By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The SAVE America Act, which mandates proof of citizenship for voter registration and overhauls voting laws, has garnered over 50 Republican votes in the Senate, passing the House with presidential support. However, the Senate’s 60-vote filibuster rule presents the primary obstacle to its enactment, as Democrats are expected to block any attempt to bypass it. While proponents aim to force a “talking filibuster” to exhaust opposition, this tactic is considered unlikely to succeed in overcoming the procedural hurdles. Opponents label the bill as disenfranchising, particularly for minority and poorer communities, while supporters argue it enhances election security and voter confidence through measures like in-person proof of citizenship and photo identification.
Read the original article here
The path forward for President Trump’s election bill, dubbed the SAVE America Act, is currently navigating a critical juncture in the Senate. While the legislation has successfully cleared the House of Representatives and carries the President’s endorsement, its ultimate fate hinges on securing at least 60 votes in the Senate. This higher threshold is in place due to the legislative filibuster, a procedural hurdle that allows a minority of senators to delay or block a vote on a bill.
The core of the SAVE America Act appears to center on implementing stricter voter identification requirements, with proponents arguing it aims to enhance election integrity. One of the key provisions discussed is the necessity of a photo ID to cast a ballot, alongside a requirement for proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote. For those who vote by mail, the bill reportedly mandates that a copy of a photo ID must be included with the ballot. This approach, according to its supporters, is meant to safeguard against fraudulent voting and bolster public confidence in election outcomes.
However, the push for these measures has ignited significant opposition from Democrats and various advocacy groups, who contend that the bill amounts to voter suppression. A central argument against the SAVE America Act is that it could function as a modern-day poll tax, disproportionately impacting minority groups, lower-income individuals, and certain demographics like married women who may have surnames different from their official identification documents. The concern is that the costs and bureaucratic hurdles associated with obtaining the required forms of identification could effectively disenfranchise millions of eligible voters.
Adding to the debate is the State Department’s recent directive impacting non-profit libraries’ ability to process passport applications. Critics of the SAVE America Act point to this as a parallel action that makes obtaining a passport, which could serve as a form of identification, less accessible. This move, occurring concurrently with proposals that necessitate specific forms of identification for voting, is viewed by opponents as a deliberate attempt to erect barriers to the ballot box, making it harder for citizens to meet the new requirements.
The concern about accessibility is particularly acute when considering the practicalities of obtaining required documents. For individuals who need to acquire a birth certificate or other proof of citizenship, the process can be lengthy, costly, and fraught with bureaucratic challenges. Without a guarantee of free and easily accessible identification, critics argue that mandating such requirements inherently disadvantages a significant portion of the electorate, turning an election integrity measure into a tool for suppression.
The legislative landscape in the Senate presents a formidable challenge for the SAVE America Act. Even with over 50 Republican votes secured in the House, the bill needs to overcome the filibuster to pass the Senate. This means that either ten Democratic senators would need to cross the aisle and vote in favor of the bill, or the Senate would have to invoke the “nuclear option” to eliminate the filibuster, a move that is considered highly unlikely. The history of such significant voting legislation in the Senate often demonstrates a stark partisan divide, making bipartisan consensus on measures perceived as restrictive particularly difficult to achieve.
Furthermore, should the SAVE America Act somehow manage to pass both chambers of Congress, it is widely anticipated that it would face immediate legal challenges. Opponents have indicated their intention to contest the constitutionality of the bill, arguing that it infringes upon the fundamental right to vote and usurps powers traditionally reserved for the states in administering elections. The U.S. Constitution indeed assigns states the primary responsibility for setting election rules and procedures, and any federal legislation that significantly alters these frameworks is likely to be scrutinized closely by the courts.
The political calculus behind the SAVE America Act is also a subject of intense discussion. Critics suggest that the bill is not primarily about ensuring election integrity but is a calculated effort to suppress votes in an attempt to secure political power. This perspective draws on past Republican-led efforts to enact stricter voting laws, which have often been met with accusations of voter suppression. The argument is that the party is actively seeking to make voting more difficult for demographics that tend to vote Democratic, thereby increasing their chances of electoral success.
The role of certain senators, like Susan Collins of Maine, has also come under scrutiny. While Senator Collins has historically expressed support for certain voting reforms, her reported backing of the SAVE America Act, even with revisions, has drawn criticism from those who see it as a concession to the broader Republican agenda. Her vote is considered pivotal, and her alignment with the bill’s proponents underscores the complexity and potential divisiveness of the legislation. The prospect of her seat being at risk if Democrats gain a majority further complicates the political maneuvering surrounding such bills.
Ultimately, the SAVE America Act finds itself at a crossroads. It possesses the backing of the House and the President, and has garnered significant support within the Republican party, evidenced by its passage through the House. However, the Senate’s 60-vote threshold represents a substantial obstacle. The debate over election integrity and voter access is deeply polarized, and the SAVE America Act, in its current form, appears to be a focal point of this division, with its potential to become law resting precariously on the outcome of Senate deliberations and the possibility of overcoming procedural roadblocks.