Devil in the Details
The “SAVE America Act” is mired in the U.S. Senate and its passage is far from certain. Both sides have engaged in partisan spin and spouted talking points, taking us far from the actual issue—more and more common these days.
At its core, it would mandate certain provisions for voting in federal elections—more accurately stated, in elections run by states in which federal offices like Congress and the President are voted on.
From the start, there are Constitutional issues to overcome. This is a republic, and states have the right to control their own voting procedures; that’s why we have avoided standardized national voting times and the like. So the whole thing may not survive Constitutional scrutiny—although the “elections for federal office” part helps.
Polls show that a whopping number of Americans of all political stripes—80 percent in one poll this week—are in favor of limiting voting to those with U.S. citizenship, and requiring a photo ID at the polling place. And if the bill simply had those two provisions, it might have a better chance of passing.
But I heard someone on the right last night say, “it required photo ID, period”…well, that’s not entirely true, given the other provisions of the bill, including limitations on mail ballots. And now in the Senate, with the number of amendments being tacked on to it, it’s looking like a Christmas tree with too many ornaments.
But those on the left are demonizing it falsely, claiming that women who get married will be disenfranchised. I guess the logic is that if your name is different now than was on your birth certificate, you won’t be able to vote. That’s silly; there are a variety of ways to show who you are—Iowa’s law does that nicely—and a valid photo ID like a drivers license is enough…and plenty of married women have those.
The old saying goes, “the first casualty of war is the truth”—sadly, that’s been extended to even the most basic congressional proposal these days.
