I’m really enjoying these listener questions! Thanks for sharing and clarifying. Personally I was confused by this being the second time it’s gone through the House. I thought it was done after it failed the Senate the first time but I’m not that familiar with the process for passing bills anyways. Is there a way for the SAVE Act to be permanently off the table? Like a Democratic majority after midterms? I don’t want that to be our only hope.
There really isn't a "permanently off the table" for legislation. People reintroduce old bills all the time. The best way to defeat them is for them to be so resoundingly unpopular that legislators don't bother advancing them from committees.
I think this would vary by state. In Kentucky, there's a form to complete to report registration "anomalies and discrepancies." It's another reminder to check our voter registration status early and often.
Yes, I really appreciate the follow-up questions and responses on this topic, especially since the SAVE Act is such a convoluted piece of legislation and there's so much misinformation going around.
At the end of the day, the bill is just terribly written and poorly designed for realistic execution across the states - it lacks proper funding, infrastructure, and timing, which is why it does not feel like a legitimate means of securing "free and fair election" access.
I agree that the idea of "showing proof of citizenship" sounds perfectly reasonable on its face - but the logistics of what that tangibly looks like for everyday Americans to meet that requirement demands so much more scrutiny and intentionality than the SAVE Act (in its current form) could hope to address.
I note that in the discourse locally most people are not differentiating between showing ID and proof of citizenship. Given that only 50% of Americans have passports, I think a lot of people will end up shocked when they can't register to vote because their birth certificate is lost or at their parents' house. I am trying to figure out how to explain the difference in a way that makes sense and doesn't sound condescending.
I think the same thing. I don’t think it’s been thought through thoroughly even as to how much it will impact men; or ev. Republican voter demographics. This is what I just wrote a little bit ago.
I do keep reminding myself that the hurdle to actually pass is high but there have been other things in this administration that looked like they would never pass, and they did. So I thinking sounding all the alarm bells right now is vital.
When Alabama was wanting to pass a very strict photo ID law to vote a few years back, they were going to make it a specific type that you had to get from a specific center that was not near public transit and charge for it. There was so much outrage. They were not going to accept military ids, federally issued photo ids, or school ids. Due to so much coverage and outrage, they were able to block the passing and had to settle on a more broad photo id law. They estimated thousands of poor and elderly voters would not have been allowed to vote due to placing the photo centers in hard to get to places. It was covered on the news and talk radio daily though to get it to sink in how discriminatory and potentially illegal the law could have been. I know media has changed since then but finding the right outlets to keep this in the spot light will be so important.
I love this format of giving a follow up to responses after the episode! While I like the comments feature on Substack, it can be a lot, and I don't always have time to read through responses, etc. I love this round up of some of the big, standout ideas, and then your response to them that won't get lost in a long thread.
I’m really enjoying these listener questions! Thanks for sharing and clarifying. Personally I was confused by this being the second time it’s gone through the House. I thought it was done after it failed the Senate the first time but I’m not that familiar with the process for passing bills anyways. Is there a way for the SAVE Act to be permanently off the table? Like a Democratic majority after midterms? I don’t want that to be our only hope.
There really isn't a "permanently off the table" for legislation. People reintroduce old bills all the time. The best way to defeat them is for them to be so resoundingly unpopular that legislators don't bother advancing them from committees.
These requirements are burdensome for a lot of different people, but mostly for women.
Does anyone know if being wrongly removed from voter rolls would require re-registration?
I think this would vary by state. In Kentucky, there's a form to complete to report registration "anomalies and discrepancies." It's another reminder to check our voter registration status early and often.
Yes, I really appreciate the follow-up questions and responses on this topic, especially since the SAVE Act is such a convoluted piece of legislation and there's so much misinformation going around.
At the end of the day, the bill is just terribly written and poorly designed for realistic execution across the states - it lacks proper funding, infrastructure, and timing, which is why it does not feel like a legitimate means of securing "free and fair election" access.
I agree that the idea of "showing proof of citizenship" sounds perfectly reasonable on its face - but the logistics of what that tangibly looks like for everyday Americans to meet that requirement demands so much more scrutiny and intentionality than the SAVE Act (in its current form) could hope to address.
Really enjoyed this format! It’s a great way to have a dialogue!
I note that in the discourse locally most people are not differentiating between showing ID and proof of citizenship. Given that only 50% of Americans have passports, I think a lot of people will end up shocked when they can't register to vote because their birth certificate is lost or at their parents' house. I am trying to figure out how to explain the difference in a way that makes sense and doesn't sound condescending.
I wonder if it's as simple as saying "totally support having to show some kind of ID, but a passport or birth certificate is crazy"
I think the same thing. I don’t think it’s been thought through thoroughly even as to how much it will impact men; or ev. Republican voter demographics. This is what I just wrote a little bit ago.
https://substack.com/@sam1210723/note/c-217003341?r=tf2y3&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action
I do keep reminding myself that the hurdle to actually pass is high but there have been other things in this administration that looked like they would never pass, and they did. So I thinking sounding all the alarm bells right now is vital.
When Alabama was wanting to pass a very strict photo ID law to vote a few years back, they were going to make it a specific type that you had to get from a specific center that was not near public transit and charge for it. There was so much outrage. They were not going to accept military ids, federally issued photo ids, or school ids. Due to so much coverage and outrage, they were able to block the passing and had to settle on a more broad photo id law. They estimated thousands of poor and elderly voters would not have been allowed to vote due to placing the photo centers in hard to get to places. It was covered on the news and talk radio daily though to get it to sink in how discriminatory and potentially illegal the law could have been. I know media has changed since then but finding the right outlets to keep this in the spot light will be so important.
I love this format of giving a follow up to responses after the episode! While I like the comments feature on Substack, it can be a lot, and I don't always have time to read through responses, etc. I love this round up of some of the big, standout ideas, and then your response to them that won't get lost in a long thread.
Agree! Thank you!!
I agree with this! Super helpful to have you respond to the standout concerns from comments or emails.
I'm so glad to hear it's helpful for you!