The Save Act

[dpic73]

Just a little bit of cheating. That’s OK with democrats.

So sick of this ****. They've done multiple proctology exams on this election and found no evidence of mass voter fraud. YOU LOST! Get TF over it!

"Joel Caldwell is not admitting personal involvement in any illegal election activities; he is sharing opinions, anecdotes, and second-hand accounts of what he believes happened or what tactics were used. In the undercover video (originally shared by Steven Crowder in October 2024 and recirculated in posts like the one from Tony Seruga), Caldwell discusses 2020 election events in Atlanta, including ballot drop-offs, payments to collectors (often called "harvesting" in conservative contexts), the State Farm Arena incident, and references to videos like those in 2000 Mules. He uses phrases like:

• "That’s what happened in 2020, ‘cause that’s when the ballots—they started stuffing them ballots and people stuffing them ballots..."
• "groups was paying people to do just that. Drop—drop off."

These are presented in the video as his explanations or observations of alleged practices by "groups" (implying Democratic-aligned efforts), and he ties them to broader debates over voter ID laws and Republican scrutiny. However, he does not say "I did this," "we did this," or describe his own direct participation in fraud, harvesting, bribery, or ballot stuffing. His comments are framed as general knowledge or stories about what occurred (e.g., referencing widely circulated but debunked claims like mass ballot stuffing caught on tape or the pipe burst cover-up at State Farm Arena). Fact-checks, including from PolitiFact (November 2024), rate the video's fraud implications as unsubstantiated:

• Caldwell revives long-debunked 2020 Georgia claims (e.g., no evidence of widespread ballot stuffing; the State Farm Arena "leak" was a minor plumbing issue with no fraud found after investigations).
• He is not a "Democratic operative" tied to the party or election officials; he's with a nonprofit advocacy group focused on voting rights.
• No credible evidence supports his anecdotes leading to proven, outcome-changing fraud; Georgia's 2020 results were certified after multiple audits, recounts, and court reviews.

In short, it's opinionated storytelling and repetition of existing allegations—not a confession of personal wrongdoing or insider admission of orchestrating fraud. Conservative outlets frame it as damning "admissions," while independent reviews see it as unsubstantiated revival of prior claims."

https://x.com/i/grok/share/2f89972f68fc4082bfc458908053f243

 

[dpic73]

The majority of Americans have no idea what's even in the Act other than the simpleton framing of the Republicans but combined with all the other simultaneous attacks on our elections, it's clear that this has nothing to do with election integrity - this bill will simply complicate voting for tens of millions of Americans for the sole purpose of reducing the numbers of voters for the mid-terms and we all know that the more people who vote, the less favorable it is for Republicans.

 

[LafayetteBear]

So you managed to find a guy who committed voting fraud. Good for you! No doubt he is a Republican.

 

[LafayetteBear]

I frickin' LOVE this. And so does every Congressional Democrat. John Thune and Mike Johnson? Not so much. No legislation fundingDHS? That works for me.

 

[TigerGrowls]

 

[yoshi121374]

So the system worked and they got caught ..

Also, Libs of tiktok has been proven to be fake, why do you always use the very worst sources?

 

[TigerGrowls]

So the system worked and they got caught ..

Also, Libs of tiktok has been proven to be fake, why do you always use the very worst sources?

How has LOTT been proven fake yoshi???

 

[TigerGrowls]

 

[TigerGrowls]

 

[TigerGrowls]

Democrats are letting us know what they plan to do.

 

[baltimorened]

The majority of Americans have no idea what's even in the Act other than the simpleton framing of the Republicans but combined with all the other simultaneous attacks on our elections, it's clear that this has nothing to do with election integrity - this bill will simply complicate voting for tens of millions of Americans for the sole purpose of reducing the numbers of voters for the mid-terms and we all know that the more people who vote, the less favorable it is for Republicans.

dpic, here's the thing....yea, probably not mass cheating, most likely not enough to change the outcome of any election. I think you're right there.

But there are people who are voting illegally....there have been too many cases - individual for sure, dogs being registered etc. So irregular voting does happen.

Ok to the issue of voters being disenfranchised. Personally I think that's BS argument. As I pointed out, there is a website you can go to and get your birth certificate...it's harder to get a mortgage or clear history to rent an apartment.

So what's all the outrage from either side all about? I admit I don't know

 

[baltimorened]

I frickin' LOVE this. And so does every Congressional Democrat. John Thune and Mike Johnson? Not so much. No legislation fundingDHS? That works for me.

if we don't need it, let's eliminate the agency..there's really no need for secret service, coast guard, TSA, is there??

 

[dpic73]

dpic, here's the thing....yea, probably not mass cheating, most likely not enough to change the outcome of any election. I think you're right there.

But there are people who are voting illegally....there have been too many cases - individual for sure, dogs being registered etc. So irregular voting does happen.

Ok to the issue of voters being disenfranchised. Personally I think that's BS argument. As I pointed out, there is a website you can go to and get your birth certificate...it's harder to get a mortgage or clear history to rent an apartment.

So what's all the outrage from either side all about? I admit I don't know

Unless it's been updated, I've mentioned several times that the bill requires you to register in person, so it's not enough to order your birth certificate online. This will complicate it for many, including the 29 million Americans who will move this year and may not be aware of the new rule or have an opportunity to get to a registrar's office before the election. And I know they're still looking for a way around it but it could also apply to all married women whose last name doesn't match their birth certificate.

 

[LafayetteBear]

if we don't need it, let's eliminate the agency..there's really no need for secret service, coast guard, TSA, is there??

If it means getting rid of ICE, I would be willing to go without all three of those for a bit. TSA would be the toughest one. But ICE is a frickin' SCAR on the American landscape. A mass, walking Constitutional violation.

 

[hopefultiger13]

So the system worked and they got caught ..

Also, Libs of tiktok has been proven to be fake, why do you always use the very worst sources?

LMAO... because that's all he's got. Even Thegatewaypundit refuses to publish this crap.

 

[LafayetteBear]

Unless it's been updated, I've mentioned several times that the bill requires you to register in person, so it's not enough to order your birth certificate online. This will complicate it for many, including the 29 million Americans who will move this year and may not be aware of the new rule or have an opportunity to get to a registrar's office before the election. And I know they're still looking for a way around it but it could also apply to all married women whose last name doesn't match their birth certificate.

You would also have to have proof of citizenship. I don't travel outside the U.S. a lot, so my passport has expired. I plan to renew it for travel to Europe later this year, but I presently have no proof of citizenship other than a birth certificate. Would I need to produce a certified copy of my birth certificate, or just a photocopy? Would I need to produce the original of my California Driver's License, or just a copy? Would I need produce two (2), rather than just one (1) separate photo ID's?

All of the above questions raise issues. Imposing these requirements will help eliminate some voter fraud. But it will also, without question, result in persons who are legitimate U.S. citizens, and residents of the state and district in which they seek to vote, from actually voting. Accordingly, a very legitimate question is whether these requirements create a bigger problem than they solve. If the number of cases of voter fraud is, as I suspect, so small as to be anecdotal in scope, and the number of U.S. citizens effectively disenfranchised by these requirements significantly outstrips the number of persons who vote illegally, then the solution is worse than the problem. Of course, Republicans do not view it that way, because they believe that the vast majority of U.S. citizens who will be disenfranchised by these new requirements would be minorities (aka likely Democratic voters). So Republicans would view both the solution and the problem as a positive. They rarely admit to this, but the occasional concession (usually in a fit of pique) tends to be pretty amusing, not to mention telling.

 

[fatpiggy]

dpic, here's the thing....yea, probably not mass cheating, most likely not enough to change the outcome of any election. I think you're right there.

But there are people who are voting illegally....there have been too many cases - individual for sure, dogs being registered etc. So irregular voting does happen.

Ok to the issue of voters being disenfranchised. Personally I think that's BS argument. As I pointed out, there is a website you can go to and get your birth certificate...it's harder to get a mortgage or clear history to rent an apartment.

So what's all the outrage from either side all about? I admit I don't know

The only argument is that voting is a constitutional right and, therefore, no ID should be required. That is the only reason to argue for no id in my opinion. However, you must show your ID to exercise your 2nd amendment right due to safety concerns. This invalidates the first argument.

It is perfectly reasonable and constitutional to require ID to vote.

 

[Moogy]

The only argument is that voting is a constitutional right and, therefore, no ID should be required. That is the only reason to argue for no id in my opinion. However, you must show your ID to exercise your 2nd amendment right due to safety concerns. This invalidates the first argument.

It is perfectly reasonable and constitutional to require ID to vote.

In 28 states, I can buy a gun right now, without any ID. The 22 states that decided not to allow some purchases without an ID made that decision of their own accord.

Also, to date, there is no record of any direct and immediate physical harm to someone as a result of someone else's vote. No one's vote shot out from their fingers and pierced someone's heart, causing them to bleed out on the voting floor.

Other than being really bad at this and entirely wrong ... good effort.

 

[TigerGrowls]

If it means getting rid of ICE, I would be willing to go without all three of those for a bit. TSA would be the toughest one. But ICE is a frickin' SCAR on the American landscape. A mass, walking Constitutional violation.

So Bear it sounds like you believe in open borders basically. Is it time to retire the concept of the nation state in your opinion?

What is advantage to being a citizen in your apparent desired scenario??? If dems took full control how would yall roll this out???

 

[TigerGrowls]

You would also have to have proof of citizenship. I don't travel outside the U.S. a lot, so my passport has expired. I plan to renew it for travel to Europe later this year, but I presently have no proof of citizenship other than a birth certificate. Would I need to produce a certified copy of my birth certificate, or just a photocopy? Would I need to produce the original of my California Driver's License, or just a copy? Would I need produce two (2), rather than just one (1) separate photo ID's?

All of the above questions raise issues. Imposing these requirements will help eliminate some voter fraud. But it will also, without question, result in persons who are legitimate U.S. citizens, and residents of the state and district in which they seek to vote, from actually voting. Accordingly, a very legitimate question is whether these requirements create a bigger problem than they solve. If the number of cases of voter fraud is, as I suspect, so small as to be anecdotal in scope, and the number of U.S. citizens effectively disenfranchised by these requirements significantly outstrips the number of persons who vote illegally, then the solution is worse than the problem. Of course, Republicans do not view it that way, because they believe that the vast majority of U.S. citizens who will be disenfranchised by these new requirements would be minorities (aka likely Democratic voters). So Republicans would view both the solution and the problem as a positive. They rarely admit to this, but the occasional concession (usually in a fit of pique) tends to be pretty amusing, not to mention telling.

An expired passport would be fine for voter registration bear.

 

[TigerGrowls]

In 28 states, I can buy a gun right now, without any ID. The 22 states that decided not to allow some purchases without an ID made that decision of their own accord.

Also, to date, there is no record of any direct and immediate physical harm to someone as a result of someone else's vote. No one's vote shot out from their fingers and pierced someone's heart, causing them to bleed out on the voting floor.

Other than being really bad at this and entirely wrong ... good effort.

This sounds like fake news.

 

[dpic73]

You would also have to have proof of citizenship. I don't travel outside the U.S. a lot, so my passport has expired. I plan to renew it for travel to Europe later this year, but I presently have no proof of citizenship other than a birth certificate. Would I need to produce a certified copy of my birth certificate, or just a photocopy? Would I need to produce the original of my California Driver's License, or just a copy? Would I need produce two (2), rather than just one (1) separate photo ID's?

All of the above questions raise issues. Imposing these requirements will help eliminate some voter fraud. But it will also, without question, result in persons who are legitimate U.S. citizens, and residents of the state and district in which they seek to vote, from actually voting. Accordingly, a very legitimate question is whether these requirements create a bigger problem than they solve. If the number of cases of voter fraud is, as I suspect, so small as to be anecdotal in scope, and the number of U.S. citizens effectively disenfranchised by these requirements significantly outstrips the number of persons who vote illegally, then the solution is worse than the problem. Of course, Republicans do not view it that way, because they believe that the vast majority of U.S. citizens who will be disenfranchised by these new requirements would be minorities (aka likely Democratic voters). So Republicans would view both the solution and the problem as a positive. They rarely admit to this, but the occasional concession (usually in a fit of pique) tends to be pretty amusing, not to mention telling.

That's the $65,000 question. With the bill continually changing, no one knows what the rules will be and if the Senate changes it and sends it back to the floor, by the time it(if it) passes, it will be too late to be implemented well and to give everyone affected time to get their registrations updated. The maddening part is the onus should be on the federal govt. since they should know who is and isn't a citizen but there's no centralized database that links every citizen's identity to their citizenship status. Crazy

 

[baltimorened]

You would also have to have proof of citizenship. I don't travel outside the U.S. a lot, so my passport has expired. I plan to renew it for travel to Europe later this year, but I presently have no proof of citizenship other than a birth certificate. Would I need to produce a certified copy of my birth certificate, or just a photocopy? Would I need to produce the original of my California Driver's License, or just a copy? Would I need produce two (2), rather than just one (1) separate photo ID's?

All of the above questions raise issues. Imposing these requirements will help eliminate some voter fraud. But it will also, without question, result in persons who are legitimate U.S. citizens, and residents of the state and district in which they seek to vote, from actually voting. Accordingly, a very legitimate question is whether these requirements create a bigger problem than they solve. If the number of cases of voter fraud is, as I suspect, so small as to be anecdotal in scope, and the number of U.S. citizens effectively disenfranchised by these requirements significantly outstrips the number of persons who vote illegally, then the solution is worse than the problem. Of course, Republicans do not view it that way, because they believe that the vast majority of U.S. citizens who will be disenfranchised by these new requirements would be minorities (aka likely Democratic voters). So Republicans would view both the solution and the problem as a positive. They rarely admit to this, but the occasional concession (usually in a fit of pique) tends to be pretty amusing, not to mention telling.

so, I already provided what you need to do to get a copy of your birth certificate.....But here's an important question, you're planning a trip to Europe (elite lawyer ), are you going to do all the things necessary to update your passport? Sure you are. Might it be a pain in the a--, sure it might be, you might b----ch about it, but you'll do it.

It's easier to register to vote. Get your birth certificate and go register.

You last paragraph just reinforces your built in bias.

 

[baltimorened]

That's the $65,000 question. With the bill continually changing, no one knows what the rules will be and if the Senate changes it and sends it back to the floor, by the time it(if it) passes, it will be too late to be implemented well and to give everyone affected time to get their registrations updated. The maddening part is the onus should be on the federal govt. since they should know who is and isn't a citizen but there's no centralized database that links every citizen's identity to their citizenship status. Crazy

there is a website that connects to birth certificates..how hard can this be. When I needed a birth certificate for a passport, I only had a copy, had to get an "original" and this was before the internet, I had to get a form, fill it out and mail it to where I was born. And, you know what, they sent it.....You guys are making a mountain out of an anthill

 

[dpic73]

there is a website that connects to birth certificates..how hard can this be. When I needed a birth certificate for a passport, I only had a copy, had to get an "original" and this was before the internet, I had to get a form, fill it out and mail it to where I was born. And, you know what, they sent it.....You guys are making a mountain out of an anthill

I don't know how many times I have to repeat this to you but the Act requires you to update your registration in person.

Why are you not grasping that detail?

 

[CTN-1]

I don't know how many times I have to repeat this to you but the Act requires you to update your registration in person.

Why are you not grasping that detail?

Why would that be a problem?
I had to produce a valid drivers license to obtain my(gifted to me) costco membership. I also had to do that in person.
Should voting be less vetted than joining costco?

 

[dpic73]

Why would that be a problem?
I had to produce a valid drivers license to obtain my(gifted to me) costco membership. I also had to do that in person.
Should voting be less vetted than joining costco?

Just because its simple for you doesn't mean it will be simple for the millions of people that will be required to visit a registrars office in person, including the 29 million voting eligible adults that move each year, people who travel for a living and possibly all married women.

If you’re going to institute this practice, you need to allow much more time to make sure all systems are updated and everyone who needs to update their registrations have the ability to do so. This should not be rushed to implement it before the mid-terms.

We've gone 250 years without this solution for a problem we dont have but to enforce it this late in the game makes it an obvious attempt to prevent millions from voting. Please note its only Republicans that have pushed for this Act due to their paranoia that their elections are being stolen. Edit: and for the most obvious reason that they know they will be wiped out in the mid-terms and this is one of the schemes they're using to mitigate the damage.

The SAVE Act Would Force Many Rural Americans To Drive Hours To Register To Vote

"Under the SAVE Act, many rural Americans would be forced to drive hours and cross hundreds of miles to show documentation of citizenship, in person, in order to register to vote. Some would be forced to drive as many as eight hours and make interstate journeys"

www.americanprogress.org/article/the-save-act-would-force-many-rural-americans-to-drive-hours-to-register-to-vote/

 

[TigerGrowls]

 

[TigerGrowls]

 

[TigerGrowls]

Can of whoop a s s on the way.

Sidney Powell - Elections Czar!!!

MEGA BOOM!!!



BREAKING: President Trump to name Sidney Powell a DOJ Special Attorney that he is calling his "Elections Czar" to investigate and prosecute voter fraud in the 2026 midterm elections. There is no more fitting of a patriot to put in charge of ensuring that those who attempt to subvert the will of the American people and rig our elections are held accountable than the woman who EXPOSED the stolen election of 2020. Sidney Powell put her career on the line and now she has been TOTALLY VINDICATED... The radical left THUGS are shaking in their boots after hearing that Sidney Powell is about to RELEASE THE KRAKEN of justice upon them. Great move President Trump!!!

 

[TigerGrowls]

Let's do this!!!

 

[TigerGrowls]

It's all going to come out. We're just in the buildup to the reveal.

In related news, John Solomon reported yesterday that DNI Gabbard will declassify information in 9 days that proves there was foreign interference in the 2020 election.

Add in what's happening in Fulton County, GA, and Maricopa County, AZ, and it's fairly clear that we're close.

Oh, and let's not forget about Maduro, who is rumored to have cut a deal regarding Venezuela's part in election fraud (via Smartmatic's electronic voting systems technology deployed throughout the United States) - including him naming the politicians who benefited.

And let's not forget that all of this is happening just as the SAVE America Act, needed to secure our elections, has really come to the forefront.

Or is it just happenstance that all of this is occurring in unison with the Nov. election looming on the near event horizon?

 

[baltimorened]

I don't know how many times I have to repeat this to you but the Act requires you to update your registration in person.

Why are you not grasping that detail?

I don't know how many times I have to repeat this to you but the Act requires you to update your registration in person.

Why are you not grasping that detail?

Once is enough, I got it. How do you get your driver's license? over the phone?

 

[baltimorened]

Just because its simple for you doesn't mean it will be simple for the millions of people that will be required to visit a registrars office in person, including the 29 million voting eligible adults that move each year, people who travel for a living and possibly all married women.

If you’re going to institute this practice, you need to allow much more time to make sure all systems are updated and everyone who needs to update their registrations have the ability to do so. This should not be rushed to implement it before the mid-terms.

We've gone 250 years without this solution for a problem we dont have but to enforce it this late in the game makes it an obvious attempt to prevent millions from voting. Please note its only Republicans that have pushed for this Act due to their paranoia that their elections are being stolen. Edit: and for the most obvious reason that they know they will be wiped out in the mid-terms and this is one of the schemes they're using to mitigate the damage.

The SAVE Act Would Force Many Rural Americans To Drive Hours To Register To Vote

"Under the SAVE Act, many rural Americans would be forced to drive hours and cross hundreds of miles to show documentation of citizenship, in person, in order to register to vote. Some would be forced to drive as many as eight hours and make interstate journeys"

www.americanprogress.org/article/the-save-act-would-force-many-rural-americans-to-drive-hours-to-register-to-vote/

this married argument is just dumb. Women have been getting married and voting for decades. Based on the married women argument none of them would ever be able to vote because they took their husband's names...and we know that's not true

 

[dpic73]

this married argument is just dumb. Women have been getting married and voting for decades. Based on the married women argument none of them would ever be able to vote because they took their husband's names...and we know that's not true

Thats correct Ned, before the SAVE Act, it wasn't an issue. Please tell me youve seen the concerns being floated about women voting. This is not something I made up and they havent fully addressed it.

New SAVE Act Bills Would Still Block Millions of Americans From Voting

The “show your papers” requirement is an attack on the freedom to vote.

www.brennancenter.org

Note Karoline Leavitt's doublespeak on the issue.

Leavitt went on to say that any married women who have recently changed their last names won't have any issues if they are already registered to vote.

"They are entirely unaffected," she said. "And for the small fraction who have changed their name or their address, they can still register to vote, of course. They just have to go through their state processes to update that document.

'Zero validity' to claim SAVE America Act blocks married women's votes, Leavitt says

Leavitt said "there is zero validity" to claims that the SAVE America Act would hinder married women from voting in elections.

abc3340.com

 

[baltimorened]

Thats correct Ned, before the SAVE Act, it wasn't an issue. Please tell me youve seen the concerns being floated about women voting. This is not something I made up and they havent fully addressed it.

New SAVE Act Bills Would Still Block Millions of Americans From Voting

The “show your papers” requirement is an attack on the freedom to vote.

www.brennancenter.org

Note Karoline Leavitt's doublespeak on the issue.

Leavitt went on to say that any married women who have recently changed their last names won't have any issues if they are already registered to vote.

"They are entirely unaffected," she said. "And for the small fraction who have changed their name or their address, they can still register to vote, of course. They just have to go through their state processes to update that document.

'Zero validity' to claim SAVE America Act blocks married women's votes, Leavitt says

Leavitt said "there is zero validity" to claims that the SAVE America Act would hinder married women from voting in elections.

abc3340.com

here's my opinion.....the first question we have to answer is how secure do we want our elections. While 100% is a worth goal, it's not realistic IMO...there will always be someone who is not a citizen who leaks into the system,.

Next for me is how do we make the system more secure..assuming we care about that....and that means voters proving they are who they are registered to be...which brings us to registration. How do you make sure that ayotolla Khomani is not registering? Well, you have to have some form of verification. Now what get's thrown out is that millions don't have birth certificates. I googled "how do I get a birth certificate" and a website pops up. Now I haven't used it because I went through this years ago to get mine out of Baltimore MD, but the process didn't look all the ominous. All of the other arguments - have to have photo ID, have to register in person, women with husband's names, to me are just noise. People solve more difficult problems than these every day of life (or almost every day)I don't like mail in voting or either early voting so, I'm biased there.

So, does registering under the SAVE act require effort sure it does. But, heck, people go through more to get a driver's license, or to sign up for Medicare/social security, or whatever.

So to me it all boils down to my first question....how secure do you want the system?

Now, just so I'm honest, it's easy for me to say how easy it is to register because I have a driver's license and when I got it I also registered to vote. But In Pa when I got a license I had to show a passport or birth certificate, go figure

But I'm not discounting your perspective. We just disagree on how difficult it is to get the documents for registration

 

[dpic73]

here's my opinion.....the first question we have to answer is how secure do we want our elections. While 100% is a worth goal, it's not realistic IMO...there will always be someone who is not a citizen who leaks into the system,.

Next for me is how do we make the system more secure..assuming we care about that....and that means voters proving they are who they are registered to be...which brings us to registration. How do you make sure that ayotolla Khomani is not registering? Well, you have to have some form of verification. Now what get's thrown out is that millions don't have birth certificates. I googled "how do I get a birth certificate" and a website pops up. Now I haven't used it because I went through this years ago to get mine out of Baltimore MD, but the process didn't look all the ominous. All of the other arguments - have to have photo ID, have to register in person, women with husband's names, to me are just noise. People solve more difficult problems than these every day of life (or almost every day)I don't like mail in voting or either early voting so, I'm biased there.

So, does registering under the SAVE act require effort sure it does. But, heck, people go through more to get a driver's license, or to sign up for Medicare/social security, or whatever.

So to me it all boils down to my first question....how secure do you want the system?

Now, just so I'm honest, it's easy for me to say how easy it is to register because I have a driver's license and when I got it I also registered to vote. But In Pa when I got a license I had to show a passport or birth certificate, go figure

But I'm not discounting your perspective. We just disagree on how difficult it is to get the documents for registration

First let's admit that we never had this huge concern about voter fraud until Trump came along. For 250 years we've trusted our election officials and the voters on the results of our elections. But in 2016, even though he won the election, he bitched and moaned that he would have won the popular vote too if millions of illegals hadn't voted and to prove it, he apponted Kris Kobach to form a panel to investigate voter fraud which he later quietly dismantled when he came up with nothing.

Then in 2020, he tried every trick in the book to overturn the will of the people (including violence) even though he didn't have a shred of evidence to prove it and even after he was repeatedly told by those whose job it is to know that there was an insignificant amount of fraud that wouldn't have changed the outcome in any state, yet he didn't care or believe it.

He even fired his lifelong Republican CISA Director for stating it was the most secure election in history.


David Becker at the Center for Election Innovation and Research : "We know our elections are more secure than ever. We know we have more protections and checks and balances against fraud than ever. And we also know that this administration has gone out hunting for fraud with all of the tools of the federal government over the last year, and they have found virtually none."

We also had the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation's research show that from 2000 - 2025, they could only find 77 instances of non-citizens voting and that's what we're restructuring our entire voter registration system around? Exactly what are we securing it against and at what cost to legitimate voters?

On the married women issue not being "noise": Roughly 84% of women who marry change their surname, meaning as many as 69 million American women have a birth certificate that doesn't match their legal name — and the SAVE Act makes no mention of being able to show a marriage certificate or name-change documentation to bridge that gap.https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-save-act-overview-and-facts/

On "just get a birth certificate": You Googled it and it didn't look too hard. That's a reasonable point, but consider: getting a birth certificate typically costs money, requires knowing which county or state office to contact, may require a prior ID to obtain (a catch-22 for people without ID), and takes time. Research shows that more than 21 million Americans lack ready access to citizenship documents, and roughly half of Americans don't even have a passport. Imagine someone working two jobs with no flexibility or someone with a job that requires full-time travel, that makes it more prohibitive than convenient. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-w...s-would-still-block-millions-americans-voting

On the "just go in person" piece: In the 2022 cycle, of the 80+ million Americans who registered or updated their registration, only about 5.9% did so in person at an election office. The SAVE Act would require everyone to do it that way — every time they move, change their name, or update any registration detail. That's a massive shift in how American civic participation actually works, not a minor tweak.

The deeper issue: You're right that people solve hard problems, but we don't generally require them to solve hard problems specifically to exercise a constitutional right, especially when the problem being solved (noncitizen voting) is demonstrably rare. The burden falls hardest on people who are already citizens — just lower-income, rural, recently married, or recently moved among others.

The question isn't just "how secure do we want elections?" It's "are we willing to disenfranchise millions of verified citizens to prevent a handful of fraudulent votes?"

That's the trade-off we have to address

 

[baltimorened]

First let's admit that we never had this huge concern about voter fraud until Trump came along. For 250 years we've trusted our election officials and the voters on the results of our elections. But in 2016, even though he won the election, he bitched and moaned that he would have won the popular vote too if millions of illegals hadn't voted and to prove it, he apponted Kris Kobach to form a panel to investigate voter fraud which he later quietly dismantled when he came up with nothing.

Then in 2020, he tried every trick in the book to overturn the will of the people (including violence) even though he didn't have a shred of evidence to prove it and even after he was repeatedly told by those whose job it is to know that there was an insignificant amount of fraud that wouldn't have changed the outcome in any state, yet he didn't care or believe it.

He even fired his lifelong Republican CISA Director for stating it was the most secure election in history.


David Becker at the Center for Election Innovation and Research : "We know our elections are more secure than ever. We know we have more protections and checks and balances against fraud than ever. And we also know that this administration has gone out hunting for fraud with all of the tools of the federal government over the last year, and they have found virtually none."

We also had the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation's research show that from 2000 - 2025, they could only find 77 instances of non-citizens voting and that's what we're restructuring our entire voter registration system around? Exactly what are we securing it against and at what cost to legitimate voters?

On the married women issue not being "noise": Roughly 84% of women who marry change their surname, meaning as many as 69 million American women have a birth certificate that doesn't match their legal name — and the SAVE Act makes no mention of being able to show a marriage certificate or name-change documentation to bridge that gap.https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-save-act-overview-and-facts/

On "just get a birth certificate": You Googled it and it didn't look too hard. That's a reasonable point, but consider: getting a birth certificate typically costs money, requires knowing which county or state office to contact, may require a prior ID to obtain (a catch-22 for people without ID), and takes time. Research shows that more than 21 million Americans lack ready access to citizenship documents, and roughly half of Americans don't even have a passport. Imagine someone working two jobs with no flexibility or someone with a job that requires full-time travel, that makes it more prohibitive than convenient. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-w...s-would-still-block-millions-americans-voting

On the "just go in person" piece: In the 2022 cycle, of the 80+ million Americans who registered or updated their registration, only about 5.9% did so in person at an election office. The SAVE Act would require everyone to do it that way — every time they move, change their name, or update any registration detail. That's a massive shift in how American civic participation actually works, not a minor tweak.

The deeper issue: You're right that people solve hard problems, but we don't generally require them to solve hard problems specifically to exercise a constitutional right, especially when the problem being solved (noncitizen voting) is demonstrably rare. The burden falls hardest on people who are already citizens — just lower-income, rural, recently married, or recently moved among others.

The question isn't just "how secure do we want elections?" It's "are we willing to disenfranchise millions of verified citizens to prevent a handful of fraudulent votes?"

That's the trade-off we have to address

Your points are valid...I just have a different viewpoint.

On your "trump issues"...I don't disagree there either. We likely have had voter fraud for years if not decades - just found a non citizen who had voted in every election since 2000 (I believe). And, no one before trump in 2016 complained. (But wasn't it Hillary who said the election was stolen and democrats who wouldn't accept trump? not trying to be partisan). Likely not one of the non citizen votes overturned/influenced an election. And, we might very well be solving a problem that doesn't exist. I accept all of that. I simply feel that the arguments against being able to register are bogus.

I could be just as satisfied if we kept things the way they are, but a mandatory 5 year sentence and $250,000 fine for a non citizen voting in an election

 

[LafayetteBear]

Why would that be a problem?
I had to produce a valid drivers license to obtain my(gifted to me) costco membership. I also had to do that in person.
Should voting be less vetted than joining costco?

1. Do you have a constitutional right to membership at Costco?

2. Why are Trump Cultists so intent on trying to find a solution to a problem (voting fraud) that does not exist? Rhetorical question, Farley. The obvious answer, but one Cultists will never admit or even discuss, is that imposing an ID requirement will result in FAR more qualified U.S. citizens being effectively disenfranchised than will result in cases of potential voting fraud being prevented. And it's not close. I've seen literally hundreds of posts from Trump Cultists like yourself expressing their amazement (and outrage) that voter ID is not required everywhere. ("I need to show ID to obtain a Costco card/get a fishing license/get a hunting license/yada, yada, yada, but I don't need to do so in order to vote? It's a conspiracy, I tells 'ya!") Never a mention of the fact that numerous U.S. citizens would be denied their right to vote. The fact that they skew Democratic is just a coincidence, right?

3. It's not just ID that Trump Cultists want. They want proof of citizenship, too. Lots of people don't have a passport or a copy (certified or otherwise) of their birth certificate. If they have a passport or birth certificate, they may forget to bring it to the polling place. Do they get to cast a provisional ballot under the Save Act, and have some reasonable period of time to produce one and have their vote counted? I would wager that they don't.

4. Finally, it's not just ID and proof of citizenship that Trump Cultists want. They want to prohibit mail in voting entirely. Again, because mail in voting makes it easier to vote and, with the Voting Rights Act having been effectively gutted by the U.S. Supreme Court, many states have limited poll hours, closed polling places, changed polling locations, and otherwise made it more difficult and time consuming to vote in person. We see televised shots of blocks long lines to vote in every election cycle. Funny how they almost always seem to be in urban portions of red states. But mail in voting would be preserved for the military. Wonder why THAT is? Could it perhaps be that the military tends to skew Republican? I think it is.

I'm not picking on you, CT-1. Your post makes an assertion that has been made repeatedly on this Board and elsewhere. It just happens to be a very superficial and uncompelling assertion.

 

[LafayetteBear]

View attachment 1215478

Libs of Tik Tok strikes again. As P.T. Barnum said, "There's a sucker born every minute." That described Republicans to a tee.