 |
| 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.
Thune added in a gaggle that they would find out where "consensus" of the Senate GOP is
— Jordain Carney (@jordainc) February 3, 2026
Pretty sizable contingent has been opposed to weakening 60-vote hurdle
And Luna's comments last night were privately met with skepticism among some Senate Rs https://t.co/OPfjt4mwCcSome GOP senators like Johnson would like to see more bang for the buck out of an election-integrity bill. In essence, if you’re going to go through the trouble of having to listen to the likes of Sen. Cory “Spartacus” Booker drone on in adult diapers for hours at a time, you might as well put some more meat on the bone.
Johnson and Sens. Rick Scott, R-Fla., and Mike Lee, R-Utah, the co-author of the bill, met with Trump last week at the White House to discuss bill language. Trump wants to eliminate mail-in voting, while Republicans look to limit it.
“I think we need to tighten up the requirements for absentee voting,” Johnson told Wisconsin Public Radio last week. “I’m opposed to mail in register or mail in balloting.”
Popular Enough to Pass? --->READ MORE HERE
No comments:
Post a Comment