· 198 comments · Save ·
Announcements Mar 26, 2026 at 5:56 PM

Amendment to require photo ID to vote fails in Senate as Democrats object

Posted by southernemper0r

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/save-america-act-photo-id-amendment-senate-vote/
🚩 Report this post

198 Comments

Sign in to comment — or just click the box below.
🔒 Your email is never shown publicly.
UseYourIndoorVoice Mar 26, 2026 +1024
The bigger problem with this bill that isn't being talked about enough, is that it makes states share their voter info with the federal government. And it allows monthly purges of the voter rolls without notifying the person being purged.
1024
kafka_lite Mar 26, 2026 +391
And every article discussing it should mention it is grossly unconstitutional.
391
realdawnerd Mar 26, 2026 +70
unconstitutional until the court rolls over and allows it
70
too_too2 Mar 27, 2026 +31
it can still be unconstitutional, court rulings get overturned all the time.
31
titjackson Mar 26, 2026 +38
What does purging the voter roll mean? Genuinely asking, haven’t heard of that before
38
9mackenzie Mar 26, 2026 +131
They just get rid of people that have previously registered to vote, so you show up to vote and you aren’t registered. GA has done it quite a few times right before elections. Particularly with Kemp.
131
Pokemaster131 Mar 26, 2026 +94
Not just this, but if you know who has voted for which party in the past, you know just which passport applications to delay and which ones to fast track in time for the midterms.
94
toomuchsoysauce Mar 27, 2026 +1
Oh yuck this is so gross
1
ELStoker Mar 27, 2026 +1
Texas did it just before the 2024 election. My mom was turned away because she wasn't registered in our county even though she had just gotten her VRC in the mail two days prior with our current address, and county.
1
SpiderFudge Mar 27, 2026 +1
This is seriously fucked up.
1
ImOnFireAgain Mar 26, 2026 +30
Removing "inactive" or "ineligible" names from the pool of people registered to vote. It's supposed to be used for dead people.
30
PassivelyAwkward Mar 27, 2026 +12
Back when I worked for the Registrar of Voters, after the election, we would go through the registered voters and purge people. The criteria was someone moving/registering in another County, not voting in x number of elections, death, or name change. For things like moving or name change, it wouldn't be a "purge" but more of an overwrite so if someone voted in 2022 in San Diego and but then voted in 2024 in LA, the San Diego would information would be merged into the LA to make LA the new default. At least in California, there's a lot of oversight so you only really lose registeration if you haven't voted in 2-4 years but in other states, especially deeply red states, they'll purge your registration randomly with nonsensical reasons like not voting in a single election (including the primary), they'll count that. So if you're a dem in like...Alabama and don't vote in the Democrating primary because there's only a single dem running, they claim that's enough to kick you and you won't know until you try to vote. That's the downside about the states running their own elections; they can make up their own rules for a lot of shit. It's why states that're primarily MAGA, you're more likely to be purged for bullshit just before an election while Dem-led states will only purge you for very specific rules.
12
AggressiveAnt7613 Mar 26, 2026 +7414
its sad how many people look at this SAVE c*** as common sense. I read this and see that it says an ID that shows citizenship..... Only a passport fulfills that requirement. So that means everyone that doesn't have one has to gather a bunch of docs that they have hidden away and bring them to someone that may just say they are fake and you weren't born in Hawaii.... obviously this birth certifcate from 1950 is fake, it doesnt have a watermark or a hologram.... sheesh! [Text - H.R.7296 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): SAVE America Act | Congress.gov | Library of Congress](https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/7296/text) [SAVEact-tables.pdf](https://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2025/01/SAVEact-tables.pdf) edit: only one doc meets the requirements in one shot…. All the other cases (real id, tribal, etc) require multiple docs to corroborate and match. We already show birth certificates to get the DL, why do it again? do we have to carry our birth certificates with our DL now? when will it stop
7414
GearBrain Mar 26, 2026 +1147
The SAVE act would also give the federal government the ability to purge voter rolls every 30 days. That's so wrong I struggle to find the words. It's like trying to explain to someone why touching a hot stove is a bad idea.
1147
WhatAcheHunt Mar 26, 2026 +650
Washington State is passing a law that would make it a class C felony for anyone outside of the secretary of state to provide private voter rolls/data to outside parties, including the federal government. It carries a fine of up to $10k in and a sentence of up to 5 years in prison. This is a state crime so it can't be pardoned by the president.
650
Canadiangoosedem0n Mar 26, 2026 +198
Love it, every state should pass something like that.
198
fishhead12 Mar 26, 2026 +47
How about every time a voter purged from the rolls it must be accompanied by a specific reason and a responsible person. If the purging is found to be incorrect then a penalty is to be paid to the person affected, no qualified immunity no excuses. This gives both a risk to the act and a large incentive to people to monitor their status.
47
FellowHumanNo404 Mar 26, 2026 +37
> How about every time a voter purged from the rolls it must be accompanied by a specific reason and a responsible person. Don't compromise with actual fascists.
37
cptnamr7 Mar 27, 2026 +47
What's going on in Washington state lately? They keep passing much-needed, forward-thinking bills like weekly. They recently get a dem supermajority so they can finally silence the regressives or something? I haven't actually been paying attention, just keep seeing "good for them" bills mentioned on here a lot lately
47
kindnesskangaroo Mar 27, 2026 +31
No I think they’re moving aggressively on laws like this because the federal government is getting f****** horrific with their policy making decisions and our state actually cares about protecting our rights for the most part.
31
WindowOne1260 Mar 27, 2026 +31
New governor. Bob Ferguson recently replaced Jay Inslee. Also, we like our mail in voting.
31
InequalEnforcement Mar 27, 2026 +1
I've said for years the best counter to "THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T CARE ABOUT YOU!" groups is for the government to... just take care of the people. Washington's politicians seem to have their fingers on the pulse of what people actually want.
1
helpless_bunny Mar 27, 2026 +10
Change the 10k to a billion dollars.
10
Lo-weorold Mar 26, 2026 +49
Gave you gold because this needs to be highlighted and screamed from the rooftops. The id stuff is bad but the voter roll purges are the end game. People this is the real danger. Id stuff is dangerous yes, but the SAVE act will give them the power to purge anyone off the rolls!
49
luv_u_deerly Mar 26, 2026 +10
Does purging voting rolls means you have to reregister to vote if they do that? From my understanding of the bill you may need a passport to as valid proof if your drivers license isn't your birth name IF you're not already registered to vote. They said if you're already registered you're not affected. BUT, if they can purge the voter rolls and make you have to reregister then that forces you to have your birth certificate or passport. I may not have that all right, I'm just trying to understand how it all works.
10
EarthElectronic7954 Mar 26, 2026 +4085
We need to be hammering the fact that the SAVE Act is a bill in search of a problem. No evidence of widespread voter fraud exists in America. No election has been affected by it. Republicans are lying constantly to the country https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-widespread-is-election-fraud-in-the-united-states-not-very/
4085
OysterHound Mar 26, 2026 +888
They lie about the election even when they win. They swept the country last election. They still believe Drumph and all his lies.
888
Historical_Bend_2629 Mar 26, 2026 +436
The point is to undermine democracy because they are not popular.
436
Dysc Mar 26, 2026 +146
They undermine it because they reject democracy. The project to consolidate unilateral power under a powerful Executive while subjugating the legislative and disregarding the judicial has been in the works for decades. And we are seeing the fruits of their labor in real time. They undermine it because their donors demand it.
146
GrumpyCloud93 Mar 26, 2026 +68
The *Economist* had an interesting article about Egypt when Morsi was president - said "some groups view Democracy as a bus that they can get off when it reaches their stop." I fear the Republicans are hoping to get off the Democracy bus before anyone else gets to their stop.
68
clean_parsley_pls Mar 26, 2026 +12
that's an interesting quote. it's still been baffling to me how fascists can take control of governments so swiftly given all that we have vividly recorded in recent history. my best theory was that they just turn up the slowmo and wait until people forget about it. but the democracy as a bus analogy makes sense, and I wonder if even half the idiots that voted for this circus realize what it really means if they abandon democracy to "keep" what they now have. that's not a long term solution but i guess they're the ones kicking the can down the road and never underestimate stupid. anyway, thanks for sharing that quote.
12
rileyjw90 Mar 26, 2026 +41
They aren’t lying. There *is* election fraud. *They* are the ones doing it and they want to make sure no one else can do it too.
41
Haggardick69 Mar 26, 2026 +182
They didn’t even really sweep the election. Donald won with 49% of the votes that were counted. Millions of legitimate votes were deliberately not counted in the most recent election most of them being mail in ballots. In the months leading up to the election multiple red states passed voter suppression laws that increased ID requirements or prevented mail in voting. I understand the confusion with the way that the media presents this stuff but no the repubs did not sweep last election they clinched it with the help of widespread voter suppression.
182
Heliosvector Mar 26, 2026 +110
Lets not also forget that some mail vote drop off boxes were literally set on fire in 2024...
110
Dependent-Read8582 Mar 26, 2026 +41
Let’s not also forget GA found Musk committed voter fraud by sending fake voter registration to citizens via mail. And the fake l****** in PA. I honestly believe Harris would have won by a small but legit margin but for what mentioned.
41
sly-3 Mar 26, 2026 +13
All one would need to do is to target the districts that would be outside the margin needed for recount but within the margin of error on polling, excluding ones not already managed through other means. They'd need to have a high enough number of chronic non-voters, ones who wouldn't know or care if a ballot were cast in their names, cross-referenced by any and all data profiling done by palantir/musk/etc. They didn't have to tilt them all, just the ones that mattered.
13
P1xelHunter78 Mar 26, 2026 +14
Or the right leaning postal worker caught dumping ballots in the woods.
14
hbtljose13 Mar 26, 2026 +8
I really wonder who would have a reason to attack mail in voting 🤔
8
pfannkuchen89 Mar 26, 2026 +20
Couldn’t be the same guy that voted by mail from his residence listed as Mar a Lago even though it can’t legally be his residence. Surely not that guy, right?
20
blueshrike Mar 26, 2026 +26
Voter suppression is definitely real. And he did sweep all 7 swing states with enough margin to not require an audit, which has never been done before. But suppression is not what won Trump the election. Reminder and a surprise for some: the US, privately owned digital vote counting machines (tabulators) have been compromised for years and we didn't elect Trump. He stole the presidency. Exactly like he tried to do in 2020, just this time with the already compromised tabulator machines tuned more aggressively to guarantee it. Do not take my word for it, here's the actual data. Even though this video is now several months old and there is much more they've found, this is just the tip of the iceberg, as you might expect with criminals. See for yourself and if you trust real data (not simply conspiracy theory talk) share with anyone who still thinks "America got it wrong" or we need to get out and vote more. We did. Kamala would have won, decisively, had our votes actually been counted correctly. It's the compromised, privately owned (by the right wing) tabulators that turned votes for Kamala into votes for Trump in all the swing states, after a certain threshold of votes were counted on each machine. These folks (non profit) and other independent teams of analysts like them are doing us a great service: https://youtu.be/Ru8SHK7idxs?feature=shared electiontruthalliance.org This is a comparison between what vote results look like consistent with real human voting behavior (Canada 2025) and one that's been tampered with (Pennsylvania): https://electiontruthalliance.org/2025-canadian-federal-election-news-post/ For the US, we've been on this road for a very long time which, unfortunately, is not surprising. This journalist research article, written just before Obama's 2nd term, dives into the long history of election fraud in the US and how, especially in the digital tabulation age, it has been setup to get us to the point where whomever has control of them can literally steal an election: https://harpers.org/archive/2012/11/how-to-rig-an-election/ So, whenever Maga or Republicans say they want to investigate or accuse the left or interfering parties of Election Fraud, it's to stay ahead of the narrative above and be on the right side of the accusation... yet as we know, and an abundance of data evidence demonstrates, their accusation is yet again projection. This is the core foundational issue we need to try and stop: the actual election fraud that has already taken place and will again, from Trump and the right.
26
BlantantlyAccidental Mar 26, 2026 +42
See, the issue here is why perpetuate the mythos that voter fraud happens... ...when the entire reason Dronald Drumph is President BECAUSE of the voter fraud they committed.
42
Chacarron Mar 26, 2026 +36
Trump and his conspirators committed election fraud and voter suppression, not voter fraud. There was probably some voter fraud as well, but it was minuscule and wasn’t what got them the election “victory”
36
porscheblack Mar 26, 2026 +83
This has been exactly what I've been saying about it. It's a made up problem where only a very specific solution is being considered acceptable. That tells you it's not a real problem and also that there's clearly an ulterior motive this is really intended for.
83
Notsurehowtoreact Mar 26, 2026 +8
It's not even an ulterior motive because they aren't even hiding the intention. Their messaging is flatly "if we don't pass this, Democrats will win elections" which tells you exactly why they are doing it, to disenfranchise voters. 
8
Ferrocile Mar 26, 2026 +26
The few cases that exist were found because the system works AND they were largely done by…republicans.
26
DeepestShallows Mar 26, 2026 +38
Yeah, wonderfully the risk/benefit on voting scales such as it’s never an issue. It’s kind of beautiful really. If you’re in an election where an individual vote has a lot of weight it’s probably a tiny local selection. Like, small town mayor. Your vote would matter a lot. But you’re going to get caught because all thirty people in town know you. So, you’re not going to do it. Then on the other end of the scale on some massive scale election you might get away with it. You still might get caught, but it’s less likely. But you still could. But if you succeed it doesn’t matter. A single vote doesn’t make a difference. Elections are won on hundreds or thousands. There’s just no benefit to the pain in the ass of it all, even before the risk of prison time. And if you do engage in a mass conspiracy to actually get hundreds or thousands of people to cast a second vote your risk of getting caught rises massively. If you even could mass organise such a thing to begin with. There’s just no real scenario where it’s worth it.
38
starliteburnsbrite Mar 26, 2026 +40
Any major election interference is going to happen digitally rather than people casting multiple votes. Ever since they made the switch to electronic machines and especially those without paper trails or ones easily manipulated, we have had this issue. The whole "Elon and Pennsylvania" thing isnt about having people vote several times. It's about changing data behind the scenes. And this bill doesn't address that at all, because they don't want it to.
40
atridir Mar 26, 2026 +16
That is why they are doing the bait and switch inventing the problem of ‘*voter fraud*’ to distract from their major crime of ‘***election fraud***’.
16
iMaGiNe_697 Mar 26, 2026 +6
It’s not just that voter fraud is a rare occurrence. It’s also being caught in the rare instances it does occur because there are common sense security measures to audit results.
6
Rogu__Spanish Mar 26, 2026 +14
I think the most important thing to debunk is the lie that illegal immigrants are voting. You need to be a citizen in order to register to vote, you can't vote without being registered, it's that simple, and yet republicans get away with this lie constantly. If there has been even a SINGLE example of an illegal immigrant voting, they would NEVER shut up about it, but they don't even have one, they have nothing, yet they use it as their justification for this bill. Whenever republicans present a bill to address a problem that doesn't exist, it is NOT about that thing, they are always doing this to secretly slip their unpopular agendas past us and people always fall for it cause the nonexistent issue they're pretending this is about should hypothetically be addressed if it was real.
14
SabreCorp Mar 26, 2026 +43
I believe the Heritage Foundation has found less than 100 cases of illegal voter’s voting since….1982. This bill would cause millions of people unable to vote, all for 2 illegal votes per year.
43
EarthElectronic7954 Mar 26, 2026 +14
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-widespread-is-election-fraud-in-the-united-states-not-very/ Here's an article discussing that study
14
QuerulousPanda Mar 26, 2026 +12
It's not "searching for a problem" it found, named, and addressed the problem: democracy We just have to decide whether or not we as a nation actually care about democracy anymore.
12
Flamboiant_Canadian Mar 26, 2026 +12
If there was voter fraud, how did Trump win the election? They can't connect the dots in their brains. 
12
WaystarRoyco26 Mar 26, 2026 +152
So do I understand? One needs a passport to vote if no passport then drives license and birth certificate and if married last name on license doesn’t match birth certificate then “f*** off” ??
152
Zealousideal-Ad4362 Mar 26, 2026 +105
The issue too is republica s are even dumber.. their voters are less likely to have passports.. they don't travel
105
PhoenixTineldyer Mar 26, 2026 +71
They don't care if their vote is taken away as long as one black liberal is turned away.
71
Space_Pirate_Roberts Mar 26, 2026 +54
More to the point, just like literacy tests and poll taxes under Jim Crow, the intention for the SAVE Act to be selectively enforced by design is an open secret. They aren’t going to demand these documents of registered Republicans in deep red areas.
54
Zulmoka531 Mar 26, 2026 +16
As we just witnessed with Trump and mail in voting, it’d be a selective process anyways. Very likely why they want all that vote roll information on top of everything else.
16
justbunnies Mar 26, 2026 +31
“Why on earth would I go to Italy when Olive Garden is just down the road?”
31
cherrywaves_swimdown Mar 26, 2026 +10
More like Fazoli's. Olive Garden is too classy for many of these people, and likely out of their budget.
10
Upset_Match_3705 Mar 26, 2026 +29
Now understand “selective enforcement”. It would be applied at the point of a gun in Houston, but “it’s alright honey”’d in ranch country.
29
tidal_flux Mar 26, 2026 +21
The law is not going to be enforced evenly everywhere.
21
bluelily216 Mar 26, 2026 +15
This will be selectively enforced. 
15
Predator_ Mar 26, 2026 +104
Passports also currently have a 2-3 month wait time. Most US citizens don't have a passport. So that wait will become 8-10 + months, which will make most people ineligible to vote. We are currently 7 months away from midterm elections... Not to mention the fees that are required to aquire a passport will make it unaffordable to many. Its a poll tax, which is illegal.
104
DaddyBison Mar 26, 2026 +33
Not to mention that at the same time the GOP is pushing the bill that would require passports for voting, they're defunding the USPS and preventing other places like libraries from processing passport applications, making it even harder to get one. and the US gov can just refuse to issue a passport to anyone they don't like, like they've already done with LGBT individuals and journalists that disagree with them
33
smurfsundermybed Mar 26, 2026 +23
New passport is $165, and that's IF you don't need to get pictures and/or pay for a copy of your birth certificate, which of course adds even more time and money to the process. I had 4 appointments at the post office canceled before I got one that stuck. Yeah, it was during covid, but 2 weeks to get my birth certificate and social security card, a month of canceled appointments before having a s*** to file, then another 2 months to get the passport in the mail. I wasn't in a rush since I had not planned to do anything out of the country, but all told, 3 1/2 months and around $200 start to finish. Now reduce the number of folks available to accept an application, slow down the mail by a lot, and multiply that by 10. That's what we'd be looking at just from the issuance standpoint. Then, just for funsies, start asking the folks who would need one if they have $200/person to spend on anything that isn't crucial and there's just no way it would be possible. Oh, and by the way, 1st time applicants can't do this online or via mail. It has to be an in person appointment.
23
bunrakoo Mar 26, 2026 +38
And they must be applied for in person so there's a day off work. And they cost on average $225, which many folks do not have.
38
WhoStoleMyBicycle Mar 26, 2026 +21
And since you have to pay for a passport this bill is essentially a poll tax
21
alaskaj1 Mar 26, 2026 +12
And get your supporting documents takes time and money. I had to order my birth certificate from NY a few years ago and it took 4 months. I saw a comment recently that it took almost 8 months recently. To get it quickly I would have to fly to NY to get it in person.
12
bluelily216 Mar 26, 2026 +8
And is completely unconstitutional. But if they can prevent it from reaching SCOTUS before the midterms they can consolidate power even further. 
8
CockBrother Mar 26, 2026 +306
"Only a passport fulfills that requirement." According to ICE it does not.  Also, the birth certificates you're talking about usually aren't recognized, at least for Real ID. Only a state health department issued birth certificate will do. So that's another hurdle they're trying to put in place.
306
dawgblogit Mar 26, 2026 +151
This is part of the problem with their argument. They are ALL over the board with their requirements.
151
nothingsnootyplz Mar 26, 2026 +101
This is by design. These rules will be enforced in areas they want to disrupt. You can bet your bottom dollar these requirements won’t be necessitated in deep red areas.
101
QbertsRube Mar 26, 2026 +20
And blue areas will have 15 ICE goons there to ensure it's enforced.
20
Amatuer_Genius54301 Mar 26, 2026 +25
Because the point is no more elections. Period. Thats their true goal here.
25
VerilyShelly Mar 26, 2026 +25
The dude openly said "vote this one time and you'll never have to vote again".
25
dformed Mar 26, 2026 +16
Like, a bunch of times.
16
CockBrother Mar 26, 2026 +48
If you take them at face value at what they're trying to accomplish it doesn't make sense. If you understand what they're really trying to do it makes sense.
48
Wolfspirit4W Mar 26, 2026 +38
Adding onto this: when I went to renew my driver's license in a different state than I was born in, the DPS no longer accepted the Birth Certificate (that was the only one I'd had for my entire life) as legitimate and required that I send for a certified copy of the long form birth certificate. 1. Expecting polling places to know and discern 50+ different state documents is both ridiculous and would greatly slow down voting. 2. This would disenfranchise a significant number of voters. 3. There would almost certainly be inconsistent enforcement.
38
dogs_gt_cats Mar 26, 2026 +20
And even then it most likely needs to be an embossed original birth certificate. I have an official copy of my birth certificate (original was in a lockbox that was stolen during a burglary) but they refused to accept it when I was getting a REALID because it didn't have an embossed seal, just a watermarked seal. I basically had to overwhelm them with evidence that I was who I said I was.
20
Anon_Chapstick Mar 26, 2026 +10
Well that's a bit of a pickle for any foreign born citizen. For those that don't know, you don't receive a birth certificate if you are born abroad. You receive a "Citizen Born Abroad" paper that acts as a birth certificate and it's issued by the State Department.
10
DarkCloudx64 Mar 26, 2026 +6
Like who actually carries their birth certificate with them at all times or is able to easily get it? My guess is nobody
6
mabden Mar 26, 2026 +42
It's all in the headli from cbs news. They took the common sense that ~80% of American's approve of and disregard all the bullshit wrapped up in the SAVE Republicon Asses Act. If the headline read, Democrats Block Bill that Disenfranchises ~50% of Americans' Right to Vote, then you would have something closer to the truth. It's just like faux news routinely does. They take a kernel of truth and wrap it up in pure bullshit to support whatever agenda the republicons have. On the surface it sounds reasonable, but it's just propaganda.
42
HobbesMich Mar 26, 2026 +17
The 80% approval in that poll was to a generic question should an ID be shown when you vote, not if they supported the Save Act directly.
17
HabeusCuppus Mar 26, 2026 +9
it's worth mentioning that many states already expect proof of identification\* when you vote. (36 states, slightly over half of which won't let you cast a regular ballot without it.) SAVE is about requiring a non-free proof of citizenship with matching legal name at the voting booth, which is ridiculous. If there's any question about citizenship it should be handled during registration, not every time someone goes to vote. The point of this rule is that it's ridiculous, uneven enforcement *is* the point. --- \* i.e. that you are the person you say you are, like a photo ID from an employer, school, or yes, driver's license, but also because of *Harper v. VA BoE* (1966) these states have to provide a free alternative state identification.
9
LingonberryHot8521 Mar 26, 2026 +10
It's because the nicely dressed and nice smiling people on TV told them it is.
10
uksid1976 Mar 26, 2026 +18
Another thing, a lot of people cant get a passport because of owed taxes, felonies, owed child support. There are a bunch of flags. I have some friends from back home that wanted to visit me in Europe. Passport applications denied.
18
turtleneck360 Mar 26, 2026 +8
Getting a passport is a pain in the ass and that’s not even bringing in the cost. I live in a major city and it wasn’t that easy finding open appointments to submit my app.
8
ODB247 Mar 26, 2026 +5
I want to get a passport but don’t want to hand over my ONLY citizenship document. They take your birth certificate and mail it back to you when they are done. Given (waves around) all of this, I ordered a new birth certificate so if it gets “lost” i might stand a chance of not being deported to a random foreign country. It’s estimated arrival is November. Wooo 
5
MayIServeYouWell Mar 26, 2026 +2223
Better headline: Bill to require a $165 passport to vote is rejected by common sense.
2223
TheOneCalledGump Mar 26, 2026 +532
165 dollar Poll Tax
532
CaptainDudeGuy Mar 26, 2026 +144
Y'know... if they wanted passports as a genuine "make voting more secure" requirement then they would do three things: 1. Make getting and updating passports free; just another right of citizenship. 2. Ramp up the infrastructure needed to roll out that many passports to Americans who need them. 3. Give everyone *at least* a two-year lead time before making it mandatory. Stretch goal? Update your passport annually during your birth month which also automatically registers you to vote. The fact that Republicans didn't even try any of that shows that they're incompetent officials, bad faith actors, or both.
144
LowellForCongress Mar 27, 2026 +21
My plan for voter ID, if it were to happen: 1) 10 years before implementation, and every election comes with a single sheet of paper that informs voters of the upcoming requirement as well as instructions on how to get yours. 2) must be free, and by free I mean if you cannot come to a location to get one, a mobile unit comes to you and issues one. This is 2026, we can do this quickly and cheaply. 3) must be an ID that a state can issue. (No way the federal gvt should have sole, discretionary authority of who can vote for the federal government) This is an impingement on one of our most fundamental rights. It must be narrowly tailored.
21
Grandolf-the-White Mar 26, 2026 +149
In the article it gets into a proposed amendment that changes it to requiring any photo ID in the form of driver's license, state-issued identification, passport, military ID or tribal ID. Dems shot that down as well because it would mess up the mail-in ballot method, requiring each mail-in ballot to include a picture of the voter’s ID or social security number.
149
WhichEmailWasIt Mar 26, 2026 +73
That's better but some states are only vote by mail. Here's the thing. Each citizen can only vote once. If you're registered you're probably planning on voting. If you vote and it's not counted because someone voted posing as you first you'll be notified and it'll be found out basically immediately. Not to mention for vote by mail they send it right to your residence that you have on file on your driver's license and you mail back that same form.  I don't see a lot of avenues for this to go sideways.
73
Grandolf-the-White Mar 26, 2026 +40
Yeah I don’t understand the need for ID for mail in voting. You have to register, and for where I live that’s generally at least an annual process depending on election cycle. For in person, you’re also required to go to a locally assigned polling station. It’s not like someone can vote for you unless they also know that voting station.
40
SuckMyRedditorD Mar 26, 2026 +26
That's because there is no need for ID for mail voting. You are qualified automatically upon getting and ID or a driver's license in EVERY state already. When you register to vote, if you lack any of those, then you don't appear in the voting rosters if you do show up to vote. It has been demonstrated that the only fraud in voting has been done by republicans.
26
Ayitaka Mar 26, 2026 +20
So they talk about only requiring a $35 license to vote instead of a $165 passport. Even $0.01 is still a poll tax. There is a reason they never combine these types of ID requirement with also providing that ID for free (all aspects, including transportation and required supporting documentation etc), and that tells you what their real intention is. The goal is not to help more eligible people vote, but to make it harder for certain eligible people to vote.
20
thethrill_707 Mar 26, 2026 +1353
It's the only way they can win is to cheat. Everyone knows this. Trumps polling numbers are in the toilet due to an unpopular war, Americans getting shot in the streets, and gas at $4.00 a gallon. When you back a candidate of unfathomable stupidity and absent morals - you got to rig the game to win.
1353
pipesnogger Mar 26, 2026 +217
5 bucks for many
217
CromulentChuckle Mar 26, 2026 +83
And diesel is well over $5. That will make everything more expensive.
83
sodook Mar 26, 2026 +38
Almost 6 here in CA central valley, known for our low cost of living
38
mostlyfire Mar 26, 2026 +17
Almost 6 here in Seattle. I wish it was 4
17
Kracus Mar 26, 2026 +74
An unpopular war? Huh. I would have thought cause he'd been raping women and f****** kids would have made him unpopular. What do I know?
74
shogun77777777 Mar 26, 2026 +38
People only care about themselves. As long as Trump isn't raping THEM, they don't care. But when prices go up, suddenly he's unpopular.
38
thethrill_707 Mar 26, 2026 +21
Nah, that's a feature not a bug. Unfortunately.
21
Deesing82 Mar 26, 2026 +13
yeah that part makes him relatable to his voters
13
ripChazmo Mar 26, 2026 +6
His supporters are ok with the woman and child raping.
6
B-Z_B-S Mar 26, 2026 +717
The Voter Suppression Bill *will* fail.
717
everything_is_bad Mar 26, 2026 +191
It better
191
nullstoned Mar 26, 2026 +59
Republicans might try nuking the filibuster. This is one of those last-resort options, but with the way Trump keeps escalating, I wouldn't rule it out.
59
ianjm Mar 26, 2026 +31
They don't have the numbers to nuke the filibuster at the moment. Getting to 50 for a Filibuster change would require several of the least 'MAGA' Senators (like Murkowski) and several of the die-hard procedural old guard traditionalists (like Kennedy) to change their minds at the same time. Seems unlikely to me, though not impossible.
31
ChristianLS Mar 26, 2026 +9
It would also be incredibly risky for them to do it. It's not clear at all that the requirements of this bill would suppress more Democratic than GOP voters, given the way education has become a strong partisan line, and more educated voters are more likely to have passports. Also, yes, the requirements disproportionately disenfranchise women, but specifically *married women who took their husband's name*, which is a much more GOP-aligned demographic than women as a whole group. Either way it's a horrible undemocratic bill, but if it doesn't rig elections the way they hope, and they have already nuked the filibuster, there's nothing to stop the next Democratic administration from passing anything and everything they want with a simple majority. Whereas right now they unfortunately have enough stodgy old traditionalists in the Senate that I have my doubts the Democrats will ever act first on nuking the filibuster.
9
OG_Williker Mar 26, 2026 +41
It makes sense. If they pass this bill they won’t have to worry about the lack of filibuster coming back to bite them since they’ll suppress away any chance of Dems winning congress ever again.
41
No_Somewhere_7109 Mar 26, 2026 +17
They won't, though, which is why a lot of Senate Republicans simply will not take the risk. Trump isn't here forever and they're going to outlast him. They know that if they touch the Filibuster once? Every bit of power it held is gone even long after Trump is. Its just not a good tradeoff for any of them.
17
memphisjones Mar 26, 2026 +23
Talk to your friends, family, and neighbors. Keep calling your local representatives
23
sonicmario123 Mar 26, 2026 +263
As someone who actually works as a poll worker. The SAVE Act will disenfranchise people. Here in NC the state lowkey already sets people for failure. Edit: typo…
263
whatfresh_hellisthis Mar 26, 2026 +34
I was a Judge of Elections in PA and you are correct. The absolute chaos this would unleash is not being addressed nearly enough. It's already a stressful situation, I've been yelled at by voters and that was just bc they were in the wrong precinct. Try telling all these married women that they can't vote....
34
brain_overclocked Mar 26, 2026 +158
>Schumer said it would require people who vote by mail to include a photocopy of their ID with their ballot, which would eliminate the secrecy of how someone voted. >Husted accused Schumer of misrepresenting how the mail-in ballot process would work. He said voters would include a photo of their ID or the last four digits of their Social Security number on the outside of the secrecy envelope containing the ballot. The information would be validated to ensure that it's from a registered voter before separating it from the ballot, which would be counted separately, he said. Narrator: "It would, in fact, *not* be separated."
158
Upset_Albatross_9179 Mar 26, 2026 +39
This is a bad idea for a lot of reasons, but I'm not sure I follow Schumer. I think there's already my name and address on the outside of my mail in vote. I get a nice confirmation email that they've received my ballot. So there's already some degree of trust beyond what you need for in-person voting that they're separating my identifying information from my actual ballot. If corrupt vote collectors and counters wanted to match votes with identities on mail-in ballots, I think they can already do that. The real issue is this makes more ways they can try to arbitrarily reject ballots and a bigger burden for voters to discourage them.
39
brain_overclocked Mar 26, 2026 +22
It's not in OP's article, but he does add further context to his statement in another: >“The sacred secrecy of our ballot would be undone by this amendment,” he said. “Anyone who voted by mail would have to put a voter ID inside the envelope, and the board of elections would have to open it up and see how you voted,” he added. “It would violate basic privacy.”
22
Upset_Albatross_9179 Mar 26, 2026 +10
Thanks for the fuller explanation. I guess this would be a great place for actual Journalism to identify if the text of the bill would actually require information inside or outside of the secrecy envelope, instead of just quoting contradicting politicians.
10
-OptimisticNihilism- Mar 26, 2026 +6
Who the f has a photocopier? Are we having people go to Kinkos now? What if I take a picture and print it, does that count? Black and white, or does it need to be color? If so will black and white ones be thrown out? Front and back, what if someone only send the front? Let alone anyone with photoshop can fake an ID. Or I’m sure I could get an Ai tool to make one for me. Isn’t the point of a photo ID to compare it to the persons face and look at the hologram things to make sure it’s real. So what’s the point?
6
ZeeBalls Mar 26, 2026 +144
The SAVE Act is not gonna pass. The Trump admin knows this. It’s not supposed to. Its purpose is midterms. Once the House, Senate, or both starts to flip blue, Trump will cry “cheating!” and “this was why the radical left didn’t pass the SAVE Act!” As for the maga base, most our too obtuse to realize that America isn’t going to pass a bill on election security from a criminal that tried to cheat at an election.
144
tommyboy372 Mar 26, 2026 +66
Everybody needs to show up and turn Trump into a lame duck for his last 2 years. Overwhelming midterm numbers is the only way to stop this criminal administration in its tracks.
66
Talador12 Mar 26, 2026 +28
Lame duck is not at all good enough, he needs to be removed by Congress
28
Positronic_Matrix Mar 26, 2026 +16
I am seriously looking forward to the conga line of impeachments. The nonstop criminality of this president must have consequences.
16
bruhhmann Mar 26, 2026 +10
Last two years my ass dude needs to go to prison like anyone else.
10
krom0025 Mar 26, 2026 +158
The post title is being awfully generous to the bill. It does way more than that.
158
SillyAlternative420 Mar 26, 2026 +43
**CBS.** They are a propaganda network now. We should blacklist them.
43
Lanky-Association952 Mar 26, 2026 +26
An amendment to the bill is what was being discussed…
26
DONT_PM_ME_DICKS Mar 26, 2026 +30
it's not even the save act, it's a veterans related bill that was zeroed out and replaced with the SAVE text.
30
Historical_Bend_2629 Mar 26, 2026 +172
I am convinced that this headline purposefully lacks nuance. I take any headline coming from CBS with a huge grain of salt these days.
172
ToxicRainn Mar 26, 2026 +36
Yeah this headline is ridiculous. The SAVE act is about wayyyy more than photo ID, and photo ID being a requirement is the only thing on it that a lot of Americans agree with (i dont but a lot do)
36
RoyalBlueMoose Mar 26, 2026 +31
I won't even give them the click anymore. Nor will I watch their national news broadcast. The local cbs station on the other hand, that's fine
31
aspirationless_photo Mar 26, 2026 +14
Nah... don't forget [sinclair](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGIYU2Xznb4).
14
RoyalBlueMoose Mar 26, 2026 +8
My local station isn't associated with Sinclair fortunately
8
Spiff69 Mar 26, 2026 +7
It might help to read the article to know that this was an amendment for an ID without citizenship verification. I do believe that media is sanewashing the SAVE act, but this article was about a potential amendment that would change it.
7
TransitJohn Mar 26, 2026 +25
Unconstitutional poll taxes are Unconstitutional
25
Pope_Dwayne_Johnson Mar 26, 2026 +55
I can get on board with ID to vote if we provide free IDs with little to no barriers to obtain. Voting is the foundational right that cannot be infringed.
55
killrtaco Mar 26, 2026 +32
I would only be ok with it if IDs were free and available day of. There should be no reason you can’t vote if eligible, even if the reason is you misplaced your ID or it was stolen recently.
32
lr99999 Mar 26, 2026 +17
CBS headline. Nothing about citizenship being shown on the license.  Absolutely done on purpose to make Democrats sound unreasonable. Like we didn’t already know whose ass they are kissing. F*** you, CBS, and f*** you 99% of the other American media traitors. 
17
saybobby Mar 26, 2026 +10
make election day a national holiday - that should be what is being proposed
10
pkosuda Mar 26, 2026 +11
Holy shit the Trumpification of CBS since the buy is so blatant with this article. **Zero** mention of how the SAVE Act *literally violates the constitution*, and instead they decided to focus on the highly misleading Trump talking point of “most Americans support voting ID at polls”. The mods need to ban this site as a reliable source. It is just a mouth piece of the administration at this point masquerading as a news site. Sad just how low it has sunk. Edit: Seriously even just the opening paragraph is bullshit: > An amendment that would require voters to show photo identification to cast a ballot failed to advance in the Senate on Thursday, **despite Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer saying last week that Democrats were not opposed to such a requirement.** Weird, I don’t see a single mention of this SAVE Act including a provision that forces state ID to be free. Which is what Democrats *actually* support. Literally straight up lying in this.
11
suk_doctor Mar 26, 2026 +12
If they want to pass this then make passports free for all US citizens, expedited, and automatically issued based on your most recent tax return address. Otherwise f*** off.
12
pinkylemonade Mar 26, 2026 +32
Like another redditor said about this: "If they want to require ID to vote, they must provide photo ID to all citizens, free of charge or burden of time. When they do that, voter ID requirements are fine. Until they do that, it's a poll tax."
32
NoNameNoSlogan Mar 26, 2026 +10
C*** headline. CBS already parroting GOP talking points.
10
Nubator Mar 26, 2026 +10
Very misleading headline. It’s a passport which has a cost and lead time to get. Make passports free and make sure everyone has one before the election that requires it would be an actual answer that doesn’t create a poll tax.
10
T-REX1970 Mar 26, 2026 +6
A state ID also cost $ and required documents some people may not be able to acquire.
6
Recent_Ad_2724 Mar 26, 2026 +10
I’d be fine with it if they sent every citizen a free passport using our driver license photo. Otherwise f*** off.
10
1klmot Mar 26, 2026 +30
Wish the media would stop saying it just requires photo ID. Many states' citizens have already shown their proof of citizenship to get their Real ID, which this new bill does not consider valid photo ID to prove citizenship. This is much more than "requiring a photo ID"
30
UrInot Mar 26, 2026 +6
Unfortunately, REAL ID does not say us citizen on it
6
aussieaggietex Mar 26, 2026 +9
Story time: I got a job in Houston as a web developer and graphic designer for a small agency. They had some existing clients where it was mostly retainer work like updating small elements, putting up new templates, etc. One of the bigger customers was a group called "The King Street Patriots". I would be asked to make small updates like adjust image templates for new banners, add new properties to event pages, etc. I was not political at all and I barely paid any attention to the content but the very little I paid any attention to made sense to me: If someone is going to vote there should be mechanisms to ensure they are who they claim to be - sounds good. At some point, I was asked to attend an annual summit hosted by them featuring "Breitbart" (I had no idea) so I could be on hand to assist with the website - adjusting information and assisting with embedding recordings of speakers, etc. I think it was the second organizer I was introduced to while setting up at a little A/V desk that made my stomach flip. He quickly went into the issues with "Illegals" and "Mexican criminals coming over and being paid to vote" etc. Throughout the day, some speakers kept it vague - others were either blatantly racist and/or clear they wanted to disenfranchise people. I had to stay for the event, but told my boss afterwards I would not be working on that client's website again nor attending their events.
9
buried_lede Mar 26, 2026 +9
The he headlines don’t do justice to how diabolical this bill is. They make it sounds like we’re against showing our IDs.  This bill would upend half of our IDs and screw us in Nov
9
DoctorTheWho Mar 26, 2026 +7
The voter purging part is not being talked about enough.
7
My_browsing Mar 26, 2026 +10
CBS going all in on pro-fa propaganda. Sad to see a once respected organization overrun with traitors who willingly give aid and comfort to he enemies of the US during an information war.
10
Adjective-Noun-nnnn Mar 26, 2026 +9
Shit headline from CBS propaganda. If this were just voter ID, it might have passed.  It's not.  This requires proof of citizenship to register to vote, meaning anyone without their passport or birth certificate handy, as well as millions of women who have changed their names since acquiring either, would be ineligible to register, likely purged from voter rolls, and disenfranchised. F*** CBS.
9
theboreworms Mar 26, 2026 +9
The messaging the Dems should adopt, IMO, is that this is not a bad idea, but if we are going to do it, it requires that the government needs to visit every single American to confirm their status and the supply them with the ID they need to vote. Anything short of this is a poll tax. 
9
rithrawr Mar 26, 2026 +9
Title is BS it's not Photo ID. ## Passport Problem It's passport that cost $120+ to get. I got both a passport and passport card and iirc was around $150 and a few months wait. I never traveled outside of USA to get a passport and recently got one to join a buddy on a trip. It's USA, you gotta be rich to be having vacation hours and also be able to travel abroad. ## Birth Certification Problem The other requirement is birth certificate. Women who changed their last name will get fucked. I literally was a child of a refugee and was born in Cambodia during Polpot. My parent lost my birth certification because of pirates that were killing refugee because they were holding golds. I cannot get a birth certificate from a hospital that doesn't exist anymore.
9
Rattus_NorvegicUwUs Mar 26, 2026 +16
“It’s common sense” Sure, mike, but so is taxing the rich, but you ain’t doing that any time soon.
16
Yohder Mar 26, 2026 +6
The SAVE Act is nothing more than voter suppression. Pure authoritarianism.
6
doucheydp Mar 26, 2026 +8
For those who don't understand the issue here and keep asking "Why shouldn't it be required when it is for (insert thing they commonly have to show ID for here)": It's that getting literally any of the forms of ID that are listed as acceptable costs time AND filing fees. That means that if you want to vote it adds a required cost of lost wages ($) and fees paid ($). That is effectively creating a poll tax if you want to vote. Per the 24th Amendment to the US Constitution- that's illegal for Federal elections (President, VP, Senate, House). So, if the Republicans ACTUALLY want to pass this they should also, in painfully SPECIFIC terms define and require in their own law that everyone be automatically issued FOR FREE a voter ID type which is accepted universally for everyone who is a citizen in order to vote. And that betrays what the actual goal is with what the Republicans are trying to pitch here every time this comes up- they don't want *everyone* to vote- they want everyone who can afford to go and get an accepted form of ID to vote. That disenfranchises the poor and, regardless of how you think that applies to the issue of race- it's at a minimum a hostile act based on financial class.
8
Suitable_Twist_3416 Mar 26, 2026 +8
photo ID IS ALREADY REQUIRED. SAVE would require you to buy a passport and for anyone who has ever changed their name for any reason to have to get a new birth certificate. Both take time, money, and federal employees that DOGE fired to accomplish before Nov. SAVE also makes mail-in ballots illegal. THEY DON'T WANT AMERICANS TO VOTE.
8
_DapperDanMan- Mar 26, 2026 +23
Everyone proves citizenship when they register to vote. This is a poll tax, and suppression in one.
23
NGM012 Mar 26, 2026 +14
There has been less verified fraud in federal elections since records have been kept than the number of felonies he has.
14
Informal_Process2238 Mar 26, 2026 +9
It’s worth pointing out that almost all of the fraud has been committed by republicans
9
bensquirrel Mar 26, 2026 +7
this is lousy reporting
7
Historical_Bend_2629 Mar 26, 2026 +7
This headline tries to pretend a photo ID is all that the SAVE act asks for. Matches your birth certificate. Apparently, changing your name wasn’t hardship enough, for millions of married women. I realize it seeks to disenfranchise as many people as possible.
7
LetsSolveSomeShit Mar 26, 2026 +8
Id be fine with requiring an ID to vote, as long as the government set up a reasonably easy means to get a publicly funded government ID. But they won't, because this isn't actually about voter fraud.
8
No-Quarter-3417 Mar 26, 2026 +7
Poll tax. They aren’t giving free id’s to voters they are forcing u to use passport or father a billion documents. Mike Johnson was caught on camera gloating this could drive down turnout by 12-18 percent
7
florodude Mar 26, 2026 +6
Probably \~10 years ago when I first heard about this, it was something that *did* seem common sense to me. Like "Oh, you have to just show your drivers license or something? Yeah that tracks to cut out people who shouldn't be voting and are." But then, I heard actual stats that told me that it was a non-issue and that it'd disproportionately affect women and poorer people, and actually stop people from voting who should. And so like a *reasonable person* I changed my views on this
6
wildmaninid Mar 26, 2026 +6
Wild to me how we had free fair and secure elections right up until the orange pedophile started flapping his f****** noise hole about them.   Wonder what changed?
6
Rogue_AI_Construct Mar 27, 2026 +1
The headline itself is wrong. It's not just "photo ID". The GOP and Trump wanted to make anyone voting to show a birth certificate and/or a US passport before being given a ballot. CBS has turned into a joke ever since Bari Weiss has become its head. How sad.
1
EagleBigMac Mar 26, 2026 +5
Unless the ID is free all required documents are free and the offices to get them are open 24 hours a day 7 days a week with free public transportation to and from the offices then it's a cost to voting which is a poll tax and unconstitutional.
5
Duchess0612 Mar 26, 2026 +6
**Married Women and Trans People Will Face the Brunt of these Anti-Voting Roadblocks** Under the SAVE Act, anyone who has changed their name **after birth will face increased barriers to voting.** That’s because this bill requires voters who don’t have a passport to present a birth certificate that matches the name on their REAL ID or driver’s license. This is particularly relevant for married women who legally change their last name after marriage, and trans people, who will often change their name during or after transitioning. That means if you’re one of the approximately 69 million married women in the United States who decided to take her husband’s last name, you may have a really hard time getting into the voting booth since the last name on your birth certificate is different than the REAL ID with your husband’s last name. It’s also extremely harmful for trans people to have to consider changing their I.D.s back to a name and gender they don’t identify with just to exercise their right to vote.
6
Well_Oiled_Assassin Mar 26, 2026 +6
How is a passport requirement not considered an unconstitutional poll tax?
6
ToadP Mar 26, 2026 +6
Does it cost money to obtain a photo id? If Yes then it is against the Law. Does it cost money to provide the items of proof to vote? if yes then it is against the LAW.. Poll Tax is $ and the things they want you to have and show cost $.. so simple even a MAGA should be able to understand, but yet it is not about fairness or the LAW, it is about disenfranchisement.
6
realparkingbrake Mar 27, 2026 +1
I don't need photo ID to vote in my state. But I need state-issued photo ID and proof of citizenship and residence to register to vote. So there would seem little need for ID at the polling place.
1
Smart-Effective7533 Mar 27, 2026 +1
Dems successfully block voter suppression bill
1
hukkit Mar 26, 2026 +11
Insane framing on the headline
11
kevendo Mar 26, 2026 +26
It is appalling that this got this far and that so many of you reading this fell for this so hard. It is not "common sense", not today in March 2026. It is an effort at *mass voter suppression* based on "voter fraud" lies perpetuated by the President. Baseless nonsense. It would disenfranchise millions, possibly tens of millions of voters on order to save 3 from misvoting in Kentucky. Shame on every single liberal who is still taking any of this on good faith. We can discuss modern voting practices another time when it's not an autocrat openly intending to end the republic.
26
tadu1261 Mar 26, 2026 +11
I don't know a single democrat (not in elected office to clarify) that supports any part of the SAVE act...
11
ReklisAbandon Mar 26, 2026 +6
It's interesting to watch the Democrats in Congress grill the Republicans pushing this. They have no doubt about what this is and the Republicans have no talking points to refute their arguments. Even the Heritage Foundation has found less than 200 instances of voter fraud in the last like, 40 years. This bill is absolutely based on bullshit and everyone knows it, and everyone knows what it actually aims to do.
6
KindaDutch Mar 26, 2026 +10
If ID is required to vote, getting the necessary ID to vote should be super easy, barely an inconvenience to get with no financial requirements.
10
UrInot Mar 26, 2026 +9
US passports are expensive and it takes months. This is a voting tax.
9
amonkeysbanana Mar 26, 2026 +4
I’m sorry does this mean it actually is dead? I know they’re meant to vote today but it seems like this changes twice a day. Jk I see it was killed as an amendment. Still need to turn down SAVE act
4
DONT_PM_ME_DICKS Mar 26, 2026 +6
it's an amendment to mandate ID being added to "S.1383 - Veterans Accessibility Advisory Committee Act of 2025" They're so desperate they're shoving what they can into totally unrelated bills.
6
amonkeysbanana Mar 26, 2026 +5
Since you answered my question, I won’t send you a picture of my d***. Thank you.
5
CensoredbytheGOP Mar 26, 2026 +5
It was so much more then "Photo ID".
5
Bill_Brasky_SOB Mar 26, 2026 +6
This headline is VASTLY underselling the restrictions of what the SAVE Act is…. Oh thats right, CBS got bought out by a MAGA Right Winger.
6
Far_Associate9859 Mar 26, 2026 +5
It did not allow drivers licenses - so saying the bill is about "photo id" is actually just a lie
5
dudesquirrel Mar 26, 2026 +6
Hey everyone, don't fall for this bad title. The "failure" mentioned by the article refers to (an amendment to the Veteran's Accessibility Advisory Committee Act of 2025)\[https://www.congress.gov/amendment/119th-congress/senate-amendment/4732/text\]. The SAVE Act is H.R.22 which has not been voted on yet.
6
seKer82 Mar 26, 2026 +6
Because its specifically designed to make it difficult as f*** for certain groups of people to vote... specifically those who don't vote for f****** useless conservatives.
6
MoAngryMILF Mar 26, 2026 +5
Good, f*** the entire f****** GOP.
5
LuluBear333 Mar 26, 2026 +4
Voter ID, okay fine. But the government should provide those voter ID cards for free to every single eligible voter. Not some bs unconstitutional poll tax that disenfranchises everyone from voting but white men. The scariest part about the SAVE Act is the part no one is talking about: that states must turn over voter info to the federal government. Specifically to DHS.
4
IpeeEhh_Phanatic Mar 26, 2026 +6
The SAVE Act is unconstitutional
6
hacksoncode Mar 26, 2026 +5
Now include in the amendment that states are required to give a citizen such an ID free of charge, including any documents needed to get it, in no more than 1 hour including round trip travel time, and I'd be "meh, ok, fine, whatever". It's still pointless from a security perspective, but at least it would be an *attempt* not to suppress voting.
5
← Back to Board