2/3 back SAVE Act and it’s bipartisan

Tuesday, March 10, 2026

The bitter debate between Democrats and Republicans over the SAVE Act " which would require voters to provide a valid ID to cast a ballot " has roiled political waters as both major parties gird themselves for the 2026 midterms. But do voters care? They sure do, and it's not good news for the Democrats, the latest I&I/TIPP Poll results indicate.

Posted by BellRinger at 01:38 AM | 55 COMMENTS | permalink

Comments

Granted, it's one poll. Having said that, on the more narrow issue of voter ID to vote, poll after poll has shown roughly 80% support.

#1 | Posted by BellRinger at 2026-03-10 01:40 AM

Free National Voter ID makes this problem go away.

That's why Republicans won't give us Free National Voter ID.

Ask a Republican why they don't support Free National Voter ID today.

#2 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-03-10 01:44 AM

Lewzer is babbling about getting rid of mail-in ballots... don't the states decide how voting goes?

#3 | Posted by REDIAL at 2026-03-10 02:00 AM

2/3s of what? MAGA?

#4 | Posted by ClownShack at 2026-03-10 03:00 AM

don't the states decide how voting goes?
#3 | POSTED BY REDIAL

States rights don't exist anymore.

#5 | Posted by ClownShack at 2026-03-10 03:01 AM

2/3s of what?

Not the Senate.

#6 | Posted by REDIAL at 2026-03-10 03:01 AM

" 2/3s of what? "

It's right in the embedded link. Click the link and you can find your answer.

#7 | Posted by BellRinger at 2026-03-10 03:02 AM

So, you don't know?

Figures.

#8 | Posted by ClownShack at 2026-03-10 03:08 AM

I know bit I'm not doing your work for your lazy ass

#9 | Posted by BellRinger at 2026-03-10 03:08 AM

States rights don't exist anymore.

So what happens in the states where they have 100% mail voting now? Who pays for the infrastructure to change it?

#10 | Posted by REDIAL at 2026-03-10 03:16 AM

I know bit
#9 | POSTED BY BULLBRINGER

I'd argue you don't know bit.

#11 | Posted by ClownShack at 2026-03-10 03:17 AM

what happens in the states where they have 100% mail voting now?
#10 | POSTED BY REDIAL

Those automatically go to Trump.

#12 | Posted by ClownShack at 2026-03-10 03:18 AM

#9 | Posted by BellRinger

Fresh from fleeing an admission that Trump is a Liar, you shill for the man's attempt to subvert the midterms.

You admire his Lies, and you enjoy his subversions.

#13 | Posted by Zed at 2026-03-10 08:11 AM

@#2 ... Free National Voter ID makes this problem go away.

That's why Republicans won't give us Free National Voter ID. ... allot ...

I agree there is widespread support for a Free National Voter ID.

But the SAVE Act goes way beyond voter ID, with ways to limit who can obtain such a voter ID (non-free, so effectively a poll-tax), and requiring states to give personal voter data to the Trump administration.

#14 | Posted by LampLighter at 2026-03-10 12:09 PM

"and requiring states to give personal voter data to the Trump administration."

Because it's MUCH EASIER to suppress the votes that way.

Mark my words: there will be ZERO problems in districts which end up red.

#15 | Posted by Danforth at 2026-03-10 12:18 PM

"But the SAVE Act goes way beyond voter ID"

My wife will be disenfranchised. Her married name doesn't match her Birth Certificate.

Quelle Suprise!

#16 | Posted by Danforth at 2026-03-10 12:19 PM

@#15 ... Because it's MUCH EASIER to suppress the votes that way.

Mark my words: there will be ZERO problems in districts which end up red. ...

Republican politicians choosing voters, instead of voters choosing politicians.

#17 | Posted by LampLighter at 2026-03-10 12:34 PM

"But do voters care? They sure do,"

Yes, when it's misrepresented. Because if you told them the full truth, they'd be against it.

But that's your whole raison d'etre, amirite? To amplify misleading information for the purpose of attaining power?

#18 | Posted by Danforth at 2026-03-10 12:41 PM

"...poll after poll has shown roughly 80% support." - #1 | Posted by bell boi at 2026-03-10 01:40 AM

You mean like poll after poll showing roughly 80%+ support for sensible gun laws - that never happens?

Something like that, bell boi?

#19 | Posted by A_Friend at 2026-03-10 01:41 PM

Ballwasher the cooze-gargling MAGALoid strikes again. ---- off you stupid lying little bitch

#20 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2026-03-10 01:49 PM

Why not go for 90%?

#21 | Posted by fresno500 at 2026-03-10 01:55 PM

I l8ke Danforth's MO. People are just too stupid. Only the enlightened, like him, truly understand this.

#22 | Posted by BellRinger at 2026-03-10 01:56 PM

" My wife will be disenfranchised. Her married name doesn't match her Birth Certificate"

Same with mine. She legally changed her name and already has proven citizen status.

#23 | Posted by BellRinger at 2026-03-10 01:59 PM

" Fresh from fleeing an admission that Trump is a Liar, you shill for the man's attempt to subvert the midterms.

You admire his Lies, and you enjoy his subversions.
#13 | POSTED BY ZED AT 2026-03-10 08:11 AM | FLAG: "

Surely you are aware that this is a bill written by Congress and it's available online.

Here Zed:

www.congress.gov

You can read it yourself without any Donald Trump filter.

#24 | Posted by BellRinger at 2026-03-10 02:02 PM

You can read it yourself without any Donald Trump filter.

Interesting. It requires ID to register to vote, but not to actually cast a ballot.

#25 | Posted by REDIAL at 2026-03-10 02:06 PM

BullBringer posts a thread he knows is bogus, and even mentions so up thread.

But he'll get this thread up to 100 posts became he's great at con-trolling the narrative.

#26 | Posted by ClownShack at 2026-03-10 02:09 PM

Danforth,

Is your wife already registered to vote? I'm guessing yes. She is not required to re-register under the language of this bill.

And to be fair, here is a sane critique of the bill:

bipartisanpolicy.org

#27 | Posted by BellRinger at 2026-03-10 02:11 PM

The first effort to pass the SAVE Act last year failed in the face of nationwide public opposition. Somehow now it's just so damn good?

What's changed? The fact that it now requires states to regularly submit their voter rolls to the Department of Homeland Security? Did that make it wildly popular?

Was it the restriction on what counts as photo id and the requirements? You'd have to show a birth certificate (automatically problematic for many, especially poorer and rural people), or a passport? Did that make "it" popular? Which SAVE act is actually being discussed?

www.brennancenter.org

#28 | Posted by YAV at 2026-03-10 02:30 PM

Is your wife already registered to vote? I'm guessing yes. She is not required to re-register under the language of this bill.

And to be fair, here is a sane critique of the bill:

bipartisanpolicy.org

Posted by BellRinger

The SAVE bill is an unnecessary solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Cases of non-citizens voting are extremely rare.

There's only one reason Trump wants the SAVE Act enacted is to put elections under his control: The midterms

Our election system has worked like a charm for decades. And we've always sought to make voting easier for citizens, not harder.

If they pass this unneeded legislation, fairness would stipulate it requires state governments to supply birth certificates for free to any U.S. citizen, posted paid, with mandatory turnaround times of not more than, say, 14 days so voters who realize they don't have a copy have time to get registered before a federal election.

#29 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2026-03-10 02:33 PM

I do agree that non-citizen voting in federal elections is a nominal problem.

#30 | Posted by BellRinger at 2026-03-10 02:41 PM

@#29 ... There's only one reason Trump wants the SAVE Act enacted is to put elections under his control: The midterms ...

Yup.

The SAVE Act forces the Federal collection significant amounts of personal data from the states, among it is party affiliation, for cross-referencing with other Federal databases.

That would make it easier for Pres trump to target his "enemies."

#31 | Posted by LampLighter at 2026-03-10 02:42 PM

Is it free?
No?
Poll tax
Illegal

#32 | Posted by Truthhurts at 2026-03-10 02:50 PM

There's absolutely no evidence at all of illegal voting changing the results of an election in this country.

That kind of voter fraud is a Big Lie.... which is why Trumpers believe it.

#33 | Posted by Corky at 2026-03-10 02:55 PM

There's absolutely no evidence at all of illegal voting changing the results of an election in this country.
~ CorkyDaBigot

Moving the goal posts.....

#34 | Posted by oneironaut at 2026-03-10 03:01 PM

The SAVE Act forces the Federal collection significant amounts of personal data from the states, among it is party affiliation, for cross-referencing with other Federal databases.
~ Gaslighter.

You don't think this is happening at the State level? Why?

#35 | Posted by oneironaut at 2026-03-10 03:03 PM

#34

Oblivious to the Facts as per usual.

#36 | Posted by Corky at 2026-03-10 03:07 PM

#34 Why are you so hot for a solution to which there is no problem to be solved?

#37 | Posted by A_Friend at 2026-03-10 03:09 PM

There's absolutely no evidence at all of illegal voting changing the results of an election in this country.

That kind of voter fraud is a Big Lie.... which is why Trumpers believe it.

#33 | Posted by Corky

If there's so much voter fraud, how does Trump explain winning in 2016 and again in 2024?

#38 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2026-03-10 03:12 PM

There's absolutely no evidence at all of illegal voting changing the results of an election in this country.
~ CorkyDaBigot

Moving the goal posts.....

#34 | Posted by oneironaut

No, he isn't. The ONLY reason Trump and the GOP cite the need for the SAVE Act is to stop and prevent "voter fraud," which they claim is rampant across America. Time after time it's been proven

#39 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2026-03-10 03:15 PM

proven false

#40 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2026-03-10 03:19 PM

I want all of you lefties to remember this the next time you claim to hate the Senate because it's "un-Democratic" and push to nuke the filibuster the next time your party is in power. Passing legislation is supposed to be difficult. An institution like the Senate exists to force compromise and prevent the majority from running roughshod over the minority. In 2021, the only Dem Senators to openly oppose nuking the filibuster were Manchin and Sinema. And they are both gone now.

#41 | Posted by BellRinger at 2026-03-10 03:46 PM

#41 Here's the US Constitution, Article One

Why, I don't find the filibuster mentioned even once.

#42 | Posted by A_Friend at 2026-03-10 03:51 PM

#34 Why are you so hot for a solution to which there is no problem to be solved?

#37 | POSTED BY A_FRIEND

Everyone knows that answer.

#43 | Posted by Zed at 2026-03-10 03:55 PM

Chuck Schumer says the SAVE America Act allows ICE to kick off "TENS OF BILLIONS" of people off voter rolls.

Its worse than we thought I guess.

#44 | Posted by oneironaut at 2026-03-10 05:40 PM

#44 Can't read or understand the English language, I see.

#45 | Posted by A_Friend at 2026-03-10 05:41 PM

Why, I don't find the filibuster mentioned even once.
#42 | POSTED BY A_FRIEND

Cuz you're a moron?

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.
constitution.congress.gov

Ergo ....

www.senate.gov
Filibuster: www.senate.gov

#46 | Posted by oneironaut at 2026-03-10 05:49 PM

#44 Can't read or understand the English language, I see.
#45 | POSTED BY A_FRIEND

You moron you can't even read the links you post.

#47 | Posted by oneironaut at 2026-03-10 05:50 PM

#47 Where does the work filibuster appear in the US Constitution?

Hint: It doesn't.

You're welcome.

#48 | Posted by A_Friend at 2026-03-10 06:08 PM

#48 I'm not the one who pulled "TENS OF BILLIONS" out of "10 million."

You're welcome.

#49 | Posted by A_Friend at 2026-03-10 06:09 PM

#41 | Posted by BellRinger

Go ---- off, you stupid little Nazi ----.

#50 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2026-03-10 08:11 PM

" Somehow now it's just so damn good?"

It might be an outlier poll.

" 47 Where does the work filibuster appear in the US Constitution?"

Dumb question. Nobody is saying it appears in the Constitution. But you know that.

#51 | Posted by BellRinger at 2026-03-10 11:00 PM

" Somehow now it's just so damn good?"

It might be an outlier poll.

" 47 Where does the work filibuster appear in the US Constitution?"

Dumb question. Nobody is saying it appears in the Constitution. But you know that.

#52 | Posted by BellRinger at 2026-03-10 11:00 PM

" Somehow now it's just so damn good?"

It might be an outlier poll.

" 47 Where does the work filibuster appear in the US Constitution?"

Dumb question. Nobody is saying it appears in the Constitution. But you know that.

#53 | Posted by BellRinger at 2026-03-10 11:01 PM

What ever happened to NOT doing anything to interfere with elections just before elections?

Why now? What's President Dumbo worried about? He was elected with a Mandate remember?

It's just so unfortunate that the Mandate hung himself in prison.

#54 | Posted by donnerboy at 2026-03-11 10:04 AM

Trump and the MAGAs know they can't maintain power and are going to lose the midterms if they don't do something. This is one of those somethings they have to do.

#55 | Posted by YAV at 2026-03-11 10:11 AM

Drudge Retort Headlines

Dow Tumbles 800 Points, S&P 500 Posts its Fifth Straight Weekly Loss (34 comments)