Why I'm Voting Against the SAVE America Act - Lisa Murkowski oped WSJ

[question everything]

(snip)

As written, the SAVE America Act isn’t a simple fix to safeguard elections, as proponents claim. It would impose costly new barriers and prevent some, perhaps many, from voting, while also creating chaos before the November elections.

Part of the problem lies in the bill’s mechanics. Right now, Alaskans can register to vote online. There is no evidence of significant fraud anywhere in that system. Yet the bill would effectively end online voter registration by requiring voters to present documentary proof of U.S. citizenship in person to an election official.

That wouldn’t be a major obstacle in most places in the Lower 48, but Alaska has only six election offices where that requirement could clearly be met. Six places in a state more than twice the size of Texas, where roughly 80% of our communities, and about 20% of our population, aren’t connected by road.

(snip)

You are an 85-year-old Native elder born in your parents’ house, 18 years before statehood. Getting a certified copy of your birth certificate, especially if you have never had one before, would be incredibly difficult. Many Native people rely on tribal identification to register to vote, but the SAVE America Act would require the card to show that the applicant’s place of birth was in the U.S., along with a photo and expiration date. While many tribes’ identification cards have a photo, not all have expiration dates and few include a place of birth.

(snip)

I’ve also asked for the effective date of the legislation to be pushed back to give all states enough time for implementation. As written, the bill would take effect immediately—but it is unreasonable to expect immediate compliance. This bill would force many states to modify their election laws. Some legislatures might need special sessions to do that. Thousands of local jurisdictions would have to implement new processes and find workers willing to risk being personally sued. Under the bill’s private right of action, individuals or groups could sue election officials if they believe verification requirements aren’t being strictly enforced.

More..

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/why-im-voting-against-the-save-america-act-139faa0b?st=ErUgVi&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

free

[LuvLoogie]

1. Now I think Thune is going to blow up the filibuster to pass it

They let Murkowski protect her left flank.

That means Collins will vote for it.

So will Fetterman.

He might even be the tie breaker.

[Fiendish Thingy]

4. Thune has already said he won't kill the filibuster.

They know it will disenfranchise as many republicans as Democrats, if not more.

(More Democrats have passports than republicans for starters).

[Janbdwl72]

5. On Fetterman: We shall see

One report said the Pennsylvania Democrat (as of now) supports most Democratic basic policies, which should include this.
He has however, voted, to confirm several of the Felon's most despicable appointments.

As I posted earlier this week, if Fetterman runs again in 2028, expect him to be primaried, regardless of what his party affiliation is at that time.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

2. The reason they're pushing this bill is pretty simple.

They want to decrease the number of voters, especially Democrats. That’s what it really comes down to.

[Skittles]

6. yup

they cannot run on their shitty policies so voter suppression is their game

[Figarosmom]

7. It's because they only want the rich and well to do voting

They know many people in the lower middle and lower don't have passports. They also know many old and poor were born at home and may not have a certified birth certificate. That would seem to be a lot of their voters that live in Appalachian areas and many down south. So I guess if they are poor they don't count. I think they think that all the rich people vote repub.

[usonian]

3. SAVE: Suppression and Voter Exclusion, otherwise known as JIM CROW

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1016&pid=432797

JIM CROW MUST GO.