this post was submitted on 09 Mar 2026
175 points (99.4% liked)

politics

28845 readers
2041 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://news.abolish.capital/post/33746

The extremes to which the Republican Party will go to sway the 2026 elections in their favor was highlighted again on Sunday after US President Donald Trump said he will sign no other legislation into law this year until the SAVE Act—a bill that would deeply erode voting rights and threatens ballot access for tens of millions of Americans—is passed by Congress.

"It must be done immediately," Trump declared in a characteristically unhinged social media post on Sunday, referring to the SAVE Act, versions of which have passed the Republican-controlled House but so far stalled in the Senate.

"It supersedes everything else. MUST GO TO THE FRONT OF THE LINE," Trump continued in an all-caps tantrum. "I, as President, will not sign other Bills until this is passed, AND NOT THE WATERED DOWN VERSION - GO FOR THE GOLD: MUST SHOW VOTER I.D. & PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP: NO MAIL-IN BALLOTS EXCEPT FOR MILITARY - ILLNESS, DISABILITY, TRAVEL: NO MEN IN WOMEN’S SPORTS: NO TRANSGENDER MUTILIZATION FOR CHILDREN! DO NOT FAIL!!!"

Voting rights experts and Democratic lawmakers have denounced the SAVE Act as a dangerous threat to millions of eligible voters, calling it a clear effort by the GOP to tip the scales in their favor by depressing voter turnout in 2026 and beyond.

"In every form, the SAVE Act would require American citizens to show documents like a passport or birth certificate to register to vote. Our research shows that more than 21 million Americans lack ready access to those documents," warned Eliza Sweren-Becker and Owen Bacskai of the Brennan Center for Justice, which advocates for robust voting rights, in a blog post last week.

"Roughly half of Americans don’t even have a passport," Sweren-Becker and Bacskai continued. "Millions lack access to a paper copy of their birth certificate. The SAVE Act would disenfranchise Americans of all ages and races, but younger voters and voters of color would suffer disproportionately. Likewise, millions of women whose married names aren’t on their birth certificates or passports would face extra steps just to make their voices heard."

In response to Trump's threat on Sunday, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) characterized the SAVE Act as "Jim Crow 2.0" as he condemned the president and his GOP allies.

"If Trump is saying he won’t sign any bills until the SAVE Act is passed, then so be it: there will be total gridlock in the Senate," said Schumer. "Senate Democrats will not help pass the SAVE Act under any circumstances."

Melanie D'Arrigo, executive director of the Campaign for New York Health, said Sunday that the SAVE Act—which Trump said last week must be passed "at the expense of everything else"—is not a voter ID bill, but rather "voter suppression" legislation bill masquerading as a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

"If it was a voter ID bill, it would provide people with the proper IDs to vote, with no barriers — but it doesn’t," noted D'Arrigo. "The voter fraud rate is .0001%, and this bill would potentially prevent up to 69 million women, 40 million who don’t have access to their birth certificate, and 140 million without a passport, from voting."


From Common Dreams via This RSS Feed.

all 27 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 2 points 31 minutes ago (1 children)

The thing that sticks out for me is that so many people in the US don't have the means of proving who they are. No passport, no birth certificate, nothing.

So you can just get a bank account and claim to be "John Smith" with a random address or something?

[–] RagingRobot@lemmy.world 1 points 16 minutes ago

People usually have some way to prove who they are the problem is that they are asking you to bring multiple things now instead of just one. It's just getting harder to vote. People can get the other documents but they will cost money and take time to get and people will miss voting.

[–] Jaysyn@lemmy.world 3 points 3 hours ago

Unless pedo Trump just wants to get rid of any avenue for the creation of paper ballots, I do not understand this fixation with mail-in voting.

I've read that Democrat passport holders outnumber GOP passport holders 3 to 1, and GOP voters are much more likely to not still legally have their birth name.

Anyhow, can't wait to see how the other Democrats will fuck this up.

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 4 points 5 hours ago

No MAGA legislation? Don't threaten me with a good time.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 1 points 3 hours ago

woohoo. no dhs funding ever.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 7 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Not that legality matters, but how is the Save (Donvict) Act even legal? Aren't elections up to the states to run?

[–] BanMe@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago

Everything is legal if SCOTUS is broken

[–] Pat_Riot@lemmy.today 10 points 1 day ago

If you take away the ballot then you leave us only the bullet to vote with.

[–] tidderuuf@lemmy.world 23 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I could think of a few Dems who will sign it. Just give it enough time. Schumer will probably join them too eventually.

[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 22 points 1 day ago

Schumer may "hold out" himself after he has quietly arranged for enough other Democrats to cave. He has done that before. He thinks he's being very cunning and people can't see right through him.

[–] Arghblarg@lemmy.ca 69 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Given Schumer's record, Dems will cave in about 2 weeks. Sigh. Kiss your voting rights goodbye, US married women, and so many others.

[–] sandwich@piefed.social 17 points 1 day ago

This is my biggest concern. I sincerely doubt they’ll hold out.

[–] exaybachae@startrek.website 1 points 1 day ago

Meh, in the end US voting rights have mm ratings...

[–] TipRing@lemmy.world 57 points 1 day ago (2 children)

If Trump had ever taken a civics class, he'd probably have learned that if a bill sits on his desk for 10 days while congress is in session, it will pass without his signature.

[–] SARGE@startrek.website 23 points 1 day ago (3 children)

You don't even need the civics class, just watch that one schoolhouse rock video.

[–] MedicPigBabySaver@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

They do not mention that option in the song: I'm Only A Bill

Tomayto, tomahto

[–] daychilde@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

Or The West Wing. :)

[–] jaybone@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 day ago

He’ll just use an illegal executive order to stop it once he realizes, and no court or congress will do anything.

[–] hector@lemmy.today 19 points 1 day ago

As if anyone takes schumer seriously about not passing anything until such and such happens, man has never won a game of chicken in his leadership, everyone knows he will cave, that's why he was chosen by the donors to lead this controlled opposition shit show.

[–] Cris_Citrus@piefed.zip 33 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I swear to god if anyone breaks party lines on this...

This feels like a profoundly make or break moment for compete fascist control of the government

[–] CH3DD4R_G0BL1N@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Pretty sure fetterman already said he was for it. Not sure if you still count that party lines or not at this point.

[–] Jaysyn@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago

If Fetterman is still getting DNC funding or committee assignments, he absolutely shouldn't be.

[–] Cris_Citrus@piefed.zip 3 points 19 hours ago

Is for the SAVE act? Thats pretty fucking damning, seeing as how its blatant voter supression

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 15 points 1 day ago

TLDR: Toddler in chief is threatening to not sign any new laws.

[–] Lodespawn@aussie.zone 8 points 1 day ago

I assume not doing something under any circumstances means doing it as soon as his donors think it's helped clear the news cycle of something they don't want in it