 |
| Christian Ursilva/Wikimedia Commons/CC by-SA 4.0 |
Until conservatives root out the rot within their own party, the D.C. status quo will continue to remain the same.
Another week in American politics wouldn’t be complete without an elected Republican betraying constituents.That’s what happened on Tuesday when Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, announced her opposition to the latest iteration of the SAVE Act. The bill (now the “SAVE America Act”) seeks to mandate widely supported photo ID and proof-of-citizenship requirements in federal elections.
In her “principled stand” against what she called efforts to “have federalized elections,” Murkowski referenced previous attempts by Democrats “to advance sweeping election reform legislation in 2021” — which she claimed “Republicans were unanimous” in opposing. She then tried to justify her cowardice by falling back on the Constitution, writing, “Not only does the U.S. Constitution clearly provide states the authority to regulate the ‘times, places, and manner’ of holding federal elections, but one-size-fits-all mandates from Washington, D.C., seldom work in places like Alaska.”
When Democrats attempted to advance sweeping election reform legislation in 2021, Republicans were unanimous in opposition because it would have federalized elections, something we have long opposed. Now, I’m seeing proposals such as the SAVE Act and MEGA that would effectively…
— Sen. Lisa Murkowski (@lisamurkowski) February 10, 2026“Election Day is fast approaching. Imposing new federal requirements now, when states are deep into their preparations, would negatively impact election integrity by forcing election officials to scramble to adhere to new policies likely without the necessary resources. Ensuring public trust in our elections is at the core of our democracy, but federal overreach is not how we achieve this,” the liberal Republican wrote.
As one of the few GOP senators choosing not to sponsor the SAVE Act or its successor, Murkowski’s (unsurprising) excuse is pathetic and laughable on multiple fronts.
For starters, the very next part of the constitutional provision Murkowski cited explicitly states that, when it comes to the administration of elections, “the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.” Surely it was just a coincidence that Alaska’s senior senator left that pertinent piece of information out of her tweet, right?
But let’s take Murkowski at her word for a moment and assume that she is genuinely opposed to having “federalized elections” in the United States. Does that mean she believes Congress should repeal the National Voter Registration Act, the Voting Rights Act, the Help America Vote Act, and other election-related laws passed by federal lawmakers in recent decades?
Of course, nowhere in her tweet does Murkowski bother addressing those points. And neither should GOP voters expect her to do so anytime soon --->READ MORE HERE
 |
| EWTN/YOUTUBE |
Sources say some Senate Republicans don’t want to see the popular election-integrity measure come up for a vote.
The House this week is set to take up the SAVE America Act (the SAVE Act 2.0), an election-integrity measure that some Senate Republicans can’t seem to get behind even though the vast majority of Americans already have.House Majority Leader Steve Scalise’s office confirms the SAVE America Act, which would require proof of U.S. citizenship to register and photo identification to vote in federal elections, will hit the floor on Tuesday. While Democrats will spend hours making a mockery of truth and reality in opposing it, the legislation is expected to pass mostly along party lines — as the original SAVE Act did in the House some 300 days ago.
But as the House prepares to send another bill aimed at protecting federal elections from fraud, the GOP-led Senate can’t seem to get its act together. Why? Because the sad state of affairs is that some Republican senators need to be talked into moving on the SAVE Act or its successor.
“We have to convince our colleagues that this is a popular enough piece of legislation, one we have to pass,” Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., told The Federalist Monday afternoon before heading into a meeting with a parliamentary expert to discuss the path and pitfalls of the so-called “talking filibuster.”
‘Something That’s Worthy of Passing’
As The Federalist reported last week, Republicans could take the “silent filibuster” off the table. Democrats would certainly use the passive-aggressive form of bill-killing. Republicans — with a 53-47 majority — definitely don’t have the 60 votes necessary to invoke cloture and move the election-reform bill to the floor for a majority vote; sources say the majority might not have enough votes to meet a simple majority threshold.
Existing Senate rules, however, open the door for the “talking filibuster,” meaning Senate Democrats would be forced to keep debating/talking to stall a vote. Eventually, liberals who hate the idea of voter ID would run out of things to say or talk as long as the rules allow. Each Democrat would have two opportunities to speechify, old-school filibuster style. Once they’re done, they’re done. No timeouts. No dinner breaks. No pee breaks. Straight debate to explain to the 80 percent of Americans (including a significant number of Democrats) who support citizenship and ID requirements, why they so vehemently oppose basic election integrity. Spoiler alert: Democrats won’t say that they want noncitizens and other ineligible voters to cast ballots in U.S. elections, but they do.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., earlier this month said “the SAVE act is dead on arrival in the Senate and every single Senate Democrat will vote against any bill that contains it.” Schumer spoke too soon. Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman, proving to be a routine thorn in the side of the far-left Democrat Party, signaled his support for the SAVE America Act, arguing that voter ID is “not a radical idea.”
The problem, according to congressional sources, is that some Senate Republicans don’t want to put themselves and their colleagues on the other side of the aisle through the Democrats’ expected extended temper tantrum. Johnson said some in his party believe the potential hundreds of hours of Senate debate would squander precious time for other pressing business, a point the Democrat Party’s marketing team in corporate media will dutifully hammer every day of said “debate.”
“They think how difficult it is going to be, and how much can we be assured of success?” the Wisconsin Republican said. “They think, ‘If we take floor time for this, we won’t be able to pass x, y, and z,’ but we’re not going to pass x, y, and z, anyway. So let’s focus on something we can pass, something that’s worthy of passing.”
Senate Democrats have grown quite fond of the filibuster. In the first three-plus months of President Trump’s second term, Democrats employed the silent killer several times, including filibusters to strangle a bill barring men pretending to be women from competing in women’s sports and the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which would have required medical care for babies born after botched abortions.
In the current session of Congress, 225 cloture motions have been filed as of Feb. 6, according to U.S. Senate records. The Dems’ many filibusters have been the silent type.
Last week, Majority Leader John Thune reportedly said there was “nothing decided” on changing the rules to require a talking filibuster, a proposal the South Dakota Republican said “some” of his Senate colleagues are interested in. --->READ MORE HERE
No comments:
Post a Comment