New York Democrats Demand ID To Shovel Snow But Not To Vote
A new Heritage Action poll further confirms voters' overwhelming support for proof of citizenship and ID to vote.A new Heritage Action poll further confirms voters' overwhelming support for proof of citizenship and ID to vote.Bringing Back The Talking Filibuster Could Do More To Save America Than Just Passing The SAVE Act
The talking filibuster is worth trying. It is worth a public accounting of whether this Senate, in this moment, for this American people, can deliver on its duties.‘Prove it’ isn’t an insult. It’s a standard.
President Donald Trump last Friday night took to Truth Social to reiterate his support for voter ID and proof of citizenship for voting. His message was simple and direct: Elections should be decided by eligible American citizens.
That position aligns with what most Americans say they want.
Equal protection under the law means rules apply consistently. A system built on uneven standards invites uneven trust.
According to the Pew Research Center, 83% of Americans support “requiring all voters to show government-issued photo identification.” In a divided country, that level of agreement is rare. It signals a broad desire for clear, consistent standards that bolster confidence in election outcomes.
When an eligible American citizen goes to vote, he should feel confident that his ballot counts — and carries equal weight. Confirming who can vote before a ballot is cast helps ensure that elections are decided only by eligible American citizens.
If you need ID to board a plane or open a bank account, you can show it at the ballot box. Americans understand that identity verification is not an accusation. It is a safeguard. It protects a system that depends on public trust. When identity is confirmed clearly and consistently, disputes shrink and confidence rises.
Recent examples show why verification matters — even when fraud is not the story.
In 2020, Illinois election officials acknowledged that a computer error in the state’s automatic voter registration system mistakenly forwarded information from hundreds of people who had indicated they were not U.S. citizens for voter registration processing. Officials later reviewed and corrected the registrations, but a number of ballots were cast before the error was identified.
The issue was corrected. But it illustrates a broader point: When eligibility is not verified clearly at registration, mistakes can occur and must be remedied after the fact. Verification after ballots are cast invites confusion and fuels public doubt.
Wisconsin offers a different example. Under state law, voters who appear without acceptable identification must cast provisional ballots until their eligibility is confirmed. Provisional ballots are lawful and part of election administration. But they shift verification from prevention to review. In closely contested elections, post-election verification increases administrative burdens and can invite disputes.
These examples do not prove widespread fraud. They do show that when verification standards are incomplete or inconsistently applied, administrative strain and public doubt follow. Clear verification before voting reduces disputes after voting.
That is the principle behind the SAVE Act. It would strengthen eligibility verification by requiring documentary proof of citizenship when registering to vote, while promoting clearer standards nationwide.
RELATED: Running out the clock won’t save the majority
The idea is straightforward: Confirm eligibility before ballots are cast. Support election administrators with consistent rules. Help ensure that elections are decided only by eligible American citizens.
Most states already require some form of voter identification at the polls, but the rules still vary widely. When eligibility is verified differently from state to state, public confidence varies as well. A system built on uneven standards invites uneven trust.
Equal protection under the law means rules apply consistently. At the ballot box, equal protection means every lawful vote carries the same weight. This is not about partisanship. It is about clarity — ensuring that the person casting a ballot is who he says he is.
The ballot box deserves the same seriousness Americans expect elsewhere in civic life. Voter ID is one of the simplest and most broadly supported safeguards available. It does not prevent eligible citizens from voting. It affirms that voting is a serious civic act deserving of clear and consistent standards.
Only eligible American citizens should decide elections. Requiring voter identification is one of the most practical ways to uphold that principle. The SAVE Act reflects that basic governing commitment.
Davis: If GOP Wants To Win The Midterms, They Need To Pass The SAVE Act
'So far this year, I think the Senate has voted on average once a day. They have passed two bills. Why not bring up the SAVE America Act?'Running out the clock won’t save the majority
In the first three months of the Trump administration, Americans were stunned by President Trump’s breakneck pace: executive orders overturning onerous Biden-era regulations, massive reductions in force, and rescissions eliminating billions in waste. Republicans notched some of their highest approval ratings in months. Democrats looked rudderless.
For the first time in years, it felt like Republicans were taking the country back — unapologetically.
The task remains what it was 365 days ago: Save the country, secure future elections, and restore the American dream.
Fast-forward a year, and the public mood has turned bleak. A recent Fox News poll found that 52% of voters would support the Democrat candidates in their House districts this November — reportedly the highest level of support for either party since 2017. More jarring: Voters favor Democrats by 14 points on affordability and helping the middle class and by 21 points on health care.
President Trump’s worries about the midterms, typical swings aside, look justified.
But plenty of time remains, enough to change the trajectory — if Republicans are willing to spend time and effort instead of conserving both.
The problem sits in the mirror. Despite ample runway to tee up major legislation through a second round of reconciliation — the tool Republicans can use to deliver big wins without a single Democratic vote in the Senate — too many lawmakers have acted as if the moment already passed.
The Republican Study Committee produced a blueprint aimed at making the American dream affordable again by tackling the same pressures families feel every day: rising costs, rising premiums, and a fading path to home ownership for younger Americans.
Yet too many Republicans have decided to run on last year’s accomplishments in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, hoping “tax cuts” can substitute for finishing the America First agenda.
Voters aren’t buying it — and they have reasons.
Spending and priorities
Just days ago, 76 House Republicans joined Democrats to pass a consolidated appropriations package that included millions in earmarks for clinics providing "gender-affirming care" and $5 billion for refugee resettlement — while declining chances to strip the bill of the pork Republicans claim to oppose.
Days before that, 46 Republicans voted against an amendment to defund rogue activist judge James Boasberg’s office. Eighty-one Republicans voted against an amendment to defund the National Endowment for Democracy — which, contrary to its name, functions as a rogue CIA cutout that fuels global censorship and domestic propaganda.
While basic conservative principles get betrayed in plain sight, Senate Republicans too often hide the ball, using procedure as an excuse for inaction.
RELATED: 3 debunked Democrat claims about the SAVE America Act
The Senate can act
Texas Republican Rep. Chip Roy’s Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act and the new SAVE America Act have passed the House a combined three times. Lawmakers and pundits insist it’s a nonstarter in the Senate. Passing it, they say, would require “nuking the filibuster” — a risky move when 51 votes for major conservative policy cannot be taken for granted.
But to voters, it looks like business as usual: elected officials trying to save their seats rather than save their country.
And voters are right.
Contrary to the lazy narrative, enforcing a talking filibuster does not eliminate the filibuster.
The talking filibuster has been permitted under Senate rules since 1806 and served for more than a century as the primary way to delay or block a vote. Cloture came later. Today, the minority can simply signal its intent to filibuster, triggering a 60-vote threshold to invoke cloture, end debate, and move to final passage by simple majority.
Enforcing a talking filibuster on the SAVE America Act would not change Senate rules or eliminate the minority’s right to filibuster. It would require the majority leader to keep the bill on the floor — and force the minority to sustain a real filibuster as long as the majority maintains a quorum.
Time and effort stand between us and an immensely popular voter ID law.
RELATED: Noem urges swift passage of SAVE Act to prevent illegal aliens from disenfranchising American voters
Finish the job
Out-of-control spending keeps burying families in debt and shrinking what their dollars buy. Between backroom deals and broad inaction, politicians seem to be counting the days until a Democrat House returns with subpoenas and impeachment resolutions. The status quo won’t cut it.
The task remains what it was 365 days ago: Save the country, secure future elections, and restore the American dream.
No one believes the job is finished, so stop pretending it is. With months left before November, members of Congress need to prove why voters should keep them in office. Only a dogged push to finish the America First agenda will do.
What The Wall Street Journal Gets Wrong About The Talking Filibuster
The talking filibuster has been a tool in the Senate’s arsenal for 200 years. Returning to it could unlock the majesty of the institution.3 debunked Democrat claims about the SAVE America Act
Democrats and legacy media have put forth several mischaracterizations and even flat-out lies about the GOP's latest election integrity bill.
The House passed the SAVE America Act Wednesday with unanimous Republican support and with even one Democrat, Rep. Henry Cuellar of Texas, joining the GOP. The bill would put in place basic election integrity requirements like providing proof of citizenship and photo ID to register and vote in federal elections.
'If you buy a 6-pack of beer you have to show an ID.'
The bill is now in the Senate, where Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah is leading the effort to pass the legislation.
Although this proposal seems commonsense to most Americans, Democrats have caused a firestorm of hysteria and misconception. Here is the truth behind Democrats' most common rebuttals.
RELATED: 4 Senate Republicans evading MAGA's pressure campaign to prevent noncitizens from voting
1. 'It's already illegal!'
The SAVE America Act aims to protect ballots from election fraud, particularly from illegal aliens and noncitizens. Democrats are quick to point out that it is already illegal for noncitizens to vote in elections, and those Democrats who are willing to admit that noncitizens voting does occasionally happen insist it takes place at a negligible rate.
This is partially true. It is already illegal for noncitizens to vote in American elections, and when it does happen, estimates show it occurs less than 1% of the time. But even if the rate is extremely low, it's not zero. And while many elections are decisive victories, some are decided by razor-thin margins, making every ballot count.
In the 2024 election, former Republican Rep. John Duarte of California was unseated by Democrat Adam Gray by just 187 votes, chipping away at a historically thin GOP advantage in the House. But it's not just local elections that are decided by such narrow margins. In 2020, former President Joe Biden won several swing states by just thousands of votes, including Georgia by 11,779 votes and Arizona by just 10,457 votes.
There's no way to know if any of those votes were cast fraudulently, which is precisely the problem. Americans should have total confidence that every ballot counted in an election is a legitimate vote that reflects the political will of a United States citizen. The SAVE America Act would help do just that.
2. 'Jim Crow 2.0'
Democrats are no stranger to playing the race card, claiming that requiring photo ID somehow unfairly affects minorities. Perhaps most notable of them all is Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York, who unabashedly likened the SAVE Act to Jim Crow-era rules.
"I have said it before and I'll say it again, the SAVE Act would impose Jim Crow type laws to the entire country and is dead on arrival in the Senate," Schumer said in a statement earlier this month. "It is a poison pill that will kill any legislation that it is attached to. If House Republicans add the SAVE Act to the bipartisan appropriations package it will lead to another prolonged Trump government shutdown."
Apart from Schumer's soft bigotry of low expectations, his claim is simply inaccurate. The SAVE America Act offers a wide range of acceptable documents to prove citizenship, including a valid U.S. passport, a REAL ID that indicates citizenship, a U.S. military identification card that shows birthplace in the U.S., a birth certificate or other equivalent naturalization documents, and even some tribal IDs like the American Indian card.
Presenting a photo ID is also already a requirement to vote in some states as well as for countless other activities and purchases, including boarding a plane and casting a vote as a member of Congress.
"If you buy a 6-pack of beer you have to show an ID," Republican Rep. Tim Burchett of Tennessee joked in a post on X. "End this racism."
3. 'It's an attack on women!'
Another claim Democrats have repeatedly made is that the new requirements disproportionately impact women who have changed their names after marriage. Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts said that the name change "creates a real problem" for her, implying that the legislation is the GOP's latest attempt to suppress women's votes.
The absurdity of Warren's claim is self-evident. Married women often obtain documentation with their new names for other processes that require identification, such as purchasing alcohol or opening a bank account. In addition, women are not limited to producing birth certificates, but also may provide other forms of acceptable ID, such as a passport or a REAL ID.
RELATED: Lone Republican defies Trump, votes to tank the SAVE Act
Even in the rare case that a woman's ID is not updated with her new legal name, the SAVE America Act explicitly allows for name changes in documentation. The legislation requires states to establish fallback procedures for voters who have changed their names due to marriage, divorce, adoption, or another reason.
The reality is that none of the proposed requirements are novel or restrictive. They are simply common sense.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
EXCLUSIVE: Chip Roy Lays Out How Senate Can Vote On SAVE Act Without Nuking Filibuster
'We can move the legislation under CURRENT rules without 'nuking' the filibuster,' Roy pointed out.Today's top stories
thefederalist.com
www.theblaze.com