ICYMI: WSJ Editorial: “Why the SAVE America Act . . . Won’t”
Washington, D.C. – Today, the Editorial Board of the Wall Street Journal wrote an editorial making it clear that the SAVE Act isn’t about free and fair elections but federalizing elections in a way that makes it harder for eligible Americans to vote.
Line by line, the editorial board dismantles the Republican party’s hollow arguments that this bill will secure our elections and underscore why this is simply bad policy that undermines the Constitution and America’s greatest strenght–our freedom to push back against the government at the ballot box.
Read highlights below:
WSJ: Editorial: “Why the SAVE America Act . . . Won’t”
[...]
The House version of the SAVE America Act, which passed last month, has two main planks. First, people registering to vote would be asked to show proof of U.S. citizenship, such as a passport, birth certificate or naturalization document. Many driver’s licenses wouldn’t qualify. While the bill says it would accept a REAL ID “that indicates the applicant is a citizen,” standard license designs often don’t say. Legal immigrants can get REAL IDs, too.
“Enhanced” driver’s licenses do show citizenship, and those can be used to cross international borders. But they’re available in only five states that neighbor Canada, according to the Department of Homeland Security. To pick one state, Minnesota says it has issued 782,000 “enhanced” licenses, out of a total 4.7 million active credentials.
People who register to vote at a motor-vehicle office, while proving U.S. citizenship to get a REAL ID, might not have any problem under the GOP bill. But Americans who join the voter rolls elsewhere, such as at a county office, could be told that a driver’s license is no longer sufficient, so they have to find other documents. If the state already knows they’re citizens, can’t it check its own database?
[...]
Mr. Trump now wants to expand the SAVE America Act. One of his ideas is to countermand dozens of state laws on mail voting, by restricting such ballots to people who are sick, disabled, serving in the military, or traveling. As an election policy, this has real upside. Yet many GOP states let anyone vote absentee. Do Republicans really want to endorse having the federal government overrule the election laws in Florida, Georgia, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, Kansas, and more?
The decentralized nature of American elections is a source of resilience, and Republicans rightly opposed President Biden’s attempt to federalize voting rules on the lax California model. Have they given up federalist principle? If 51 Senate votes are all it takes to limit mail ballots across the country and require voter ID, Democrats next time will use 51 votes to mandate ballot harvesting and ban voter ID.
[...]
Although Mr. Trump insists that voter fraud is endemic, his big claims aren’t backed by hard evidence. The President recently said illegal aliens are voting in such huge numbers that he won Minnesota three times.
Audits in a variety of places—Georgia, Michigan, Texas, Utah, Idaho—have found noncitizen voting and registration to be rare. Other states might be worse, but consider incentives: Illegal immigrants who want to stay are trying to avoid being noticed by the authorities. Green card holders have much to lose if they commit a crime. Prosecuting violators is good for deterrence, and vigilance is important.
But the SAVE America Act wouldn’t turn blue states red, and it can’t save Republicans from voter anger at unpopular policies. In the MAGA era, the bill could even marginally hurt the GOP. Kamala Harris in 2024 won college graduates and voters earning over $100,000 a year. Mr. Trump carried those with no degrees and lower salaries. Which coalition is most likely not to have passports and birth certificates handy?
