The House was busy today
It passed the SAVE Act, which requires proof of citizenship to register to vote in federal elections, plus the removal of non-citizens from voter rolls.
I’m not 100% certain that this law will stand – even if it manages to pass the Senate, which is a big “if”. States have usually been the arbiters of voting rules, although Congress has some say in federal elections and this bill is merely an amendment to a previous voting act passed by Congress. So if it passes in the Senate it might very well become the law.
Just a few short years ago its elements would have had wide bipartisan support. No longer, although it has nominally bilateral support because four Democrats voted yes: Rep. Ed Case (HI), Rep. Henry Cueller (TX), Rep. Jared Golden (ME), and Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (WA).
In other actions, the House passed a budget resolution:
The House of Representatives passed a budget resolution, which gives President Donald Trump’s “big, beautiful” bill its first win.
However, it once again shows Republicans are not as committed to cutting spending as they claim.
NOTE: DOGE has also been busy – very very busy:
Here’s what the investigation revealed:
24,500 people, allegedly over 115 years old, claimed $59 million in benefits.
28,000 supposed children between the ages of 1 and 5 claimed $254 million.
9,700 claims from people with future birth dates totaled $69 million.
Those states like CA, AZ, NY etc., will determine that either a driver’s license or a SS# will constitute proof of citizenship.
States that want illegals to vote will find a way to do this, irrespective of any federal laws.
It will sort of be like forcing colleges to get rid of affirmative action in student admissions. The colleges will just find other ways to determine the race and ethnicity of the applicant (e.g., zip code and name of applicant, etc.).
So if an applicant’s first/last name is Lakisha or Finkelstein or Chang or Rodriguez, etc., one has a very good idea of that applicant’s race.
With every DOGE discovery of fraud and mismanagement enabling fraud, Democrats opposing DOGE look even more venal.
States that want illegals to vote will find a way to do this, irrespective of any federal laws.
–JohnTyler
But for how long?
I recall states which once supported slavery … and now don’t.
I recall states which once supported Jim Crow … and now don’t.
Things don’t always stay the same.
The benefit of having a federal law on the books, for national votes, is that now, people can sue the states for not abiding by the letter of the law. The changes also include requirements for purging the voter rolls. It’s undeniable progress – if the squishies in the Senate will stand on their hind legs and say ‘Aye’.
Huxley that was not exactly a peaceful transition. It was paid for by battlefields of dead bodies.
Kate:
About your comment that Democrats look venal for supporting fraud and mismanagement — you say that as if you thought they cared what they look like.
Richard F Cook, they still supported slavery and enacted Jim Crow after the Civil War. But they did change later, in the 20th century.
Thomas “they did change later, in the 20th century.”
Not much IMO. Still exploiting minorities. Expecting them to do as they say, to stay on the plantation.
And still looking for slave labor.
Without illegals, “Who will pick the fruit??”
Neo,
You have been an astute observer and I have enjoyed every moment, all things must end but I do hope you continue as long as you are able and want to!
It will not make it through the Senate. It will not get cloture and with that I still don’t want to get rid of the filibuster because I don’t think a faster legislature helps us most of the time.
Re: SAVE Act
As I’ve understood it, it doesn’t actually make voter ID compulsory. That is beyond the scope of the federal government’s powers.
Instead, it uses the (now commonplace) constitutional end-run where the Feds merely tie spending to voter ID laws. You can embrace voter ID and get federal funding for your state’s election apparatus or fail to and fund it yourself.
Of course, your citizens pay the same federal taxes either way…
IMO this method in general (and this law in particular) are unconstitutional because it allows the federal government to dictate state laws that the Feds themselves couldn’t enact, violating state sovereignty in the process. And proponents can point to the state or two that didn’t adopt the national speed limit to prove that states don’t always knuckle under.
It’s extremely unlikely that the Supreme Court would be willing to uproot Federal power like that, but I can dream.
Boobah: The Constitution gives the Federal Government the power to change State voting laws. Voting Rights Act of 1964 for instance.
Boobah:
Cutting federal aid is a tried and true, long-used tool of the federal government for a host of things, as you yourself indicated in your comment. It doesn’t dictate state laws. It just denies federal money involvement in those laws. Kind of like a parent saying to a teenager – look, you can buy that fancy expensive car, but you’ll have to pay for it yourself. The reason it’s become such a powerful tool is that states have become more and more reliant on federal largesse.
“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government”
Letting non-citizens usurp our voting rights would appear to be forbidden.
The current meme is that the SAVE Act will force women who have taken their husband’s name to either be disenfranchised or go to great lengths to prove US citizenship. My wife posted this to FB.
Well, the bill is a bit different.
All US states are Real ID compliant, so a state’s DL or ID is proof of citizenship. Note, that’s a problem with states who hand them out to illegals like candy. If you don’t have that a US passport, a US military ID, or any other federally approved ID also works.
The only time, according to the bill, that you have to use birth certificates and other such documents is when that doesn’t cover the above.
The vast majority of US citizens have a state DL or ID, which makes this meme moot. Those that don’t can get one fairly easily, think what you did as teenager to get a state driver’s license.
When women marry and take their husband’s name, a simple form is filled out and maybe an extremely small fee paid to change you DL/ID. Ditto when you change addresses.
Now, Real ID, in May, 2025, you will need a DL/ID that is compliant for things like domestic air travel. Again, pretty much most US citizens are covered. Granted, I personally hate that. It’s antithetical to what America was founded on and is about.
Real ID was passed in 2005 as a response to 9-11. Yep, what’s his face OBL, was very correct on his quip. Yes, it was passed under W in which Republicans controlled the Executive, Congress, the Senate and the House. Thing is, this Republican control was not strong except the House and the Real ID act passed with massive Senate and House votes. This means a large amount of Democrats supported it.
Oh, just so you know, anyone in what is called Free Associated States that entered the US lawfully, but their passport expired can renew their passport or present another valid ID to be considered Real ID compliant. This was passed in 2018 under Trump.
Free Associated States are places like Micronesia, which I have been to, Palau, and the Marshal Islands. This is per DHS faq page on Real ID.
This also applies to drivers licenses and ID cards from citizens of those Free Associated States.