Florida passes a state-level SAVE act

[Grinkle]

Lawsuit challenges new Florida version of SAVE America Act

A new lawsuit has been filed challenging a recently enacted Florida law that mirrors the language of the federal Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE America) Act — President Trump’s self-des…

thehill.com

I am supportive of the concept of voter ID in general, and I think its a mistake for the Democratic leadership to be opposed on principle to it.

Many voters have already been through a very similar hoop with needing to get a "RealID" . I just asked ChatGPT what differences in the requirements are, and I got a surprisingly not-sensible answer.

The summary was "The differences are stark" and then the documentation lists for both processes were essentially identical. I don't believe the differences are stark, myself. I think its a very similar process.

Many Americans have a very averse reaction to the idea of getting a passport - imo its just something one does. As I understand the SAVE act, a passport satisfies the requirement.

I don't believe non-citizen voting is a problem in the US.

Its an objective fact that faith in the integrity of elections is a huge problem in the US. If all voters, R and D and I and whoever, have to go through the process of proving citizenship in order to vote, and this helps increase voter faith in the integrity of our elections, then we just need to get it done.

Personally, I expect the Florida law, if it stands, to dis-enfranchise more R than D voters. Rural R voters are, imo, the most likely to have an aversion to passports and government ID in general. Urban D voters in Florida are, imo, much more likely to already have a passport not be burdened or concerned by this. Whether more R's or D's are impacted is not why I think we just need to bite the bullet and do it, though - for me its about putting in some work to restore faith - even if unfounded, the faith erosion is real and needs to be addressed.

 

[dlu]

“If this law goes into effect, the number of eligible Florida citizens who will be disenfranchised will be far, far greater than the number of ineligible voters who will be prevented from casting a ballot,” Khanna continued.

How does the guy, Khanna, know that? The argument makes little sense.

“Courts across the country have rejected these kinds of laws, and this one should meet the same fate.”
So?
Khanna seems to be a dingbat promoting a dingbat position.
Oppose, and throw s..t into a fan and see what sticks.

Why is the challenge in Federal court? and not a state court?
I thought each individual state set the rules for elections, and if Florida wants to follow Federal guidelines, it is still state law. Seems to me to be the wrong jurisdiction to file a challenge. Naively just wondering how a federal court has any jurisdiction here on anything state run.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I am supportive of the concept of voter ID in general, and I think its a mistake for the Democratic leadership to be opposed on principle to it.

I still don't understand this. I've always had to show my ID during elections. From what I've heard you'd need a passport for the new bill.

 

[Grinkle]

I've always had to show my ID during elections.

Same for me. That is currently decided state-by-state, and for me, its good enough but no big deal to make it a national requirement.

The SAVE act requires a one-time proof-of-citizenship in addition to an ongoing need to show ID for every election.

If the one-time citizenship check helps voter confidence, fine, lets just put it behind us and move on. I imagine its less expensive than lawsuits or challenges requiring an in-depth audit of who voted and doing retro-active citizenship checks that way, if its even possible to confirm someone's status without their co-operation. I have no doubt that such challenges will be many after the mid-terms, and claims of non-citizen voting being responsible for any R loss will also be many.

 

[Grinkle]

Naively just wondering how a federal court has any jurisdiction here on anything state run.

Totally speculating - perhaps the goal is to get a Federal judge to say that any state requirements for citizenship checks are out-of-bounds, so that there could never be another state-level SAVE law in any state.

 

[fresh_42]

We have a general register in Germany, 5283 to be exact. I automatically receive a letter that tells me where and when I can vote and includes an application form for postal voting instead. No double-counting possible, and no need to appear in person. Bureaucracy isn't always bad, and the which I think standard American response that this would limit personal freedom is ridiculous in a country that gave away all its social data to a private investor (Musk) for free.

 

[Grinkle]

I thought each individual state set the rules for elections

Below is the text from the US Constitution - you be the judge. ;-)

Certainly courts have favored state power over federal so far.

On a side note, we never should have decided to change the spelling of "choosing".

“The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.”

 

[Borg]

I think that one of the main issues is that it disenfranchises women because they change their name when they marry and are more likely to vote democratic.

 

[Grinkle]

I think that one of the main issues is that it disenfranchises women because they change their name when they marry and are more likely to vote democratic.

I agree it can be relatively harder for women who have changed their name to collect all of the paperwork. The Florida law requires them to have a marriage certificate and/or divorce decree, as applicable. This is very likely what a Federal law would also require, its what the current Federal SAVE act requires. In my still-matching-name opinion, such documents should be kept and declaring this to be too burdensome to allow is pretty weak sauce as the most concerning issue against the measure.

This is exactly the same process my wife had to go through to get her passport - we did it without a second thought. The marriage license was just one more piece of paper to pull out of the "important papers" drawer and send in with the application. If she hadn't already done this, she would have had to anyway to get her most recent drivers license since it came with the Real ID requirements this time around. Most voters just have to do this already if they need a state ID (which is now a Real ID) or a passport.

Some may wonder why Real ID isn't good enough - its because one only needs to show status to get a Real ID, the status needn't be "citizen". The Real ID doesn't say whether or not you are a US citizen, and possessing one only proves that you established your status with the issuing state, it doesn't say what your status is. That seems horribly wasteful to me - Real ID cost a ton of tax money and citizen's time to implement and having it not be able to show citizenship status seems just silly to me. The only reason I can find for this is the American aversion to any kind of Federal level ID. This aversion strikes me as absurd.

If there was ever a good time for Democrats to want this done, though, I argue its right now, before the mid-terms. Democrats will crawl over a field of broken glass to vote against MAGA in the mid-terms. The only potential voters who will actually end up being dis-enfranchised are those who genuinely have no recourse to establishing the proper paper trail - I don't know if that is even a possibility vs becoming very onerous requesting duplicates etc.

I am not sure that disadvantages D's more than R's at the end of the day - my bias is to believe that D's are more prone to starting this whole process already having a passport than R's and that might tend to balance things out; if one already has a passport, that is all that is required.

 

[Klystron]

I still don't understand this. I've always had to show my ID during elections. ...

I have voted in local and federal elections in California and then in Nevada. Voting was often a family outing with grandchildren learning to read and mark sample ballots. Voting in elections is a solemn duty often requiring hours of preparation and study to understand complex initiatives (CA) and choose competent judges (NV).

I am thrilled to to verify my identity and citizenship in order to participate. I recall a discussion with an astute election official who noticed changes in my signature. I explained that arthritic hands led to an abbreviated signature. She directed me to a disabled voting area.

 

[Borg]

I agree it can be relatively harder for women who have changed their name to collect all of the paperwork. The Florida law requires them to have a marriage certificate and/or divorce decree, as applicable. This is very likely what a Federal law would also require, its what the current Federal SAVE act requires. In my still-matching-name opinion, such documents should be kept and declaring this to be too burdensome to allow is pretty weak sauce as the most concerning issue against the measure.

I do get where you're coming from and have a similar gut feeling about providing ID to vote. However, I've also read that low-income blacks would also be impacted by this - another high democratic voting block. The laws are written to specifically target certain groups and make it more difficult for them to vote.

Regardless of anyone's belief in how much of a burden this might be for some groups, I guarantee that the Republicans wouldn't be pushing this if they didn't think that it would give them an advantage statistically. Their next step will be to show proof of fraud by showing how many fewer people vote in Florida after the November election. That proof won't be backed up by any statistics, comparisons, or anything remotely related to how anyone was denied their legal right to vote. They will simply count how many fewer votes there are and 'claim' that they removed that many fraudulent Democratic votes as 'proof' that they've eliminated fraud in Florida. Republicans will then use these falsehoods as proof that this should be implemented Nationwide.

 

[Grinkle]

The laws are written to specifically target certain groups and make it more difficult for them to vote.

Can you give an example of this? As I read the summary of the Florida law, it simply mirrors the passport application process.

Their next step will be to show proof of fraud by showing how many fewer people vote in Florida after the November election.

The Florida law does not go into effect until the 2028 election, assuming it survives court challenges. That aside, your hypothetical is plausible, if indeed voter participation were to noticeably drop, which result I am skeptical of. I think people will just rally up and get it done.

I guarantee that the Republicans wouldn't be pushing this if they didn't think that it would give them an advantage statistically.

IMO -

Its not important to my own assessment that Republican's support this. If that belief that Republicans hold is true, shame on Democrats. As I read the requirements, they are simply "get a passport". If its structurally more difficult for Democrats to get a passport than for Republicans, that's on the Democrats, but I can't imagine why that should be the case. I grew up around rural R's who I certainly wouldn't expect to be able to easily navigate the process without a whole lot of help.

Democrats lost the last election. Its not like there is a winning formula out there that shouldn't be messed up. Getting voters re-qualified as-needed is not a challenge we should be concerned about - we should just shrug our shoulders and do it. If the SAVE act or something similar does pass nationally, I'll certainly be out there volunteering to help people re-register and I won't mind that it needs doing because I expect that process to benefit all Americans with increased confidence in election results. I don't want the next Democrat to win the presidency to be thought by roughly half the country as having been illegitimately elected by non-citizens. If you can prove to me that means I'll have to wait beyond 2028 for the next D president, so be it. At the end of the day, America is better off with that nonsensical narrative de-fanged.

 

[Borg]

Can you give an example of this? As I read the summary of the Florida law, it simply mirrors the passport application process.

I based that on the last article that I read about the national one they wanted to pass. I expected they would be the same.

At the end of the day, America is better off with that nonsensical narrative de-fanged.

I agree but they will just move on to the next conspiracy. I don't have a good solution other than education - which the administration actively works to destroy.