I agree with the commentators that say people are probably overestimating how easy it would be to get a hold of the required documents. Years ago, I ordered two certified copies of my birth certificate. I did so after traveling to Canada in the early 1990s for a conference. At that time, not having a passport, I could show either my birth certificate or my baptismal certificate, and the latter is what I had available. (It was before the September 11 attacks.) When I moved from Texas to Indiana, I was glad to have the certified birth certificate because I could not get a driver's license (Real ID) without it. I did not change my name when I got married. So, I think that I could survive the SAVE act, unless an additional form of ID is needed, in which case I would need a passport. I thought that there was more than one version of the SAVE act, with one more draconian.
If the bill passes, I'd like to know the "likely voter" number, rather than these rather abstract figures. How many of the voters likely to be disenfranchised are Dems who actually vote?
Add to that the people who changed their name when they got married, and don't have a certified copy of their marriage certificate. In California, there will be a November ballot measure requiring ID to vote and election officials to verify citizenship. Sounds straightforward to those who aren't informed, but everybody would have to re-register with a valid ID number to vote by mail. 89% of the CA voters in 2018 chose to vote by mail. It would cost between $200 and $400 million a year to implement these requirements. All for a lie without a shred of proof that there is illegal voting that amounts to more than a spit in Lake Tahoe.
SAVE Act is not really about securing elections, but blocking/eliminating voter numbers. Sen Mike Lee, R-Utah, said so himself in Xpost @BasedMikeLee once the numbers went up for Dems. "Let's turnthis around by passing SAVE Act"
Thune has repeatedly said they don’t have the votes and if they did it would be challenged in the courts and there wouldn’t be enough time to implement it. Dead.
Thanks for adding these "SAVE Act" questions to your recent poll. Very interesting results. But I tend to agree with an earlier post that people answering a question about the difficulty (or lack) of producing sufficient documents to register under the "SAVE" proposals are greatly underestimating the reality of it. Anyone who's been a victim of identity theft, lost a passport or drivers' license or had one stolen can attest to the difficulty and time-consuming nature of the endeavor. Many people won't go through all the trouble in order to register to vote.
The even bigger problem with "SAVE" than the registration or photo ID requirements is the fact that it decimates mail-in voting.
Would be nice to see future polls ask the question: Is the name on your birth certificate the same as on your driver's license? Although the numbers are out there, would also be nice to see polls include the do you have a valid passport? The cross tab with income would support the income related challenge posed by the "SAVE" Act.
Can you compare the number of people who would be disenfranchised by the SAVE Act with the number of noncitizens Trump Administration claims "may be" registered to vote?
I'm sorry. white single native born female here. People are over-estimating how easily they can provide proof of citizenship.
I ran into problems when I had to replace a lost driver's license. AL required a birth certificate. oops! what I & my family believed was my birth certificate was not considered one by the state. Because it was issued by the hospital & didn't have the state seal. no problem, said the clerk. Just go to the health department, pay $5 & you can get an official one. Except I wasn't born in AL. I was born in MI. I could order one from MI relatively inexpensively but it would take 8 weeks. Or I could order online, answer Lexus-Nexus questions, pay $80 & get it in a week or so. I took the 2nd route. And I ordered 2, so I'd have a backup.
Do you think I could find either when I went to apply for a Star ID a decade or so later? No. So I ordered again from MI. And I had several options on the kind, so let's hope I picked right. (I did)
& the number of documents I had to produce for my Star ID! First was proof of identity NOT proof of citizenship. I'd have had more options if I were a naturalized citizen than a native-born American.
& here's the kicker, which Republicans with their "you need a driver's license to order at Alive Garden" nonsense deliberately omit: "If the applicant’s name has changed from the name displayed on the document presented to verify identity and date of birth, certified documents verifying this change are also required (ex. marriage certificate, adoption, court order)." Married white native born females over 65 in red states are going to have problems like I had.
Right. I'm glad this was polled, but it's reflecting who thinks they'd be unaffected, true or not. It's awful proposed legislation but might have unintended consequences.
If enforced to the letter, this could boomerang against Republicans. White Anglos will assume that of course they can prove citizenship. Minorities, familiar with the long legacy of disenfranchisement, will work harder to make sure their documents are in order.
This is accentuated by the obvious enthusiasm gap in 2026.
Thanks for generating this data. Numbers I had seen from other sources were incomplete and contradictory as to which party would be more disadvantaged. Nice to have something definitive to refer to.
It's so important to spread the word explaining WHY this act is really a snipe hunt.
The fact is NON-CITIZEN VOTING IS EXCEEDINGLY RARE.
The mighty Heritage Foundation thought they'd find a smoking gun that would support the idea that "millions" were voting illegally. They came up with a tiny, tiny fraction of illegal votes over 50 years.
"The database includes only 41 cases involving non-citizens registering, voting, or attempting to vote over FIVE DECADES, highlighting the absurdity of President Trump’s claim that millions of non-citizens voted in the 2016 election alone."
Is the provision about having the same name as on your citizenship proof still there? My belief is that millions of women (women favor dems) would be disenfranchised through that provision. And these people don't support women or Black people voting. Whack, 2 amendments down.
Do women favor Dems? I know that married white women, especially over 65, favor Republicans. And based on my experience replacing a driver's license, guaranteed they'll have issues. & enough Republican senators realize this, which is why they won't pass the Save Act.
In the last several national elections women were more likely to vote Dem while men more likely voted r. With help from Claude for my memory. Edison's exit poll showed 55% of men and 45% of women voting Trump — a 10-point gap. AP VoteCast put it at 9 points (55% of men, 46% of women). So women broke roughly 53–55% Democratic. That's in line with recent history: the gap was 12 points in 2020 and 11 in 2016. But as you say white women vote for R but by a smaller amount than do white men. Overall disenfranchising women hurts Dems and helps rs.
I agree with the commentators that say people are probably overestimating how easy it would be to get a hold of the required documents. Years ago, I ordered two certified copies of my birth certificate. I did so after traveling to Canada in the early 1990s for a conference. At that time, not having a passport, I could show either my birth certificate or my baptismal certificate, and the latter is what I had available. (It was before the September 11 attacks.) When I moved from Texas to Indiana, I was glad to have the certified birth certificate because I could not get a driver's license (Real ID) without it. I did not change my name when I got married. So, I think that I could survive the SAVE act, unless an additional form of ID is needed, in which case I would need a passport. I thought that there was more than one version of the SAVE act, with one more draconian.
If the bill passes, I'd like to know the "likely voter" number, rather than these rather abstract figures. How many of the voters likely to be disenfranchised are Dems who actually vote?
Add to that the people who changed their name when they got married, and don't have a certified copy of their marriage certificate. In California, there will be a November ballot measure requiring ID to vote and election officials to verify citizenship. Sounds straightforward to those who aren't informed, but everybody would have to re-register with a valid ID number to vote by mail. 89% of the CA voters in 2018 chose to vote by mail. It would cost between $200 and $400 million a year to implement these requirements. All for a lie without a shred of proof that there is illegal voting that amounts to more than a spit in Lake Tahoe.
SAVE Act is not really about securing elections, but blocking/eliminating voter numbers. Sen Mike Lee, R-Utah, said so himself in Xpost @BasedMikeLee once the numbers went up for Dems. "Let's turnthis around by passing SAVE Act"
Why are we writing about a dead issue? We are empowering Trump by continuing to talk about it. Put it to rest!
Senate is voting this week on it...before August recess..not.dead yet
Thune has repeatedly said they don’t have the votes and if they did it would be challenged in the courts and there wouldn’t be enough time to implement it. Dead.
Thanks for adding these "SAVE Act" questions to your recent poll. Very interesting results. But I tend to agree with an earlier post that people answering a question about the difficulty (or lack) of producing sufficient documents to register under the "SAVE" proposals are greatly underestimating the reality of it. Anyone who's been a victim of identity theft, lost a passport or drivers' license or had one stolen can attest to the difficulty and time-consuming nature of the endeavor. Many people won't go through all the trouble in order to register to vote.
The even bigger problem with "SAVE" than the registration or photo ID requirements is the fact that it decimates mail-in voting.
Would be nice to see future polls ask the question: Is the name on your birth certificate the same as on your driver's license? Although the numbers are out there, would also be nice to see polls include the do you have a valid passport? The cross tab with income would support the income related challenge posed by the "SAVE" Act.
Can you compare the number of people who would be disenfranchised by the SAVE Act with the number of noncitizens Trump Administration claims "may be" registered to vote?
I'm sorry. white single native born female here. People are over-estimating how easily they can provide proof of citizenship.
I ran into problems when I had to replace a lost driver's license. AL required a birth certificate. oops! what I & my family believed was my birth certificate was not considered one by the state. Because it was issued by the hospital & didn't have the state seal. no problem, said the clerk. Just go to the health department, pay $5 & you can get an official one. Except I wasn't born in AL. I was born in MI. I could order one from MI relatively inexpensively but it would take 8 weeks. Or I could order online, answer Lexus-Nexus questions, pay $80 & get it in a week or so. I took the 2nd route. And I ordered 2, so I'd have a backup.
Do you think I could find either when I went to apply for a Star ID a decade or so later? No. So I ordered again from MI. And I had several options on the kind, so let's hope I picked right. (I did)
& the number of documents I had to produce for my Star ID! First was proof of identity NOT proof of citizenship. I'd have had more options if I were a naturalized citizen than a native-born American.
& here's the kicker, which Republicans with their "you need a driver's license to order at Alive Garden" nonsense deliberately omit: "If the applicant’s name has changed from the name displayed on the document presented to verify identity and date of birth, certified documents verifying this change are also required (ex. marriage certificate, adoption, court order)." Married white native born females over 65 in red states are going to have problems like I had.
Right. I'm glad this was polled, but it's reflecting who thinks they'd be unaffected, true or not. It's awful proposed legislation but might have unintended consequences.
If enforced to the letter, this could boomerang against Republicans. White Anglos will assume that of course they can prove citizenship. Minorities, familiar with the long legacy of disenfranchisement, will work harder to make sure their documents are in order.
This is accentuated by the obvious enthusiasm gap in 2026.
Thanks for generating this data. Numbers I had seen from other sources were incomplete and contradictory as to which party would be more disadvantaged. Nice to have something definitive to refer to.
Is self-reported adequacy of documents really definitive?
It's so important to spread the word explaining WHY this act is really a snipe hunt.
The fact is NON-CITIZEN VOTING IS EXCEEDINGLY RARE.
The mighty Heritage Foundation thought they'd find a smoking gun that would support the idea that "millions" were voting illegally. They came up with a tiny, tiny fraction of illegal votes over 50 years.
"The database includes only 41 cases involving non-citizens registering, voting, or attempting to vote over FIVE DECADES, highlighting the absurdity of President Trump’s claim that millions of non-citizens voted in the 2016 election alone."
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/analysis-heritage-foundations-database-undermines-claims-recent-voter
Is the provision about having the same name as on your citizenship proof still there? My belief is that millions of women (women favor dems) would be disenfranchised through that provision. And these people don't support women or Black people voting. Whack, 2 amendments down.
Do women favor Dems? I know that married white women, especially over 65, favor Republicans. And based on my experience replacing a driver's license, guaranteed they'll have issues. & enough Republican senators realize this, which is why they won't pass the Save Act.
In the last several national elections women were more likely to vote Dem while men more likely voted r. With help from Claude for my memory. Edison's exit poll showed 55% of men and 45% of women voting Trump — a 10-point gap. AP VoteCast put it at 9 points (55% of men, 46% of women). So women broke roughly 53–55% Democratic. That's in line with recent history: the gap was 12 points in 2020 and 11 in 2016. But as you say white women vote for R but by a smaller amount than do white men. Overall disenfranchising women hurts Dems and helps rs.