Republicans and the SAVE America Act
With Republicans now holding the Senate, there’s been a challenge in managing expectations when it comes to delivering results. The question looming over Republican leaders is whether they will truly follow through on their promises, particularly with the SAVE America Act.
This legislation mandates proof of citizenship for participating in federal elections. It’s not an outlandish notion; in fact, it’s a standard implemented by many countries around the globe and garners significant support among voters here in the U.S.
Republicans campaigned on a platform of restoring election integrity, and now passing the SAVE America Act should be viewed more as a solemn commitment than mere political theater.
A February Harvard CAPS/Harris Poll indicated that 85% of voters believe only American citizens should vote in American elections. Moreover, 71% are in favor of the SAVE America Act, and 81% support voter ID requirements, with an impressive 70% of Democratic voters also backing Voter ID.
This reflects a clear consensus. When such widespread support exists, the challenge often comes down to legislative will rather than policy itself.
Yet, it seems Senate Republicans might approach the SAVE America Act as a public relations effort, allowing space for Democrats to possibly derail the bill instead of advancing it decisively. They might engage in some discussions, but ultimately, that won’t be sufficient for voters. It certainly isn’t how Donald Trump approaches negotiations. In his book, “The Art of the Deal,” Trump outlines a strategy defined by seeking influence, wearing down the opposition, and applying consistent pressure.
Past Senate leaders have been adept at employing these strategies themselves. In December 2009, when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) aimed to push through the Affordable Care Act before Christmas, several Democratic senators were initially reluctant. Reid’s solution? No one would leave until the voting was complete. As a result, the Senate approved Obamacare on Christmas Eve after nearly a month of discussions. It’s remarkable what can happen when legislators are faced with the prospect of missing a holiday.
Senate leaders are usually skilled at using patience and inconvenience during budget negotiations, keeping the chamber open late and compelling holdouts to relent. This determination shouldn’t just be applicable to spending bills. The SAVE America Act demands similar tenacity, which is why Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) advocates for reinstating the permanent filibuster against the bill to elevate pressure.
The threat of extended session isn’t merely about challenging Democratic resilience against a controversial voting process; it’s about the real-life consequences of being stuck in Washington while family, staff, and constituents are elsewhere. This is true for all senators, irrespective of their commitment to opposing the bill.
Furthermore, with over 80% public backing for basic voter ID measures, lawmakers face a distinct type of pressure. They constantly deal with the political ramifications of defending unpopular stands.
Leveraging Trump’s tactics means not only exhausting the opposition but also pinpointing their vulnerabilities and maximizing pressure there. Democrats find themselves politically exposed, needing to defend two Senate seats this cycle, particularly in Georgia and Michigan, which are under scrutiny after key retirements and re-elections.
Senators like Jon Ossoff from Georgia, facing re-election in a challenging climate shaped by Trump, and others from critical states must make hard choices. They can take breaks from campaigning while standing in the way of legislation that many of their constituents support, or risk losing ground.
Ultimately, this illustrates the kind of leverage Trump emphasizes: identifying points of pressure and maintaining the fight until an opponent seeks an exit. Surprisingly, Republicans don’t need to dismantle the entire Democratic caucus—just a handful of votes. If John Fetterman from Pennsylvania is seen as a reasonable target, then only six votes are needed to move forward.
One last point of leverage could involve reinstating the standing filibuster to combat obstruction effectively. This procedural tool, though underused, historically enabled a more deliberative Senate rather than allowing legislation to stagnate.
If Democrats opt to block the SAVE America Act, let them engage in debate for as long as necessary. Conversely, it’s important to highlight the condescending narrative that suggests married women can’t obtain new IDs or imply that minorities would struggle with ID laws.
Such a “silent filibuster” enables obstructionists without accountability, whereas a more vocal approach exposes this obstruction.
Republicans ran campaigns focused on restoring election integrity, and getting the SAVE America Act through should be a serious commitment. The question now is whether Senate leaders will grasp this, especially since the public’s demand is not for theatrical displays but for definitive outcomes.
A “hybrid talking filibuster” may be a worthwhile adjustment, but ultimately, the pursuit of concrete results is what’s paramount—and the approach of pragmatic deal-making is what can help achieve that.
