There is no way 70% of people support this.
this post was submitted on 16 Mar 2026
177 points (95.9% liked)
politics
28921 readers
1850 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
the bill, which already has broad public support. A recent Harvard CAPS/Harris poll of 1,999 registered voters found that 71% support the SAVE America Act.
I highly doubt that most of those people polled have any idea of what Republicans actually mean by "proof of citizenship". I would bet money they just think it means showing your driver's license and/or social security card.
In reality, it means having to show a valid passport (which is a massive pain in the ass to obtain) or having a copy of your birth certificate (also a huge pain in the butt to get).
Polls lie, always have and always will. It's not about the question but how you ask it.
In reality, it means having to show a valid passport (which is a massive pain in the ass to obtain) or having a copy of your birth certificate (also a huge pain in the butt to get).
And for people that have changed their name since birth (either marriage or other reasons), the birth certificate isn't valid under this proposed bill. So passport book ($130+$10 for a photo), or passport card only ($30+$10 for a photo). And since passport book/card requirement doesn't apply to every American, this is effectively a selective tax targeting largely married women.
How is this anything else besides a violation of the 24th Amendment to the Constitution:
Twenty-Fourth Amendment:
Section 1
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
Section 2
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
80% chance the traitors in SCOTUS rule is constitutional anyway.
President Caligula
Yes. Very few photo ID options have citizenship status, and the combo government photo id (drivers license) and birth certificate combo affects people with name changes. 15%-20% of Americans lack the primary ID requirement, and there are fees to obtaining them. The lack of ID would skew towards lower incomes who don't need passports (realID is a domestic travel passport).
There's already massive voter suppression of urban areas through long lines, and specific agitation to increase voting time by challenging voters, Skewing voter eligibility to air travellers and 5 mostly blue states that include citizenship on drivers license is likely to harm rural bumfucks that don't travel, and not obviously benefit GOP. Still, legal challenges will likely block it before mid terms, though the politics of "Democrats want massive (nonexistant) voter fraud to let illegal pet eaters vote" is probably the point.
honestly any form of identification is bs. its to stop mail in voting where that would be impossible. you show id already when you register.
Not too mention 1999 people is a pretty small sample for a 160M voter population.
It's not.
Many polls use 1000, which gives ±3%, while 2000 gives ±2%.
Now, you can do things badly and screw that up, but assuming the polling is randomized, it's more than enough.
I'll take your word for it. Statistics was my worst subject. It just seems small logically. I mean if you polled 1999 people in my city you'd get probably 99% Trump support. I doubt you'd get that from a random sampling in California.
if you polled 1999 people in my city
That's why national polls would not poll people in just one location :)
But that's like 40 people per state.
Imagine a big pot of soup - like 100 gallons of soup. I bet you could take out like a half cup of that soup and you'd know basically what the soup tasted like.
https://www.markpack.org.uk/168548/why-is-a-1000-sample-enough-for-an-opinion-poll/
To be honest that wasn't a very good article. Also the quality of the poll means everything. If you ask 10 people if they think voters should show ID, I bet you'd get 100% agreement. It would change a lot of you asked them if we should disenfranchise women. We'd have to see the actual poll.
Go find your own article. Pardon me for trying to help. I won't make that mistake with you again in future.
You can choose not to understand, or you can go fucking educate yourself then. Or don't. I don't fucking care.
Yeah I understand the purpose of sampling. Now take a cup of water from the Atlantic. Can you tell the health of all the world's oceans?
One final comment before I block you for your other comment: Polling doesn't take a cup of water from the Atlantic, it takes water from the ENTIRE OCEANS. Not very much water, but enough.
Now. Goodbye.
The hill can take a propaganda at my nuts if they think I’m gonna buy that poll as anything other than biased.
Im 100% with you on this sentiment. I can't for a minute believe that is accurate.
Im 100% with you
It is statistically unlikely that you are with them to that high of a percentage. /s ;-)
But they’re bracing for long hours and possible late nights in a bid to build momentum for the bill, which already has broad public support. A recent Harvard CAPS/Harris poll of 1,999 registered voters found that 71 percent support the SAVE America Act.
That's pretty depressing. But then, I suppose low-information people would support any bill if they just called it "The Good Law Act."
Oh, right, that's basically what they did when they passed the, what was it called, Big Conservative Wet Dream Bill last year.
Edit: Oh, seeing the headlines alongside the poll that are all extremely suspect and right-washing, I wanted to check further.
Despite that TheHill reports uncritically about it and it is somehow associated with Harvard, the poll was commissioned by Stagwell Global, a marketing firm that is run by Mark Penn, who is apparently a "deep state" conspiracy theorist and Trump supporter, and contact info for the poll is not Harvard, but Stagwell, who also somehow was allowed to "release" the poll ("Stagwell (NASDAQ: STGW) today released the results of the February Harvard CAPS / Harris poll...").
All in all I feel the most likely fit for the above is this is propaganda and not reliable.
Mark Penn, who is apparently a “deep state” conspiracy theorist and Trump supporter
Among other things.
Love how this guy calls himself a "deep state conspiracy theorist" yet has had two Clintons and a British PM as clients🤣 Bitch you are the deep state, shut the fuck up
Thehill is also quite conservative, fwiw
What Is The SAVE America Act: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safeguard_American_Voter_Eligibility_Act
Opposition
Non-citizens voting in federal elections has been proven to be extremely rare and is already illegal under Section 216 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.[9][10][11]
Opponents of the bill argue that it is intended to suppress voter turnout, as voter registration forms already require driver's license numbers or the last four digits of the applicant's Social Security number in compliance with the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), which registrars are required to use under HAVA to confirm eligibility through databases maintained by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the Social Security Administration, and the U.S. Postal Service.[7][12] An analysis by the Center for American Progress found some voters in Alaska and Hawaii would need to fly to reach their election office in accordance with the in person requirement to vote by mail.[13] The analysis also found that an estimated 69 million women and 4 million men have a last name that does not match their birth certificate.[14] This provision would similarly impact transgender people whose legal names do not match their birth certificates.[15][10]
Research from the Brennan Center, "indicates that more than 9 percent of American citizens of voting age, or 21.3 million people, don't have proof of citizenship readily available".[16] The center said the act "would compel voter roll purges that are bound to sweep in eligible American voters" and that "when Arizona and Kansas implemented similar policies at the state level, tens of thousands of eligible citizens were blocked from registering", concluding, "the SAVE Act's proof-of-citizenship requirement is a solution in search of a problem".[2]
According to the U.S. Vote Foundation, the SAVE Act would jeopardize voting registration access for US military service members serving abroad and other US citizens resident overseas.[17]
It does not have support from the public, but his goons have probably supported the measure in the public sphere. You don't get invited to vote if you are not a citizen. There is not some giant conspiracy where a bunch of illegal immigrants are voting at the polling booths. Those are lies, the only people caught cheating are good ol boys voting for dead grandma. The rest of it has been fair and heavily scrutinized, you're a complete fool if you believe otherwise.
Most people in a democracy care about clean, fair elections and work towards making them so. This only adds a roadblock to the disenfranchised and the poor.
They still need 60 votes to pass it and that just isn't going to happen without major concessions. If they make the ID free and automatically issue it to all registered voters and make election day a national holiday then it may have a snowballs chance at getting through
National holidays have nothing to do with giving people time off to vote, unless they're government employees or work in the finance sector.
If it's a federal holiday, employers are forced to give you time-and-a-half, which makes smaller businesses much more likely to close for the day (and large corporations much more likely to understaff and fuck over the people who do work that day).
If it’s a federal holiday, employers are forced to give you time-and-a-half
That's... just not true. I've worked through a lot of federal holidays at a lot of businesses and never received additional pay, and there's nothing in the law (at least in most states, maybe some niche exceptions) requiring time-and-a-half pay for federal holidays.
I wonder how many of those 1999 registered voters would be disenfranchised if this came into effect, but don't realize it because they didn't read what 'documented proof of citizenship' actually entails...
IIRC, it was around 10% of registered voters on average. So, if the poll is a good sample, it would be 200 of them.
More to the point, it is overwhelingly conservative women who more often than not, change their names when they get married.
I forsee a bit of misery in parts of the GOP over this.
I’m a penis haver who has been adopted so my name doesn’t match my birth certificate either.
Get to your city hall and sort that asap!
I wouldn't count my chickens before they're hatched in that case. It will also disproportionately affect poor people. People who don't want to purchase a passport for hundreds of dollars, and who may not have their birth certificate readily available, and can't afford the time or expense to find/replace it.
How many republican women have access to a qualifying passport with their maiden name?!
Isn't a passport enough to prove citizenship? I thought the issue is you need drivers license + birth certificate or passport or real ID. That's at least what this Source says.
Nope, you have to match your birth name, not driver’s license
Read the conclusion, married women have to produce more documents to be able to vote than unmarried women
Sorry I've got to down vote you, but its in your own article:
A passport alone would be sufficient to register under the bill
Hard to link to the specific line, but this is only one of a few instances where they state a passport is enough.
Edit: If a passport wasn't enough, the percentage impacted by the bill would be a lot higher.
I'm sure their conservative husbands are just fine with them not being able to vote, but probably don't realize that it might not be the flex they actually want....
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›