BusterAg said:DeschutesAg said:Quote:
You mean states that make it possible to allow illegals to vote are going to actually investigate it?
Most states already investigate and limit it. We already know the extent of the problem. It is tiny in most states. The three states where it is most prevalent are three deep red states: Texas, Louisiana, Florida.
Many states have laws in place that purposefully make it impossible to investigate.
In CA, you don't have to be a citizen to get a drivers license, and, if you have a drivers license, you can vote. Period. There is no further check.
How in the world would one catch an illegal alien voting in CA?
DeschutesAg said:Quote:
So you agree that we should pass the SAVE act?
In its current form? No, it should not be passed. It needs some major revisions.
Hubert J. Farnsworth said:DeschutesAg said:Quote:
So you agree that we should pass the SAVE act?
In its current form? No, it should not be passed. It needs some major revisions.
What major revisions?
Prosperdick said:BusterAg said:DeschutesAg said:Quote:
You mean states that make it possible to allow illegals to vote are going to actually investigate it?
Most states already investigate and limit it. We already know the extent of the problem. It is tiny in most states. The three states where it is most prevalent are three deep red states: Texas, Louisiana, Florida.
Many states have laws in place that purposefully make it impossible to investigate.
In CA, you don't have to be a citizen to get a drivers license, and, if you have a drivers license, you can vote. Period. There is no further check.
How in the world would one catch an illegal alien voting in CA?
Exactly, with ZERO safeguards and voting officials proactively telling voters DO NOT show your ID (Adam Carolla has a funny bit about how he tried to show his ID when he voted in 2024) it's literally impossible to catch an illegal voting in California and they know it.
They coach illegals to do it the same way they coach them to claim asylum. Dems know illegals gives them extra House seats in their state and once they can get back in power they'll give them all citizenship and THEN they'll have no problem with Voter ID because they'll never lose an election again.
DeschutesAg said:Hubert J. Farnsworth said:DeschutesAg said:Quote:
So you agree that we should pass the SAVE act?
In its current form? No, it should not be passed. It needs some major revisions.
What major revisions?
3. Also, my understanding is: every person in the USA who wants to vote in the 2026 federal primaries and the November 2026 federal general election will have to make an in-person visit to a voter registration office in their county of legal residence to have their proof of citizenship papers verified and their data in their home state's voter registration database updated.
One of the things that has been intentionally conflated in these discussion threads is "showing photo ID" and "proving citizenship". Those are two different things.
DeschutesAg said:Hubert J. Farnsworth said:DeschutesAg said:Quote:
So you agree that we should pass the SAVE act?
In its current form? No, it should not be passed. It needs some major revisions.
What major revisions?
1. Lead time, for starters. I am fine with requiring tighter voter registration security, but the legislation should provide adequate funding and lead time to modify voter registration databases and data entry screens for that, and then to handle the actual verification process itself.
Horse***** You can register and get everything you need to vote with about a week. Folks would have at least 6 months. Funding? I think there is plenty of funding at all levels regarding voting. This is nonsense.
2. Voters should be given adequate time, too. I realize even saying that will trigger some of you. But it is a fact: at least 20M to 30M adult Americans don't currently have their birth certificate paperwork. They'll have to request it from the county governments where they were born.
Interesting this number correlates to the number of undocumented folk here illegally. I would caution throwing that number. If you were born in a US hospital, you have a birth certificate, If you do not have a physical copy, you can get one in almost all places immediately. More nonsense.
3. Also, my understanding is: every person in the USA who wants to vote in the 2026 federal primaries and the November 2026 federal general election will have to make an in-person visit to a voter registration office in their county of legal residence to have their proof of citizenship papers verified and their data in their home state's voter registration database updated.
Oh darn. Someone has to put in some effort to vote? Also, if you have REAL ID and in most states like Texas this is all done. So your understanding is poor. Get info from somewhere other than BlueSky, Reddit or MSM.
One of the things that has been intentionally conflated in these discussion threads is "showing photo ID" and "proving citizenship". Those are two different things.
Show an ID that correlates to your voter registration which should have verified your citizenship. Unless your state passed ******ed laws in order to allow non-citizens to vote. This is what is being FIXED.
4. There are also some important privacy and civil liberties issues hidden inside Chip Roy's bill language which haven't been adequately examined, analyzed, debated, and discussed.
Huh? Either point to your potential issues or quit fear mongering. What additional information is being obtained? You have to be a US citizen to vote in federal elections. How is it an invasion of privacy to ask you to prove that up when you exercise that right to vote? Assuming you have a legitimate right to vote. It is a right that requires the person to meet certain requirements and a right that can be revoked.
Are we citizens okay with an agency like DHS having all our information? Fifty years ago, a majority of Americans opposed that concept. Maybe public opinion has changed, but the implications are enormous and should be widely discussed.
They should have this information if you travel. Also, DHS would be an agency that should have information on yoru citizenry. Sort of a core function of theirs.
5. Chip's bill has some language that targets states that do 100% vote by mail. Some of those states have the most stringent voter verification and election security measures in the USA.
If we truly believe in liberty and in states having some rights, we should make sure the bill lets the voters in those states keep their 100% VBM systems. Those states' voters voted overwhelmingly (75%+) to implement 100% VBM systems after first trying out VBM in several non-federal instate elections.
Think about when our Country was founded. Could you imagine the wonderfulness if we were all voting by mail since 1786? Voting by mail should be safe and rare. You are correct in that places like Utah seem to have a handle on how to administer this. If states one to continue to make such accommodations, additional security and validation requirements may be needed. Chip, who I am no fan of, is pointing to a huge issue that has been exploited by the left since COVID. You should be supportive of fixing weaknesses in our voting process.
Ellis Wyatt said:
Bull****
BusterAg said:DeschutesAg said:Quote:
You mean states that make it possible to allow illegals to vote are going to actually investigate it?
Most states already investigate and limit it. We already know the extent of the problem. It is tiny in most states. The three states where it is most prevalent are three deep red states: Texas, Louisiana, Florida.
Many states have laws in place that purposefully make it impossible to investigate.
In CA, you don't have to be a citizen to get a drivers license, and, if you have a drivers license, you can vote. Period. There is no further check.
How in the world would one catch an illegal alien voting in CA?
Quote:
There is no way in heck all states are doing a deep dive into all the ballots to confirm only Citizens are voting. They just look at a very very small percentage of the ballots and base their statistics off that.
Ramdiesel said:BusterAg said:DeschutesAg said:Quote:
You mean states that make it possible to allow illegals to vote are going to actually investigate it?
Most states already investigate and limit it. We already know the extent of the problem. It is tiny in most states. The three states where it is most prevalent are three deep red states: Texas, Louisiana, Florida.
Many states have laws in place that purposefully make it impossible to investigate.
In CA, you don't have to be a citizen to get a drivers license, and, if you have a drivers license, you can vote. Period. There is no further check.
How in the world would one catch an illegal alien voting in CA?
Yeah, what the DEMs call investigation is BS. In Arizona, with all the mess in the 2020 election, the DEM Secretary of State said the election was all good and very little fraud after they did their "normal" audit to investigate for fraud in the election. People did some digging and found out their "normal" audit was taking like 500 ballots out of millions and going through those 500 to make sure everything was good on them as far as the voter registration record and citizenship status, etc...
There is no way in heck all states are doing a deep dive into all the ballots to confirm only Citizens are voting. They just look at a very very small percentage of the ballots and base their statistics off that.
pdc093 said:
100%
I had to show them b/cert. AND my 45 year old marriage certificate.
With the interwebs obtaining these doc's are a SNAP now. Pretty effortless.
We were required by state law to use certified independent companies that specialize in inspecting the hardware and software components you're referring to.txags92 said:Ramdiesel said:BusterAg said:DeschutesAg said:Quote:
You mean states that make it possible to allow illegals to vote are going to actually investigate it?
Most states already investigate and limit it. We already know the extent of the problem. It is tiny in most states. The three states where it is most prevalent are three deep red states: Texas, Louisiana, Florida.
Many states have laws in place that purposefully make it impossible to investigate.
In CA, you don't have to be a citizen to get a drivers license, and, if you have a drivers license, you can vote. Period. There is no further check.
How in the world would one catch an illegal alien voting in CA?
Yeah, what the DEMs call investigation is BS. In Arizona, with all the mess in the 2020 election, the DEM Secretary of State said the election was all good and very little fraud after they did their "normal" audit to investigate for fraud in the election. People did some digging and found out their "normal" audit was taking like 500 ballots out of millions and going through those 500 to make sure everything was good on them as far as the voter registration record and citizenship status, etc...
There is no way in heck all states are doing a deep dive into all the ballots to confirm only Citizens are voting. They just look at a very very small percentage of the ballots and base their statistics off that.
A big part of the problem I have with many of the "audits" being performed is that they are often having the people who operate the system perform an audit of their own equipment, which violates the whole point of doing the audit. If Dominion or Runbeck or whoever is introducing some level of fraud or vulnerability to fraud, they are going to know exactly where not to look if they don't want that exposed. And there is no way they are going to highlight their own insecurities.
DeschutesAg said:pdc093 said:
100%
I had to show them b/cert. AND my 45 year old marriage certificate.
With the interwebs obtaining these doc's are a SNAP now. Pretty effortless.
https://countyclerk.traviscountytx.gov/departments/recording/vital-stats/
A snap is not what I'm experiencing thus far, even though I'm computer literate (a lot of people are not). I'll eventually figure out which is the correct justice of the peace precinct in Travis County, go to that website page, find the correct address, download the PDF form, fill it out, make a copy for myself, go to my bank for a cashier's check, and get someone at my bank to notarize it. Then I'll mail it.
My sister was born in Brown County, Texas. She lives in Montana. She'll have to do the same process, sans figuring out which JP precinct to mail it to, since the less populated counties in Tx have all their birth records in one location.
https://www.browncountytx.gov/page/brown.Records.Requests
DeschutesAg said:txags92 said:Ramdiesel said:BusterAg said:DeschutesAg said:Quote:
You mean states that make it possible to allow illegals to vote are going to actually investigate it?
Most states already investigate and limit it. We already know the extent of the problem. It is tiny in most states. The three states where it is most prevalent are three deep red states: Texas, Louisiana, Florida.
Many states have laws in place that purposefully make it impossible to investigate.
In CA, you don't have to be a citizen to get a drivers license, and, if you have a drivers license, you can vote. Period. There is no further check.
How in the world would one catch an illegal alien voting in CA?
Yeah, what the DEMs call investigation is BS. In Arizona, with all the mess in the 2020 election, the DEM Secretary of State said the election was all good and very little fraud after they did their "normal" audit to investigate for fraud in the election. People did some digging and found out their "normal" audit was taking like 500 ballots out of millions and going through those 500 to make sure everything was good on them as far as the voter registration record and citizenship status, etc...
There is no way in heck all states are doing a deep dive into all the ballots to confirm only Citizens are voting. They just look at a very very small percentage of the ballots and base their statistics off that.
A big part of the problem I have with many of the "audits" being performed is that they are often having the people who operate the system perform an audit of their own equipment, which violates the whole point of doing the audit. If Dominion or Runbeck or whoever is introducing some level of fraud or vulnerability to fraud, they are going to know exactly where not to look if they don't want that exposed. And there is no way they are going to highlight their own insecurities.
We were required by state law to use certified independent companies that specialize in inspecting the hardware and software components you're referring to.
I think you might have Somalia confused with Wakanda. Somalia has begun a national ID card program. It is a long ways from reality. Requiring ID to vote might incentivize more Somalis there to get the card, though.Ellis Wyatt said:
Somalia requires ID to vote. Those third worlders laugh at our gullibility. As they fly away with our money.
txags92 said:DeschutesAg said:txags92 said:Ramdiesel said:BusterAg said:DeschutesAg said:Quote:
You mean states that make it possible to allow illegals to vote are going to actually investigate it?
Most states already investigate and limit it. We already know the extent of the problem. It is tiny in most states. The three states where it is most prevalent are three deep red states: Texas, Louisiana, Florida.
Many states have laws in place that purposefully make it impossible to investigate.
In CA, you don't have to be a citizen to get a drivers license, and, if you have a drivers license, you can vote. Period. There is no further check.
How in the world would one catch an illegal alien voting in CA?
Yeah, what the DEMs call investigation is BS. In Arizona, with all the mess in the 2020 election, the DEM Secretary of State said the election was all good and very little fraud after they did their "normal" audit to investigate for fraud in the election. People did some digging and found out their "normal" audit was taking like 500 ballots out of millions and going through those 500 to make sure everything was good on them as far as the voter registration record and citizenship status, etc...
There is no way in heck all states are doing a deep dive into all the ballots to confirm only Citizens are voting. They just look at a very very small percentage of the ballots and base their statistics off that.
A big part of the problem I have with many of the "audits" being performed is that they are often having the people who operate the system perform an audit of their own equipment, which violates the whole point of doing the audit. If Dominion or Runbeck or whoever is introducing some level of fraud or vulnerability to fraud, they are going to know exactly where not to look if they don't want that exposed. And there is no way they are going to highlight their own insecurities.
We were required by state law to use certified independent companies that specialize in inspecting the hardware and software components you're referring to.
Depends on the state you were in. In places like Colorado, Arizona, and Georgia, vendors involved in setting up the systems were the ones doing the audits.
Quote:
We were required by state law to use certified independent companies that specialize in inspecting the hardware and software components you're referring to.
DeschutesAg said:Hubert J. Farnsworth said:DeschutesAg said:Quote:
So you agree that we should pass the SAVE act?
In its current form? No, it should not be passed. It needs some major revisions.
What major revisions?
1. Lead time, for starters. I am fine with requiring tighter voter registration security, but the legislation should provide adequate funding and lead time to modify voter registration databases and data entry screens for that, and then to handle the actual verification process itself.
2. Voters should be given adequate time, too. I realize even saying that will trigger some of you. But it is a fact: at least 20M to 30M adult Americans don't currently have their birth certificate paperwork. They'll have to request it from the county governments where they were born.
3. Also, my understanding is: every person in the USA who wants to vote in the 2026 federal primaries and the November 2026 federal general election will have to make an in-person visit to a voter registration office in their county of legal residence to have their proof of citizenship papers verified and their data in their home state's voter registration database updated.
One of the things that has been intentionally conflated in these discussion threads is "showing photo ID" and "proving citizenship". Those are two different things.
4. There are also some important privacy and civil liberties issues hidden inside Chip Roy's bill language which haven't been adequately examined, analyzed, debated, and discussed.
Are we citizens okay with an agency like DHS having all our information? Fifty years ago, a majority of Americans opposed that concept. Maybe public opinion has changed, but the implications are enormous and should be widely discussed.
5. Chip's bill has some language that targets states that do 100% vote by mail. Some of those states have the most stringent voter verification and election security measures in the USA.
If we truly believe in liberty and in states having some rights, we should make sure the bill lets the voters in those states keep their 100% VBM systems. Those states' voters voted overwhelmingly (75%+) to implement 100% VBM systems after first trying out VBM in several non-federal instate elections.
We fixed the keg said:Quote:
We were required by state law to use certified independent companies that specialize in inspecting the hardware and software components you're referring to.
Pro V&V and SLI did a bang up job in Arizona for the 2020 elections. Neither audit caught systems connected, or with the ability to connect to the Internet. I loved the Pro V&V audit selecting a whopping (5) tabulators, one with a missing seal and also admitting another was a spare unit not actually used in the election.
At a minimum, these audits are woefully inadequate. I have no idea why a federal election should not be as critical as processing payments, yet none of these processes could meet a single requirement in a PCI audit.
I made a little ditty about the devil, I mean Norm Eisen, going down to Georgia. He’s actually been there for many years. https://t.co/5Lm8b7ugKj
— The Researcher (@listen_2learn) February 14, 2026
During the 2020 election, Wisconsin had 7.1 MILLION registered voters, but only 4 million adults exist in the state.
— The SCIF (@TheSCIF) February 14, 2026
Even today, the total number of adults that exist in Wisconsin is around 4,730,447.
Make it make sense? The 2020 election was stolen. pic.twitter.com/12YwGbf6eN
aggiehawg said:During the 2020 election, Wisconsin had 7.1 MILLION registered voters, but only 4 million adults exist in the state.
— The SCIF (@TheSCIF) February 14, 2026
Even today, the total number of adults that exist in Wisconsin is around 4,730,447.
Make it make sense? The 2020 election was stolen. pic.twitter.com/12YwGbf6eN
No, this claim is misleading. Official data shows Wisconsin had ~3.7 million active registered voters in 2020, not 7.1 million—that figure includes inactive records (e.g., moved or deceased). Adult population was ~4.6 million then and ~4.73 million now. The numbers don't indicate…
— Grok (@grok) February 14, 2026
