HoustonAggie11 said:

---

African Americans can not handle getting IDs this is Jim Crow 2.0

---

Dems are upset because they think blacks can't accomplish such a difficult feat.

flown-the-coop said:

---

This is not a one and done.

These votes will be called over and over again. At some point the Dems and their MeCowSkis and Corpsee Collins will line up with the Rs.

Believe Fetterman is also a yes even now.

Voter ID will be in place for Nov 2026.

---

I would love to be as optimistic as you, but I just don't see this happening. Will be a shock if Thune even brings this to a vote one time. Thune reminds me of Paul Ryan.

Muy said:

---

HoustonAggie11 said:

---

African Americans can not handle getting IDs this is Jim Crow 2.0

---

Dems are upset because they think blacks can't accomplish such a difficult feat.

---

They are racists if they truly believe that. There are no barriers other than laziness that prevent people from getting a suitable ID in today's America. They for sure believe that their most reliable demographic (dead people) can't get or show ID.

Doesn't every state already require you to show proof of citizenship and in-state residency prior to letting you register to vote there?

Ag with kids said:

---

Iraq2xVeteran said:

---

I hope the Senate passes the SAVE Act. Requiring an ID to vote should not even be debated because we have to show photo ID's for so many other things.

---

It's an 80-20 issue.

The GOP needs to record everything and then bludgeon the left with the behavior of the left when they make commercials for their elections...

---

Yeah, make a nationwide commercial with something like, "the same people that forced you to have to show proof you got the Covid Vaccine to travel and keep your job, don't want you to have to prove you're a citizen to Vote."

DeschutesAg said:

---

Doesn't every state already require you to show proof of citizenship and in-state residency prior to letting you register to vote there?

---

No. With "Motor Voter" registration laws allowing you to register when getting a license, and some states giving drivers licenses to illegals, there is a big loophole there where illegals can register to vote in those states. There are also states that allowed provisional ballots for people who showed up to vote on election day without being registered. While they were supposed to by law hold those ballots separate until they could be verified, in some places like PA, they immediately got dumped in with the rest of the ballots (by design) and counted, which eliminated the chance to toss ballots for people who were not eligible. When challenged about it, the judges threw up their hands and said there was no available remedy since the ballots were already all mixed in with valid ballots.

Quote:

---

To get a USPS PO Box, you must present two forms of valid, current identification at the post office: one photo ID and one non-photo ID that verifies your physical address. Accepted IDs include a driver's license, passport, state ID, or university ID, while proof of address includes a lease, utility bill, or voter registration.

---

For perspective.

agcrock2005 said:

---

Next few days will be very telling as to how our country is going to end up. If Senate just says "we can't get to 60" and does nothing, then we are doomed. It is mandatory to go nuclear. As soon as D's get power they'll do it. This feels like our last shot as we see how bat **** crazy the left has become. Massive cheating in the midterms and Trump will accomplish nothing in last two years of office if we do nothing. I'm leaning toward that considering the R house and senant have done absolutely nothing of importance over the first year. No DOGE codification, no election security, no Epstein folks being prosecuted... They've done nothing that was "mandated" in 2024. Scary times. We lose midterms I fear we're not far from R's never winning ever again. I'm going to have a drink with my pistol in my lap now....lol.

---

Yep this could be one of the most important pieces of legislation in American history. It could be the end of many dem politicians if passed.

Illegals take the food out of poor Americans mouths, take rentals from families, take seats away from our students, even drive up taxes on trailer houses to educate illegals in different language than English!
Democrats force our very own into poverty for their voting block they want to increase.
Plus, we spend millions on high school soccer that no one watches and doesn't even pay for refs and turning the lights on!

DeschutesAg said:

---

Doesn't every state already require you to show proof of citizenship and in-state residency prior to letting you register to vote there?

---

No. Not at all. But you know that.

Quote:

---

They are going to wear this one around their neck come November

---

No they won't. No one on the left thinks about that stuff at all. All they hear and see is anti-trump on their news and social media feeds. It is astounding how each side has their own echo chamber of information and they are so far apart.

Almost like it is part of the plan to seize power and control the population...... (regardless of the side that does it.)

agcrock2005 said:

---

. I'm leaning toward that considering the R house and senant have done absolutely nothing of importance over the first year. No DOGE codification, no election security, no Epstein folks being prosecuted... They've done nothing that was "mandated" in 2024. Scary times. We lose midterms I fear we're not far from R's never winning ever again. I'm going to have a drink with my pistol in my lap now....lol.

---

While your overall point is very strong, you may want to point that criticism in a different direction.

*Have not read thread.

I know I shouldn't be surprised, but it still surprises me how much the Dems are fighting against more secure elections. Pretty much every poll shown even on all the Dem friendly news shows this is something the American people want.

It's almost as if they know they cannot win without fraud.

Question; is there even a small chance the senate passes this?

Please contact these senators to confirm that you want voter ID required in elections in America https://t.co/xFX2adeV0J

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 11, 2026

I see people raising heck about it on the right, but how could this plausibly get to 50+1 in a floor vote in the nominally Thune-run senate?

It's got to be really hard to unprogram the party over policy brainwashing that a significant majority of the left is consumed with, in my opinion.

Unfortunately it also applies to the right in large numbers as well.

It does not appear to even have 50 votes, which is why filibuster end isn't really on the table.

DeschutesAg said:

---

Doesn't every state already require you to show proof of citizenship and in-state residency prior to letting you register to vote there?

---

California for one has created structural legal barriers between the departments which manage voter rolls versus those which issue state ID's. While there's not a law that explicitly says "non-citizens may vote" there is one which forbids checking ID on site at polling places and against cross referencing the voter roll lists against citizenship.

The vetting process then is just checking a self attestation box on the state ID application, and allegedly sometimes even if the box is left unchecked the applicant is still added to voter rolls in a mass upload from DMV forms.

Here it is:

The Democrat Party, across 19 states, allows photo ID driver’s licenses for illegal aliens, while 15 of them automatically register illegals to vote through the DMV. Yet they oppose national voter ID.

Here is:
The State of California: At the DMV, when you register… pic.twitter.com/LC8jbqE4h3

— 🇺🇸RealRobert🇺🇸 (@Real_RobN) February 9, 2026

Sheriff from Lodi CA sounded the🚨back in 2023, on just how easy election fraud is in California 👇🏼👇🏼

“The online voter registration system seems to be an ‘Honor System’ … anybody can put information in there to register to vote.

All you have to do is click a box and say… pic.twitter.com/O5UN0SaTdJ

— Heatherheather007 (@LibertyValkyrie) February 8, 2026

In 2005, the Real ID Act requiring original documents to prove your identity, was passed in the Republican House with 3/4ths of Democrats voting YES. In the Republican held Senate, it was included in HR1268 and UNANIMOUSLY approved.

So what's changed for Democrats? They were almost 100% FOR supplying birth certificates, passports, and social security documents to secure a Real ID but now it's a problem? You have to use an ID to buy freaking cold medication!

nortex97 said:

---

Question; is there even a small chance the senate passes this?
I see people raising heck about it on the right, but how could this plausibly get to 50+1 in a floor vote in the nominally Thune-run senate?

---

My money is on it becoming law after a long show trial filibuster. Too much bluster and momentum has been expended for it to just go away quietly - the White House and Johnson would not have endorsed so strongly if the math were utterly impossible.

The R's are more than happy to have this argument eat up news cycle for a while as they're on the 80-side of the 80/20 issue. Only degrades the Dem position going into the midterms.

🚨 BREAKING: Speaker Johnson indicates momentum is building in the Senate to push Democrats into a standing filibuster.

That move could allow the SAVE America Act to pass with 50+1 votes.pic.twitter.com/2Y3Bv9lvKZ

— Derrick Evans (@DerrickEvans4WV) February 12, 2026

And yet not all states require REAL ID.

samurai_science said:

---

But the Senate......wont pass it, need 60 I think

---

If a bill is in the news, it will not pass the senate.

If a bill is news then it's political. If it's political then you have to vote to oppose the other political party no matter the issue.

The only political legislation that can pass the senate is budget reconciliation.

This bill was never intended to become law, it was only put forth as red meat to quiet down hyperventilating conservatives who don't know better and want "action".

Also, the nuclear option would be a bad idea. Keep the senate rules the way they are. If you break the senate rules the democrats will just reverse everything you did once they have a president and pass even worse things that republicans will have to spend a significant amount of time reversing once they have a president and a majority.

rgag12 said:

---

samurai_science said:

---

But the Senate......wont pass it, need 60 I think

---

If a bill is in the news, it will not pass the senate.

If a bill is news then it's political. If it's political then you have to vote to oppose the other political party no matter the issue.

The only political legislation that can pass the senate is budget reconciliation.

This bill was never intended to become law, it was only put forth as red meat to quiet down hyperventilating conservatives who don't know better and want "action".

Also, the nuclear option would be a bad idea. Keep the senate rules the way they are. If you break the senate rules the democrats will just reverse everything you did once they have a president and pass even worse things that republicans will have to spend a significant amount of time reversing once they have a president and a majority.

---

lol. Dems are going to pass it all the moment they have control. Look at what they do when they got power in places like Illinois, Minnesota, and currently Virginia.

You pass all this now and maybe it keeps them from getting power.

https://bipartisanpolicy.org/article/five-things-to-know-about-the-save-act/

Quote:

---

Records from this program show that just 0.04% of voter verification cases are returned as noncitizens.

---

Quote:

---

...the legislation does not clearly specify how documentary proof must be submitted for online registration, leaving election officials without clear guidance on acceptable delivery methods. This ambiguity increases the risk of inconsistent implementation across jurisdictions and places election officials in the position of making high-stakes judgment calls without clear statutory direction.

---

Quote:

---

Despite the administrative difficulty of implementation, the SAVE Act prioritizes expediency over precision. The act becomes effective on the date of enactment, giving states no time to adjust processes. It also requires that the U.S. Election Assistance Commission offer implementation guidance to states within just 10 days of enactment. Further, the SAVE Act offers no funding to states to assist with implementation costs.

---

IDaggie06 said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

This is not a one and done.

These votes will be called over and over again. At some point the Dems and their MeCowSkis and Corpsee Collins will line up with the Rs.

Believe Fetterman is also a yes even now.

Voter ID will be in place for Nov 2026.

---

I would love to be as optimistic as you, but I just don't see this happening. Will be a shock if Thune even brings this to a vote one time. Thune reminds me of Paul Ryan.

---

Thune continues to be a disappointment but McConnell was useless and it was either Thune OVER Cornyn. In other words, it could be worse.

But goddammit we need to quit settling on R leadership and find true R leaders. In the Senate, the bench is rail thin.

Regarding the optimism… you set the goal and work towards it. Preach it, make it the norm.

Not only is it an 80/20 issue but I would be curious if they polled who knew you could vote WITHOUT ID in some places. I bet you those results would be shocking to most.

I'd like you to be right. Trump should invite Murkowski for a discussion imho, to see what he can offer to get her in line. Yes, I know, but she can be bought off just like the rest of the swamp. They don't really even pretend to hide that.

YNWA.2013 said:

---

https://bipartisanpolicy.org/article/five-things-to-know-about-the-save-act/

Quote:

---

Records from this program show that just 0.04% of voter verification cases are returned as noncitizens.

---

Quote:

---

...the legislation does not clearly specify how documentary proof must be submitted for online registration, leaving election officials without clear guidance on acceptable delivery methods. This ambiguity increases the risk of inconsistent implementation across jurisdictions and places election officials in the position of making high-stakes judgment calls without clear statutory direction.

---

Quote:

---

Despite the administrative difficulty of implementation, the SAVE Act prioritizes expediency over precision. The act becomes effective on the date of enactment, giving states no time to adjust processes. It also requires that the U.S. Election Assistance Commission offer implementation guidance to states within just 10 days of enactment. Further, the SAVE Act offers no funding to states to assist with implementation costs.

---

---

This is a bunch of horse*****

It's nearly impossible to verify ballots after they are cast and counted to determine if they were legally cast. Trotting out a useless stat that reflects the process and not the problem is intentionally misleading. Is the contention on the left that illegals can be trusted not to vote even though they can in many states because ******ed anti-American laws, but… Black people cannot be trusted to obtain and provide an ID. Do the Dems really think that low of Black people?

The implementation process allows for some administrative decisions at the local level. If the Act included minute detail on "implementation", it would just be fodder for endless legal action. So is the concept now that in 7 months we cannot implement voter ID but in 5 months in 2020 we can completely change voting procedures cause COVID. Another Dem point just blown up. Sorry.

And then this crap trying to scare married women saying if they took their husbands name at marriage they will not be able to vote without sacrificing their first born. Again, horse***** Anyone who changes their name at marriage goes through the process to get a new ID… or they really didn't take their husbands name did they? Complete nonsense.

And then so rich that "we cannot do this at all because they didn't include billions of dollars in funding to make it happen.

BTW - bipartisan.org assessing legislation is like Epstein running a children's helpline. Get real.

nortex97 said:

---

I'd like you to be right. Trump should invite Murkowski for a discussion imho, to see what he can offer to get her in line. Yes, I know, but she can be bought off just like the rest of the swamp. They don't really even pretend to hide that.

---

Cut all funding to Alaska, pull all drilling permits. Tell her it's stopped until she votes yes.

I like a direct conversation idea, but would expect her to just flip parties officially then (possibly taking another outgoing swamp senator with her until the midterms, like Tillis), claim Trump tried to bully her (pull a victim card), and then we'd have even more real problems.

Susie Wiles I think is in charge of this crap, and she's not as dumb as the idiotic interview she gave to fake news would have many believe.