Update on the SAVE Act in the Senate
Susan Collins of Maine says she supports the bill with its voting security safeguards, bringing the total probable Senate votes up to 50, with Vance able to act as a tie-breaking vote for the act if – and it’s quite an “if” – there’s enough GOP support for the so-called nuclear option to pass it.
And Collins doesn’t support the nuclear option. Catch-22.
Nor is she the only GOP member who doesn’t support the nuclear option (something similar happened to the Democrats at the hands of Manchin and Sinema during the Biden administration, when they tried to pass a national voting act that reduced voting security and the two senators wouldn’t support the nuclear option to pass it).
Is there a work-around to save SAVE? Maybe:
Lee and other conservatives believe that if they turn to the standing filibuster, rather than the “zombie filibuster,” they can barrel through Democratic resistance.
But some fear that turning to that tool could paralyze the Senate floor for weeks or even months, depending on Senate Democrats’ resolve.
Because most people think the Democrats will win control of at least the House in 2026, time is of the essence.
Collins voted to set aside the filibuster three times in 2025. She’s playing “vote for it while voting against it”. The Majority Leadership is allowing her to do so, because there are others in the Majority who need to be on record voting for it but don’t want it to actually pass.
If that doesn’t make sense on the surface, why wouldn’t the GOP be 100% against securing elections–consider that each Senator and Congressman voting on this got there by using the system as it is now. It is working for the people we are asking to change it. A Senator or Congressman keeps his seat depending on his constituency, not on who gets elected President or which party ends up with which house of Congress.
The “Zombie” filibuster should be outlawed.
The “Zombie” POTUS should also be outlawed. 🙂
Hear, hear, Huxley!!
Lol.
Once was too much!
I think the current catch is Thune won’t bring the bill to the floor without moving it through McConnell’s committee. Without McConnell’s support it likely dies there. I guess we could call this using a “red slip” to kill it in committee.
According to Grok’s research:
“The bill defines “documentary proof of United States citizenship” specifically for voter registration applicants as any of the following documents:A form of identification issued consistent with the requirements of the REAL ID Act of 2005 that indicates the applicant is a citizen of the United States. (Important caveat: Most standard REAL IDs prove lawful presence/residency but do not indicate citizenship status, so they typically would not qualify alone unless the state-issued version explicitly notes citizenship.)
A valid United States passport.
The applicant’s official United States military identification card, together with a United States military record of service showing that the applicant’s place of birth was in the United States.
A valid government-issued photo identification card issued by a Federal, State, or Tribal government showing that the applicant’s place of birth was in the United States.
Additional documents referenced in some bill texts or analyses (e.g., from earlier or related versions) include:A Naturalization Certificate or Certificate of Citizenship issued by the Secretary of Homeland Security (or other federal documents under the Immigration and Nationality Act).
An American Indian Card issued by DHS with the classification “KIC” (for certain tribal members).
Common forms like a standard driver’s license, non-citizenship-indicating state ID, or typical REAL ID generally do not suffice on their own, as they rarely display place of birth or citizenship explicitly. In practice, many eligible voters would need a passport, birth certificate (often paired with photo ID if required by state processes), naturalization papers, or similar.The bill also requires states to establish an alternative process for applicants lacking these standard documents. This could involve submitting “other evidence” of citizenship (e.g., an attestation under penalty of perjury, followed by state verification against federal databases), but details are left to states and guidance from the Election Assistance Commission, and it’s described as potentially limited or burdensome.”
This is a lot more complicated than showing your driver’s license to buy liquor or board an airplane. In my case, for example, I have a driver’s license with Real ID, but it does not indicate citizenship. I have a passport, but IIRC it is expired. My FAA-issued pilot’s certificate says “Nationality: USA”, but apparently nationality does not imply citizenship.
Sure, I can easily get a renewed passport. But for a lot of people, these requirements really do seem pretty burdensome. And who knows what “alternative methods of compliance” the states may or may not come up with?
My leftist friends (and non-friends) at FB are beating up on this one pretty hard, and it’s really not easy to defend in its current state. Maybe we should have something a little simple even if not quite as perfect against fraud.
@David Foster:But for a lot of people, these requirements really do seem pretty burdensome.
No more difficult than the I-9 form that every working person fills out. Anyone who works can comply.
Millions of people successfully procure a passport, and they are good for ten years. Renewing a passport is not difficult, millions of people keep their passports up to date. A copy of my birth certificate in my state costs $25 and some people are eligible for a free copy. There are so many options here, these objections are spurious.
Any number of other countries’ citizens are mysteriously able to comply with analogous requirements.
NC…it would be interesting to look at the details of how the systems work in other countries…think I’ll ask Grok:
“Many major democracies around the world require some form of identification to vote, typically to verify the voter’s identity against official electoral rolls and prevent impersonation (a form of fraud known as “personation”). This is standard practice in over 170 countries and jurisdictions, according to global datasets like the Comparative Voter ID Law index.Unlike the U.S. (where federal law leaves it to states, with about 36 requiring some ID at the polls as of 2026), these countries often pair ID requirements with systems that make compliance easier—such as issuing national or voter-specific ID cards, providing free alternatives, or using technology like biometrics.Below, I outline requirements and validation processes for several major countries (focusing on in-person voting, as it’s the most common). Details are based on official electoral authorities and recent practices as of 2026. Requirements can vary slightly by election type or region.United KingdomRequirement: Strict photo ID required at polling stations in England (and similar in Wales/Scotland for certain elections; Northern Ireland has had it longer). Introduced nationwide via the Elections Act 2022.
Accepted IDs: Over 20 forms, including UK/EU passports, driving licenses, older person’s bus passes, disability concession cards, Voter Authority Certificate (free government-issued alternative), and some bank cards (recent expansions).
Validation Process: Poll workers visually inspect the original photo ID to confirm it matches the voter’s appearance and is on the accepted list. They cross-check the name against the electoral register (a list of registered voters at that station). Expired IDs are often accepted if the photo still resembles the voter. No ID? Voters can apply for a free Voter Authority Certificate in advance.
CanadaRequirement: Proof of both identity and current address (not always photo-based; federal elections via Elections Canada).
Accepted IDs: Option 1: One government-issued photo ID with name and address (e.g., driver’s license, health card).
Option 2: Two pieces of ID (both with name; one with address), like utility bills or student cards.
Option 3: Vouching by a registered voter from the same polling station (if no ID).
Validation Process: Poll officials review the documents against the voter list. Electronic or printed copies are often accepted. The system emphasizes accessibility, with vouching as a backup to avoid disenfranchisement.
IndiaRequirement: Photo ID strongly preferred; the Elector’s Photo Identity Card (EPIC, or Voter ID) is the primary document.
Accepted IDs: EPIC is ideal, but alternatives include passport, driver’s license, Aadhaar card, or other government photo IDs (12+ options).
Validation Process: At the polling booth, officials check the ID against the voter list (which includes photos). In most booths, biometric verification (fingerprint scan) matches against the Aadhaar-linked database for added security. This has significantly reduced fraud in the world’s largest democracy. Polling officers also mark the voter’s finger with indelible ink.
MexicoRequirement: Mandatory presentation of the Credencial para Votar (official Voter ID card issued by the National Electoral Institute, INE).
Accepted IDs: Primarily the Voter ID card (includes photo, fingerprint data, hologram, and other security features); it’s widely used as general ID too.
Validation Process: Voters present the card at the polling station. Officials verify it visually (photo match, security features) and cross-check against the electoral roll. The card is scanned or manually confirmed; some advanced systems use biometrics. The card is free, expires every 10 years, and must be collected in person.
BrazilRequirement: Voter title (Título de Eleitor) with photo, plus biometric identification.
Accepted IDs: The voter card or digital app version; photo ID may supplement.
Validation Process: Highly advanced—voters place their finger on a scanner at the electronic voting machine (EVM). The system matches the fingerprint to the national biometric database (covering ~83% of voters as of 2024, aiming for near-100% by 2026). This prevents duplicates and impersonation. The process is fast and integrated with the voting machine.
GermanyRequirement: Voter notification card (Wahlschein) is primary; photo ID is requested if needed.
Accepted IDs: National ID card (Personalausweis), passport, or other official photo ID.
Validation Process: Voters present the notification card (mailed to registered voters) at the assigned station. Poll workers check it against the electoral register. If the card is missing or there’s doubt, they require photo ID. Identity is confirmed via visual match and register cross-check. No strict photo mandate in all cases.
FranceRequirement: Identity document required in larger towns/communes (>1,000 inhabitants); polling card suffices in smaller ones but ID can be requested.
Accepted IDs: National ID card (Carte Nationale d’Identité), passport, or equivalent (valid or recently expired).
Validation Process: Voters show the document to polling officials, who visually verify the photo and details against the electoral roll. The system relies on manual checks but is straightforward due to widespread national ID cards.
Key Patterns Across These CountriesPhoto ID is common but not always “strict” (e.g., Canada and Germany offer flexibility).
Validation is mostly low-tech: Visual photo match + electoral register check by trained poll workers. Advanced systems (India, Brazil, Mexico) add biometrics for higher security.
Accessibility features: Free alternative IDs (UK), vouching (Canada), or national voter cards (many countries) minimize barriers. Many nations issue IDs automatically or at low/no cost.
Citizenship verification: Happens at registration (often with documents), not repeatedly at polls—similar to the SAVE Act’s focus but with built-in ID infrastructure.
Criticisms and Outcomes: Proponents cite reduced fraud; critics note potential turnout dips among certain groups (e.g., elderly, low-income). Studies in these countries generally show high compliance and trust, with mitigation measures.
In summary, voter ID is a near-global norm in major democracies, tailored to each country’s context (e.g., national IDs make it seamless in Europe and Latin America). If the U.S. adopts similar rules, experiences from these nations suggest success depends on making IDs accessible and free. For the latest official details, check each country’s electoral commission website.”
@David Foster:think I’ll ask Grok:
That’s fine for you if you accept Grok’s answers. If I ever want to know what Grok says I will consult it myself as I am a subscriber. I’ve already looked up what other industrialized countries require, the information is public after all and they have official webpages.
Make the Dems actually filibuster. Make them actually stand up and speechify.
And, as way to get them to vote to end debate, have someone from the GOP recognized as the first speaker, then start reading from the Epstein files every mention of the Clintons and other Democrat grandees.
David L.: Lol!!
Can they bring props?
I’d suggest Epstein’s painting of Bill in that lovely blue dress!
David L,
Yes, make the R’s fight clever rather than dirty. Great idea!
@R2L:Yes, make the R’s fight clever rather than dirty.
Yeah, someone should really put a bell on that cat… The R’s would have to want to fight. The three times they set aside the filibuster in 2025 were nothing as consequential as this. The “hallowed tradition of the Senate” is only trotted out to avoid doing something that a broad swath of people want done.
When Collins joined the majority of 51 to set aside the filibuster on May 21, 2025, do you know what the issue was? Disapproving the EPA waivers given to California for zero- and low- emission regulations. She can set aside her principles to do something about regulations that hurt auto manufacturers, but for fixing Federal elections which she claims to support doing all of a sudden she’s invested in hallowed Senate traditions.