Nearly All Dems Oppose SAVE Act Despite Broad Public Support for Voter ID
The SAVE America Act (H.R. 22) would require documentary proof of U.S. citizenship — such as a passport or birth certificate — when registering to vote in federal elections. It would also require government-issued photo identification for in-person voting and direct states to verify voter rolls against federal databases to ensure only citizens are registered.
President Donald Trump has made the bill a top legislative priority, arguing that election integrity is foundational to public trust.
“All voters must show proof of citizenship in order to vote,” Trump said at a recent Republican event in Miami. He later posted on Truth Social that the bill “must be done immediately” and warned he may refuse to sign other legislation until Congress sends it to his desk. “MUST GO TO THE FRONT OF THE LINE… GO FOR THE GOLD,” he wrote.
Polling data consistently shows broad support for voter ID requirements across party and demographic lines. According to Pew Research Center, 83% of Americans favor requiring government-issued photo ID to vote, including 95% of Republicans and 71% of Democrats. Gallup polling has found 84% overall support for photo ID requirements and 83% support for requiring proof of citizenship when registering to vote for the first time.
The U.S. House passed the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) America Act in February by a narrow 218–213 vote, with support coming almost entirely from Republicans. Only a single House Democrat voted in favor of the bill, meaning roughly 99.5% of Democrats opposed legislation that polling shows is supported by a large majority of Americans.
CNN data analyst Harry Enten has said voter ID “is NOT controversial in this country,” noting that strong majorities across racial and partisan groups support the requirement. NBC News anchor Tom Llamas similarly observed that while voter ID enjoys wide public support, most Democrats in Congress oppose it.
Despite that polling, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has sharply criticized the legislation as it moves to the Senate.
“It’s about voter registration,” Schumer said in remarks opposing the bill. “It allows ICE to kick tens of millions of people off the rolls… And they don’t tell them until Election Day.”
“This is a bill that destroys the country,” he added. “It is not about showing ID when you show up to vote. It’s about the voter registration rolls, destroying them, purging them.”
Republicans dispute that characterization, arguing the bill enforces existing federal law that limits voting in federal elections to U.S. citizens. The legislation would require proof of citizenship at registration and strengthen roll maintenance procedures, but it does not eliminate voting rights for eligible citizens.
Supporters say the measure is a “commonsense” safeguard designed to prevent non-citizens from being registered or casting ballots in federal contests. They also argue that photo ID requirements are already common in daily life, from boarding flights to purchasing certain goods.
The bill now faces a steep path in the Senate, where 60 votes would likely be required to overcome a filibuster. With Democrats holding enough seats to block the measure, its future remains uncertain absent bipartisan agreement.
Trump has framed the issue in political as well as policy terms, arguing that stricter voter verification would reshape the electoral landscape. He has claimed that if proof-of-citizenship requirements were fully enforced, Democrats “probably won’t win an election for 50 years.”
With midterm elections approaching, the SAVE America Act has become one of the most contentious legislative battles in Washington. The divide between overwhelming public support in polling and near-unanimous Democratic opposition in Congress is likely to remain a central talking point as debate intensifies in the Senate.
Donald Trump branded “classless” over behavior towards Queen Camilla…
Donald Trump faced criticism after appearing to position himself in front of Queen Camilla during a formal greeting ceremony at King Charles III’s state visit to the United States.
The four-day diplomatic tour was designed to strengthen ties between the two nations. The visit featured a military review on the South Lawn and an address to Congress by King Charles emphasizing the trans-Atlantic relationship.
What Happened
During the formal greeting ceremony, Trump appeared to step in front of Queen Camilla as she moved to shake hands with invited guests. The interaction, captured on camera and widely shared on social media, disrupted the established sequence of royal protocol where visiting monarchs typically take precedence in formal exchanges.
Critics characterized the action as a breach of diplomatic protocol and discourtesy toward traditional customs governing state ceremonies. The moment reignited discussions about Trump’s past interactions with the Royal Family, which have previously drawn scrutiny for deviations from monarchical protocol.
The Response
Some observers offered a more measured perspective, suggesting that the logistical complexities of high-profile diplomatic events frequently result in minor overlaps in movement during crowded ceremonies. Others viewed the moment as a notable lapse in diplomatic awareness regarding established customs.
The broader state visit maintained its focus on historical unity and shared policy objectives despite the controversy surrounding the brief exchange. Digital media shaped public perception of the diplomatic event, with the visual moment carrying significant weight alongside substantive policy discussions.
Photo Of Trump Family On Election Night Turns Heads After People Spot Small Detail!
Melania Trump was noticeably absent from a widely shared family photo taken at Mar-a-Lago on election night, prompting questions about her role in Donald Trump’s political future.
The photograph showed members of the Trump family gathered to mark the results of the presidential election. The missing figure of Melania Trump from the image quickly drew attention on social media and among political observers.
The Photo and Its Significance
The image captured the Trump family at their Florida residence as election results came in. Her absence from the frame raised questions among observers about her level of involvement in the campaign and her future responsibilities.
Melania Trump has maintained a notably low public profile throughout much of the 2024 election cycle. She made limited campaign appearances compared to spouses of other presidential candidates.
Questions About Her Role
The missing presence sparked broader discussions about the expectations placed on presidential spouses. Historically, First Ladies have been expected to maintain a visible public presence and active schedule.
Her approach differs markedly from traditional models of the role. Some observers have noted her apparent preference for privacy and limited public engagement in recent years.
What Comes Next
As Donald Trump prepares for his second term, questions remain about what capacity Melania Trump will assume in Washington. Her future involvement in official duties remains unclear.
Her choices regarding public life and the First Lady role will likely influence broader conversations about presidential spouses and their autonomy in defining their positions. The coming months will provide clarity on her intentions.
California Dems Pass ‘Stop Nick Shirley’ Bill After He Exposed Massive Fraud…
California’s state Assembly passed legislation Tuesday that would enhance privacy protections for service providers, weeks after an independent journalist’s investigation into alleged welfare and hospice fraud drew scrutiny from state Democrats.
The Assembly voted 57-19 to advance AB2624, sending the measure to the state Senate. Assembly member Mia Bonta, wife of California’s attorney general, sponsored the bill, which expands the state’s Safe At Home program to include workers at immigrant service providers.
What the Bill Does
The legislation allows participants to use substitute addresses designated by the secretary of state, keeping home, work and school addresses out of public records while enabling them to receive mail and legal documents, Bonta said. The bill targets what sponsors describe as online harassment and doxing of immigrant service workers.
“It allows participants to use a substitute address designated by the secretary of state, keeping their home, work and school addresses out of public records, while still allowing them to safely receive mail and legal documents through the state,” Bonta said.
The Timing and Controversy
The bill arrived less than two months after independent journalist Nick Shirley released an investigation into alleged fraud within Minnesota welfare programs, and weeks after he traveled to California to examine claims of fraudulent activity in taxpayer-funded hospice operations. Critics say the legislation targets the messenger rather than addressing the underlying fraud allegations.
Assembly member Carl DeMaio, a Republican, urged colleagues to reject the measure. “Nick Shirley shows up with his camera crew to the Somali Learning Center – or maybe one of the 90 fake hospices operating in a building in Los Angeles that was highlighted by CBS News,” DeMaio said.
“People have a right to go out there and kick the tires and find out what these organizations are doing with our taxpayer funds,” DeMaio added.
Supporters’ Position
Co-sponsor Christopher M. Ward, a Democrat from San Diego, said the state has a responsibility to protect people who face targeting because of their work. Bonta stated that employees at immigrant service providers have been targeted and doxed online.
Reagan-Appointed Judge Resigns So He Can Attack Trump
Senior U.S. District Judge Mark L. Wolf, appointed by President Ronald Reagan four decades ago, has resigned from the federal bench to speak publicly against what he says are threats to judicial independence under the current administration.
Wolf, who took senior status in 2013 after serving on the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, published an essay in The Atlantic on November 9 stating he could no longer remain constrained by judicial ethics rules limiting political commentary. The judge cited the administration’s actions as an “assault on the rule of law,” accusing it of weaponizing the legal system against political opponents.
Why He Resigned
Wolf began his career at the Department of Justice in 1974 following the Watergate scandal, where he was shaped by former Attorney General Edward Levi’s commitment to impartial justice. “Silence, for me, is now intolerable,” Wolf wrote in his departure statement, framing his resignation as a matter of conscience after more than four decades serving the judiciary.
The judge’s seat will not create a new vacancy available for presidential appointment, as it was already filled when he transitioned to senior status.
The White House Response
Deputy Press Secretary Abigail Jackson quickly attacked Wolf’s decision, calling him and similarly minded judges “radical judges” prioritizing personal agendas over neutral legal interpretation. “Judges that want to inject their own personal agenda into the law have no place on the bench,” Jackson said, noting that Wolf’s resignation aligned with her statement that those wanting to engage in politics should first leave the bench.
Jackson pointed to the administration’s more than 20 Supreme Court victories as evidence that its policies withstand legal scrutiny.
The Broader Context
Wolf’s resignation reflects escalating tensions between sections of the judiciary and the executive branch during a politically divided era. The move has drawn contrasting interpretations, with supporters viewing it as principled defense of institutional integrity while critics frame it as judicial activism.
The episode underscores intensifying debate over judicial conduct boundaries and rule of law protections as the nation approaches the 2026 midterm elections.
Categories: News
