Let's talk about the SAVE Act, the Constitution, the filibuster, and the Senate.... - Belle of the Ranch

[TexasTowelie]

Well, howdy there Internet people. It's Belle again. So, today we're going to talk about the SAVE Act.

Republicans passed the SAVE Act in the House as they have in the past. It has a bunch of restrictions on voting. There's a lot of anxiety about it because some of what's in it would impact the roughly 9% of American voting age citizens who do not even have a driver's license. That's about 21 million people. It causes all sorts of other problems with name changes and so on.

I've gotten a few questions about why this isn't high in our coverage priorities. “Belle, why aren't you covering the SAVE Act? I've seen you mention it, but other channels are covering it constantly and you've only given it passing mention. I can't tell if you're not covering it because it's already being covered constantly or because you know something others might not and you aren't worried. I know both of those things can lead to something getting less coverage here. Which is it?”

A little of column A and a little of column B. It is being covered extensively, but I think there's also a little bit of misunderstanding about the hurdles here. Not the least of which is that some components fly in the face of the Constitution. And while that doesn't come into play until after it would get passed, it figures into the political math in the Senate.

So let's go through the steps. It has passed the House. Cool. It's passed the House repeatedly in the past. Now it goes to the Senate. They don't have the votes to get through the filibuster, but they could nuke the filibuster. Thune said he doesn't support that, but they could. Currently, they still don't have the votes, and if they get it, it would be razor thin. Getting rid of the filibuster when there's a possibility of handing the gavel back over in a few months is a huge risk, especially when the constitutional aspects come into play. Or what if they nuke the filibuster and then lose the vote?

Okay, let's say they roll the dice, take the risk, and get it passed. Trump signs it. Now what? Now it goes to court and gets shredded because there's a lot of things people believe are in the Constitution that well aren't. There is no citizenship voting requirement. Not a thing. While federal and state law often insert that it's not a constitutional requirement. Historically, non-citizens were allowed to vote in a lot of states. Constitutionally, the states decide voter eligibility under the 10th amendment and the 17th amendment says that if someone can vote in the state's legislative election, well, they get to vote in congressional ones.

The Supreme Court hit at this in 2013 with Arizona v. Intertribal Council. “One cannot read the elections clause as treating implicitly what these other constitutional provisions regulate explicitly. It is difficult to see how words could be clearer in stating what Congress can control and what it cannot control. Surely nothing in these provisions lends itself to the view that voting qualifications in federal elections are to be set by Congress.” And part of that is actually a quote back to Oregon v. Miller 1970.

There's actually a giant list of stuff that says the SAVE Act won't survive the court challenges. Those court challenges would likely push its implementation to after the midterms. So, the Senate is supposed to nuke the filibuster to maybe pass it to only see it lose in court. And even if they were to somehow win in court, it doesn't help them in the current election. And in fact, hands opponents a get out the vote tool. All so they can lose control of a Senate with no filibuster.

I don't see it. This is probably going to be a lot like the Epstein files or the economy. Republicans are telling their base something and are laughing at them for believing it.

Anyway, it's just a thought. Y'all have a good day.