, which they wrongly assume benefits Democrats.

The SAVE America Act goes much further than voter ID. In an attempt to improve Republican candidates' chances under the guise of protecting voting integrity, it tries to disenfranchise Democratic voters.

Ironically, it will have the opposite effect.

Voter ID attempts to verify who you are. SAVE America requires you to show proof of citizenship in the form of a passport or a birth certificate with your current name on it. (Noncitizens can get a driver's license.) Far more Democrats have proof of citizenship than Republicans.

Fewer than half of U.S. citizens hold a passport. For these elites, the SAVE America Act would be a breeze. Sixty-four percent of Americans with a household income above $100,000 have a passport, while only 21 percent of those earning under $50,000 do. Upper-middle-class white voters lean Democratic; poorer whites lean Republican.

Roughly half of 2024 Trump voters have passports, compared to two-thirds of Kamala Harris voters. The 13 states with the lowest passport rates all voted Republican in 2024. Congressional districts with low passport ownership are overwhelmingly GOP-held, rural and/or Southern. Rural voters (a GOP stronghold) face longer drives to election offices for in-person verification. Older voters, military personnel, tribal citizens and working-class Americans — Republican-leaning demographic groups — are less likely to have the required documents.

A substantial number of voters don't have a physical copy of their birth certificate. Research by the Brennan Center "indicates that more than nine percent of American citizens of voting age, or 21.3 million people, don't have proof of citizenship readily available. There are myriad reasons for this — the documents might be in the home of another family member or in a safety deposit box. And at least 3.8 million don't have these documents at all, often because they were lost, destroyed, or stolen."

Poor voters — who tend to vote Republican — live more disorganized, mobile lives. They're less likely to know where their birth certificate is or how to obtain a new one, or be motivated to find out America would effectively repeal women's suffrage. "84 percent of women who marry change their surname, meaning as many as 69 million American women do not have a birth certificate with their legal name on it and thereby could not use their birth certificate to prove citizenship," notes the Center for American Progress. "The SAVE Act makes no mention of being able to show a marriage certificate or change-of-name documentation."

Women who change their names — twice as likely to be Republican — would have to present themselves at their county board of elections office, which is only open during business hours, when most people work.

There, local election workers — overwhelmed by a sudden surge of applicants — would have to sort through each individual's marriage and divorce decrees and other miscellany to determine whether Mrs. Jane Doe, née Jane Smith, is eligible to vote. Given that SAVE America mandates a fine and prison time for an election official who wrongly allows someone to vote, even someone who is a citizen but without the right documents, the path of least resistance for a beleaguered, poorly paid local election clerk would be to reject rather than approve name-change voters, including trans people.

After decades of easing voting with same-day registration, automatic registration with driver's license renewals, early and mail-in voting, SAVE America would make voting much harder. Many people will choose not to vote rather than jump through so many bureaucratic hoops for the right to choose between a center-left and center-right party, neither of which delivers for them. Here is the purpose of SAVE America — to radically reduce the number of voters.

Most of whom, hilariously, are Republican.

It's bizarre that the right is fighting for SAVE America. Democratic worries about discouraging working-class voters are sweet but run counter to their interests. As the 2024 election proved, poor and lower-middle-class voters are no longer theirs to lose. If Democrats were smart, they'd be the party pushing the SAVE America Act — or getting out of its way.

The GOP wants SAVE America because they haven't internalized the class shifts in the American electorate. Republicans have become the party of the working poor (even if they don't care about them), while Democrats are now the party of coastal elites (though they pretend to champion Joe and Jane Sixpack).

If passed, and signed into law, the SAVE America Act is likely to backfire for its Republican sponsors in the same way that Trump's advice to MAGA followers not to use write-in ballots contributed to his loss in 2020.

Ted Rall, the political cartoonist, columnist ,and graphic novelist, is the author of the brand-new What's Left: Radical Solutions for Radical Problems. He co-hosts the left-vs-right DMZ America podcast with fellow cartoonist Scott Stantis and The TMI Show with political analyst Manila Chan. Subscribe: tedrall.Substack.com.

Trump Demands Passage Of Partisan Election Bill To 'Guarantee The Midterms'

Trump Demands Passage Of Partisan Election Bill To 'Guarantee The Midterms'

Politico reports President Donald Trump ordered House Republicans Monday to pass his huge partisan elections bill a third time with even more provisions, targeting mail-in voters and vulnerable minorities.

“It will guarantee the midterms,” Trump told lawmakers, according to Politico. “If you don’t get it, big trouble, my opinion.”

Provisions that Trump wants added include targeting transgender rights in addition to curbing mail voting, even though Trump himself has voted by mail. And Trump warned the GOP to pursue passage of the law even it means abandoning the rest of their legislative agenda before the November elections.

“It’s actually a matter in a serious way of national survival. We can’t have these elections going on like this anymore,” Trump said.

Trump also endorsed a push by House Republican hard-liners to attach a must-pass spy powers extension to the SAVE America legislation in a bid to pass both together. But there is a reason Trump is asking the House to pass the bill a third time: Politico reports this would create “a nightmare for House GOP leaders who already face obstacles passing either bill.

The House has already two passed versions of what is now called the “SAVE America Act,” which would create onerous new citizenship and photo ID requirements for voting. Still, Politico reports Trump is framing the voting and transgender provisions as “proven political winners” that Democrats will not easily be able to oppose.

“That should be the easiest thing to get passed that you’ve ever had,” Trump told the Republicans. “Those are best of Trump. This is the No. 1 priority, it should be, for the House.”

But Democrats have opposed the bill in unison every time Republicans tried to get it to the president’s desk, and even Republican leaders have been loath to change Senate rules to make the bill easier to pass.

Reprinted with permisson from Alternet


Voters line up in Davis, California for the 2020 General Election.

There’s A Better Way To Protect Democracy Than H.R. 1

When Sen. Joe Manchin announced he would oppose the For the People Act, Steve Benen of MSNBC spoke for many Democrats when he declared that "Joe Manchin is prepared to be remembered by history as the senator who did little more than hope as his country's democracy unraveled."

One can share Democrats' alarm about the state of our democracy without concluding that the For the People Act was the answer.

H.R. 1 is a mashup of sound ideas (requiring a paper record of each vote) with outdated and arguably unconstitutional measures (banning so-called dark money at a time when small-dollar donations are more important); and limiting speech, which the American Civil Liberties Union, among others, opposes.

Some are now saying the Democrats should turn to the John Lewis Act as a response to Republican efforts to curtail voting rights in the states. But the Lewis Act is off-point, too.

Look, Republican efforts to limit early and absentee voting are destructive because they ratify the Big Lie that the 2020 election was stolen. These laws deserve the strongest condemnation, and Democrats would be justified in running ads reminding voters that Republicans were acting in bad faith.

But not all of the measures in these laws are objectionable. Requiring an ID strikes many people as simple common sense. An Economist/YouGov poll in April found that 64 percent of Americans agreed with the statement: "Photo ID should be required to vote in person." Among African Americans, 60 percent agreed. Democrats should not die on this hill.

Moreover, the far more pressing emergency is the Republican Party's loosening attachment to democratic procedures and to truth itself. As we saw in the aftermath of 2020, 147 Republican officeholders were willing to decertify the Electoral College count. A few brave local Republican officials resisted tremendous pressure to alter or misreport the results of elections. They demonstrated integrity. For their trouble, instead of being lauded and celebrated as heroes of democracy, they have been censured by GOP committees across the country as the legend of the Big Lie has seized the minds of rank-and-file Republicans.

The Republican Party is barreling toward disregarding the actual vote count in a presidential contest. The John Lewis Act does not address this.

There is something Democrats can do at the federal level to respond to the threat: They can amend the Electoral Count Act of 1887. Republicans would be unlikely to filibuster this law, so Democrats can pass it with a simple majority vote.

This law was passed following the contentious Hayes-Tilden election in 1876 — a contest that was so close it threatened to tear the country apart just 11 years after Appomattox. Here is a sample of its brilliant draftsmanship:

"If more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State shall have been received by the President of the Senate, those votes, and those only, shall be counted which shall have been regularly given by the electors who are shown by the determination mentioned in section 5 of this title to have been appointed, if the determination in said section provided for shall have been made."

It goes on and on like that. Laws should not be written to obscure but to clarify.

The law directs governors to certify their states' results and the slate of electors chosen by the voters. But it also specifies that in a case of a "failed election" (not defined) in which the voters have not made a choice, the state legislature can step in to appoint electors.

As the votes were being counted in 2020, Republican influencers like radio host Mark Levin were suggesting that state legislatures had a "constitutional duty" to reverse the will of the voters and name their own slate of Trump electors. When Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) was asked by Sean Hannity about possibly invalidating votes, he said, "Everything should be on the table."

The Electoral Count Act decrees that if one representative and one senator object, in writing, to the counting of any state's electoral votes, the bodies must adjourn to their chambers to debate the matter.

As Ed Kilgore has recommended, Congress should amend the Electoral Count Act to clarify that only electoral votes certified by individual states will be counted and that the vice president's role is purely ceremonial. Further, the threshold for objections to state electoral vote counts should be much higher than two.

I would add that a supermajority should be required to decertify any state's electoral votes, not just a simple majority as the law now permits. Additionally, the law should be amended to eliminate the "failed election" section that empowers legislatures to substitute their preference for that of the voters. There are armies of law professors who can provide relevant language and good ideas for other changes.

Forget H.R. 1. Forget campaign finance. Don't perseverate on whether poll watchers can distribute water to voters waiting in line. It's not the vote casting but the vote counting that needs attention. Now.

Mona Charen is policy editor of The Bulwark and host of the "Beg to Differ" podcast. Her most recent book is Sex Matters: How Modern Feminism Lost Touch with Science, Love, and Common Sense. To read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.

Danziger: Free And Fair

Danziger: Free And Fair

Jeff Danziger lives in New York City. He is represented by CWS Syndicate and the Washington Post Writers Group. He is the recipient of the Herblock Prize and the Thomas Nast (Landau) Prize. He served in the US Army in Vietnam and was awarded the Bronze Star and the Air Medal. He has published eleven books of cartoons and one novel. Visit him at DanzigerCartoons.com.

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World