There is no way 70% of people support this.
this post was submitted on 16 Mar 2026
241 points (96.5% liked)
politics
29021 readers
2030 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
NPR did a story on this yesterday actually. And while there is a greater than 50% Support( I say it this way because I can not find the source to give me the actual number but it was greater than 50%) it does admit that this will disinfrachise voters. And while most people who agree with mandatory id will not know the greater repercussions until after the fact.
Push polling.
Remember which idiots actually respond to polls. Do you answer phone calls from unknown numbers? If for some reason you did and it was a political poll would you remain on the line?
True true. I don't even have a landline. And isn't that how most of these run ?
Also, They might have actually asked them "do you think ID should be required to vote?".
the bill, which already has broad public support. A recent Harvard CAPS/Harris poll of 1,999 registered voters found that 71% support the SAVE America Act.
I highly doubt that most of those people polled have any idea of what Republicans actually mean by "proof of citizenship". I would bet money they just think it means showing your driver's license and/or social security card.
In reality, it means having to show a valid passport (which is a massive pain in the ass to obtain) or having a copy of your birth certificate (also a huge pain in the butt to get).
Polls lie, always have and always will. It's not about the question but how you ask it.
In reality, it means having to show a valid passport (which is a massive pain in the ass to obtain) or having a copy of your birth certificate (also a huge pain in the butt to get).
And for people that have changed their name since birth (either marriage or other reasons), the birth certificate isn't valid under this proposed bill. So passport book ($130+$10 for a photo), or passport card only ($30+$10 for a photo). And since passport book/card requirement doesn't apply to every American, this is effectively a selective tax targeting largely married women.
How is this anything else besides a violation of the 24th Amendment to the Constitution:
Twenty-Fourth Amendment:
Section 1
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
Section 2
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
80% chance the traitors in SCOTUS rule is constitutional anyway.
They'll just decline to hear the case.
load more comments
(1 replies)
honestly any form of identification is bs. its to stop mail in voting where that would be impossible. you show id already when you register.
Yes. Very few photo ID options have citizenship status, and the combo government photo id (drivers license) and birth certificate combo affects people with name changes. 15%-20% of Americans lack the primary ID requirement, and there are fees to obtaining them. The lack of ID would skew towards lower incomes who don't need passports (realID is a domestic travel passport).
There's already massive voter suppression of urban areas through long lines, and specific agitation to increase voting time by challenging voters, Skewing voter eligibility to air travellers and 5 mostly blue states that include citizenship on drivers license is likely to harm rural bumfucks that don't travel, and not obviously benefit GOP. Still, legal challenges will likely block it before mid terms, though the politics of "Democrats want massive (nonexistant) voter fraud to let illegal pet eaters vote" is probably the point.
That is the most bizarre thing about this legislation; dem voters are shown to be more likely to own passports, and are more likely to keep their original name when getting married. This will obviously fuck over poor voters the hardest, so maybe that's the point, but it still seems ultimately self-defeating.
I think Trump is just throwing himself behind anything that vaguely sounds good for him because he's panicking.
And for the "Trump is going to rig the midterms, we're all screwed" crowd, yes, he'll try, but if he was confident he was going to succeed he wouldn't be acting so desperate right now, would he?
I’m still expecting it to be enforced only against people who “look like” undocumented immigrants
I mean, that's a reasonable assumption in most cases, but with the way this legislation is written I don't see how that's possible. It changes the entire process for registering to vote, and you have to be registered in order to vote. This isn't like bathroom bills where they'll target people who "look trans", this is an actual bureaucratic process that they're rewriting. Stuff goes on file. There are records. There are whole departments of people involved in processing this stuff, not just one single guard at the gate who can wave you through.
The political game is to avoid the actual legislation enacted into law by mid terms, but complain about the cheating radical left needing election fraud to win, and then recounts until 2028 to block change of congressional power. The less the election campaign is about policy, decline, and purposeful GOP destruction of America, the better the GOP's chance.
That would be the smart play, yes (although I don't believe, constitutionally, that they can actually prevent a new congress being seated... But that doesn't change the fact that it's politically valuable to have legislation fail so that you can invent a problem that you "tried" to fix). However Trump doesn't seem to have gotten the memo. The thing about that gambit is that you have to look like you tried, but don't actually, y'know, burn every bit of political capital you have trying to make it happen. Trump, on the other hand, is now saying he's going to completely roadblack all legislation until this passes. He's making it a do or die bill, a "If this is the only thing I pass in my entire term I'm fine with that' piece of tentpole legislation, which is definitely not what you do when the point is to fail nobly.
Trump, on the other hand, is now saying he’s going to completely roadblack all legislation until this passes.
AFAIK, block all other future legislation. But its not as though the only other legislation he'd approve would make people angry. I doubt he'd roll back, coincidentally the only bill he passed in his first administration, "tax cuts for the rich".
you have to look like you tried, but don’t actually, y’know, burn every bit of political capital you have trying to make it happen.
I'm not sure he wants even a budget bill, or "shutdown avoidance" vote, but political capital will as usual blame democrats for process issues. You're using "political capital spending" as this is the last threat he will ever be able to make to anyone, when GOP is mostly supportive of the plan (though suicide if they lose philibuster after losing mid terms)
As long as there’s no budget, he gets to say “see, government is a swamp”, and convince all too many to vote against their legislators to “drain the swamp” (ie redirect the blame), and convince all too many it’s ok for him to act without regard to constitutional checks and balances
Political capital isn't just voter approval, it's your ability to cut deals and draw together coalitions within your own party. Trump is burning a lot of goodwill among Republican reps and senators pushing this do or die approach to this bill.
load more comments
(11 replies)
The hill can take a propaganda at my nuts if they think I’m gonna buy that poll as anything other than biased.
Im 100% with you on this sentiment. I can't for a minute believe that is accurate.
load more comments
(2 replies)
The Hill cannot be trusted. They're all about the Inside Baseball view of politics.
But they’re bracing for long hours and possible late nights in a bid to build momentum for the bill, which already has broad public support.
Checks source: oh, looks like The Hill is manufacturing consent again.
What Is The SAVE America Act: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safeguard_American_Voter_Eligibility_Act
Opposition
Non-citizens voting in federal elections has been proven to be extremely rare and is already illegal under Section 216 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.[9][10][11]
Opponents of the bill argue that it is intended to suppress voter turnout, as voter registration forms already require driver's license numbers or the last four digits of the applicant's Social Security number in compliance with the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), which registrars are required to use under HAVA to confirm eligibility through databases maintained by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the Social Security Administration, and the U.S. Postal Service.[7][12] An analysis by the Center for American Progress found some voters in Alaska and Hawaii would need to fly to reach their election office in accordance with the in person requirement to vote by mail.[13] The analysis also found that an estimated 69 million women and 4 million men have a last name that does not match their birth certificate.[14] This provision would similarly impact transgender people whose legal names do not match their birth certificates.[15][10]
Research from the Brennan Center, "indicates that more than 9 percent of American citizens of voting age, or 21.3 million people, don't have proof of citizenship readily available".[16] The center said the act "would compel voter roll purges that are bound to sweep in eligible American voters" and that "when Arizona and Kansas implemented similar policies at the state level, tens of thousands of eligible citizens were blocked from registering", concluding, "the SAVE Act's proof-of-citizenship requirement is a solution in search of a problem".[2]
According to the U.S. Vote Foundation, the SAVE Act would jeopardize voting registration access for US military service members serving abroad and other US citizens resident overseas.[17]
It does not have support from the public, but his goons have probably supported the measure in the public sphere. You don't get invited to vote if you are not a citizen. There is not some giant conspiracy where a bunch of illegal immigrants are voting at the polling booths. Those are lies, the only people caught cheating are good ol boys voting for dead grandma. The rest of it has been fair and heavily scrutinized, you're a complete fool if you believe otherwise.
Most people in a democracy care about clean, fair elections and work towards making them so. This only adds a roadblock to the disenfranchised and the poor.
You mean undocumented?
view more: next ›