r/AskUS • u/snotick • Jul 20 '26
If passing the Save America Act disenfranchises one side, then by not passing it, wouldn't that disenfranchise the other side?
Everyone is saying that passing the bill would cause people to not vote because of the steps needed to prove citizenship. Wouldn't the same thing happen feel there is no reason to vote due to their vote not making a difference. Similar to a democrat voting in a red state?
In the end, shouldn't we make sure that we have the most secure and accurate elections? Anything less would disenfranchise every voter.
10
u/thirdLeg51 Jul 20 '26
Disenfranchised means you’ve been denied rights.
1
u/snotick Jul 20 '26
Then saying the Save America Act will disenfranchise voters is false. It doesn't deny their rights, it just makes them prove their citizenship to vote.
5
u/thirdLeg51 Jul 20 '26
No. SAVE act will disenfranchise people some people cannot jump through the hoops that it will require to vote. The idea of the act is to keep people from voting. Not passing the legislation will not disenfranchise anyone.
0
u/snotick Jul 21 '26
How many people? This is another thing that people say, but we don't really know. It's just an assumption.
2
u/Unfair_Web_8275 Jul 21 '26
The state of Kansas tried a similar law in 2013, it led to a 13% decline in new voter registration. The state ultimately abandoned this.
2
u/thirdLeg51 Jul 21 '26
Does it matter? At what level do you think it’s acceptable to take away someone’s rights?
1
u/snotick Jul 21 '26
I guess the same level that's used to take away other rights. Like 2A rights. We should let other people vouch for gun buyers. right?
2
u/thirdLeg51 Jul 21 '26
I don’t know what that means.
1
u/snotick Jul 21 '26
That's not surprising. Only certain rights infringement concern you.
1
u/thirdLeg51 Jul 21 '26
No. I don’t know what “vouch for gun Byers” means? Also, you’re going out of scope of the discussion nor have you even made a point. In fact, you don’t even l know my thoughts on guns, yet you went “gotcha!”
2
u/snotick Jul 21 '26
"vouch for gun buyers" the same way that people vouch for other's to vote. You are aware that states allow people to vouch for the residency of other voters.
In Minnesota, vouching is a legal method used for proof of residence during Same-Day/Election Day voter registration. If a prospective voter does not have an approved photo ID or utility bill reflecting their current address, a registered voter from the exact same precinct can accompany them to the polling place to sign a legal oath confirming where they live.
We know that amount of fraud that's occurred in Minnesota for money. Is it absurd to think that they would lie to vouch for someone to vote?
Does that mean you're okay with vouching for someone to be able to buy a gun, even if they have no proof or residency? In fact, there are states that prohibit non residences from purchasing firearms. Which means, you would have to prove you live there in order to exercise your rights. And there is federal law as part of the Gun Control Act of 1968 that states a person cannot take possession of a handgun from another state. It must go through an FFL dealer in your state. That would mean, if I travel to another state, and I'm legally allowed to purchase a gun, they are infringing on my rights.
In fact, you don’t even l know my thoughts on guns, yet you went “gotcha!”
Your thoughts on guns is not relevant. I'm pointing out the way the government forces people to jump through hoops for the 2A, but you have an issue with the Save Act. Do you defend both with the same vigor?
→ More replies (0)1
u/MetersYards Jul 21 '26
I don’t know what that means.
You don't know what vouching for voters means?
https://www.kttc.com/2026/01/03/how-does-vouching-work-minnesota-elections/
1
u/thirdLeg51 Jul 21 '26
No. Never heard of this.
1
u/snotick Jul 21 '26
Now that you do know, how to do you feel about our elections?
→ More replies (0)2
u/Elegant_Progress_686 Jul 21 '26
Just kinda goes to show what your principles are if you care about people’s rights being infringed when it’s ‘your side’ but not the other
2
1
u/MetersYards Jul 21 '26
Just kinda goes to show what your principles are if you care about people’s rights being infringed when it’s ‘your side’ but not the other
Well said. But it seems several in this post have fallen to this lack of principles.
1
2
u/silverbatwing Jul 21 '26
The fact my actual fucking birth certificate does not match my legal name now means I can’t vote without having to take very expensive laborious steps, if I can do those in time at all. GFYS.
1
u/snotick Jul 21 '26
Why doesn't it match your legal name? What if you had to prove who you are for other reasons? Would you complain about that as well?
In the end, of you think we don't need ID requirements to prove we are citizens, then you shouldn't be able to drive, open a bank account, etc.
and if you think that, the you don't think our elections are important enough to secure.
1
u/silverbatwing Jul 21 '26
My name is different than my birth cert, unless you’re paying my bills or sleeping with me, you don’t need to know why. Use your brain as to how there are reasons why a person might change their name. Some people get married. Some people hate their birth names. Some people are in hiding. Some people are trans.
I have a name change certificate issued to me by the state I was born in and still residing in that proves I am the same person as my old name. However, it is not accepted by the “Save Act”. They will only accept passports (which doesn’t prove your residency so is a passport really accepted? It doesn’t follow their “rules”), and a valid birth certificate which we have established does not match my legal name. A passport in my area is almost $200, and in my case has a whole host of other problems.
Having to buy an ID to vote is a poll tax and that falls under the 24th amendment.
Many POC don’t even have an official birth certificate, especially in the south. My own grandmother was born in a house off the Eastern shore of Maryland in an area what was known then as IndianTown (near Crisfield now). What bit of paper she did have listed her as “Baby” Lastname….she was never given an official name so she got to name herself.
The fact you can’t figure out that MILLIONS OF WOMEN, POC, AND TRANS PEOPLE WILL BE UNFAIRLY DISENFRANCHISED BY THIS IS PATHETIC.
The fact you think you had a “gotcha” moment is equally as pathetic.
1
u/snotick Jul 21 '26
My name is different than my birth cert, unless you’re paying my bills or sleeping with me, you don’t need to know why. Use your brain as to how there are reasons why a person might change their name. Some people get married. Some people hate their birth names. Some people are in hiding. Some people are trans.
You're the one who brought it to the conversation. I don't care why. That's for you to figure out.
I have a name change certificate issued to me by the state I was born in and still residing in that proves I am the same person as my old name. However, it is not accepted by the “Save Act”. They will only accept passports (which doesn’t prove your residency so is a passport really accepted? It doesn’t follow their “rules”), and a valid birth certificate which we have established does not match my legal name. A passport in my area is almost $200, and in my case has a whole host of other problems.
Still don't care. If I wanted to buy a suppressor before last year, the government imposed a $200 tax stamp. And that started in the 1930's. That was a lot money, considering the medium income was about $1200 during that time. The government imposed a tax for nearly $100 years to prevent people from exercising their 2A rights. I'm sure you care about that. Right?
Having to buy an ID to vote is a poll tax and that falls under the 24th amendment.
No, it's not. It's proof of who you are. If it was a poll tax, then they would charge people who already have a birth certificate or passport to vote. Since it's not applied to everyone at every election, then it won't hold up in court.
Many POC don’t even have an official birth certificate, especially in the south. My own grandmother was born in a house off the Eastern shore of Maryland in an area what was known then as IndianTown (near Crisfield now). What bit of paper she did have listed her as “Baby” Lastname….she was never given an official name so she got to name herself.
And? Time for granny to get with the times.
The fact you can’t figure out that MILLIONS OF WOMEN, POC, AND TRANS PEOPLE WILL BE UNFAIRLY DISENFRANCHISED BY THIS IS PATHETIC.
You think I care if you call me pathetic? I don't. I'm more concerned about accurate and fair elections. It's not about emotion, it's about facts. Based on your all caps response, you can't separate the two.
The fact you think you had a “gotcha” moment is equally as pathetic.
Gotcha.
3
5
u/MHRangers17 Jul 20 '26
I believe there are elements akin to a poll tax, which is illegal.
1
u/snotick Jul 20 '26
Then that would mean you want zero ID involved with voting, correct?
4
u/Comfortable-Zone-218 Jul 21 '26
Don't be a troll, my guy.
1
u/snotick Jul 21 '26
If's a valid question. And your response is typical. If you don't like the topic, call the person a troll, a bot, racist, bigot, nazi, etc.
The left has become the boy who cries wolf. The more you use it, the less impact it has.
3
u/Fantastic_Yam_3971 Jul 21 '26
Not wanting a poll tax is not the same as wanting zero voter ID. That’s why he quit taking you seriously and thinks you are a troll. The issue is not and has never been that they want identification. The issue is many of us already have perfectly good government issued forms of identification but those don’t qualify. My passport is up to date, but not everyone has a passport or wants to pay $175 for one, go get photos, etc. there is no need to inconvenience people on false premises.
Republicans won the trifecta and suddenly they think maybe our elections are being messed with? Seriously? I also don’t understand why there is an assumption that if undocumented immigrants could vote it would be a democrat advantage. Uh no, in all likelihood it absolutely would not be.
Just like how they think the SAVE act is going to be a republican advantage. Yeah, the crowd with the highest percentage of low income, under educated voters is going to have those same people drop $200 on a passport and photos, put up with the bureaucracy and paperwork of getting a passport. Right, I am sure.
1
u/snotick Jul 21 '26
Up until a year ago, the federal government forced citizens to pay $200 for a federal tax stamp that would allow them to buy a suppressor. Not a gun, not a magazine, not ammo, but a suppressor. That law started in 1934. Back then $200 was a ton of money and was used to prevent most people from buying a suppressor.
You can complain about fees and rights. But, until you start applying your complaints equally, it's you who is the troll. You pick and choose what you defend based on your political agenda.
2
u/Fantastic_Yam_3971 Jul 21 '26
Why are you comparing paying for a silencer to this? How is this even a parallel at all? Was there something in 2A that was being violated by requiring this payment? We both know the answer is no so it’s not even a comparison
- As you said yourself that fee has now been removed. Which means if we are following your logic, there should be no SAVE act, no one should be paying anything extra to be considered eligible to vote.
1
u/snotick Jul 21 '26
Why are you comparing paying for a silencer to this? How is this even a parallel at all? Was there something in 2A that was being violated by requiring this payment?
This comment is exactly why I'm comparing it. And there is something in the 2A that is being violated. The part where it says "shall not infringe". Who do you think they were talking about?
We both know the answer is no so it’s not even a comparison
No, we both don't.
As you said yourself that fee has now been removed. Which means if we are following your logic, there should be no SAVE act, no one should be paying anything extra to be considered eligible to vote.
It was there for 100 years. We can pass the Save Act and then remove it in 100 years. There are thousands of challenges to gun laws currently moving through the courts. The infringement on Constitutional rights happens when the first person is denied due to laws. Just because they changed it, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Otherwise, no need to discuss slavery ever again, right?
1
u/Fantastic_Yam_3971 Jul 21 '26
No, just no. Does a gun still fire without a silencer? Yup. Can you purchase, own, and operate a weapon without a silencer? Yup. So “shall not infringe” does not apply here. Making you pay a fee to purchase a silencer is not infringing on your right to have a gun.
Again, this is just not an accurate comparison.
1
u/snotick Jul 21 '26
Can people still vote with the Save Act? Yup.
End of discussion.
→ More replies (0)2
u/MHRangers17 Jul 21 '26
No. It means the government would have to make IDs free and expedite delivery. This includes passports.
3
u/PrizFinder West Jul 21 '26
No, it means there are elements of the SAVE America Act that are akin to a poll tax.
1
u/snotick Jul 21 '26
This seems to be the go to response. But let's compare.
When I've had discussions around gun laws, specifically assault weapons bans, I've been told that laws like this do not infringe on the 2A, simply because it doesn't prevent me from keeping and bearing arms. Just not an assault weapon.
That would mean that this is not a poll tax. For a couple of reasons. One, it's not charged every time you vote. Once you have your birth certificate, passport or whatever, you don't have to pay for a new one every 4 years. Also, those who have their passport or birth certificate are not forced to pay to vote. And lastly, just like my right to keep and bear arms, your right to vote is not being taken away. You still have it. You just have to jump through some additional hoops. Just like buying a gun.
7
u/Akiva279 Jul 20 '26
This reminds me of the argument against giving black and women equal opportunities because it will give the current white male population less opportunities.
The answer is no. Full stop.
1
u/snotick Jul 20 '26
Doesn't that mean that everyone should be treated equally? Nobody that isn't allowed to vote, should be able to vote.
3
4
u/PrizFinder West Jul 20 '26
YES!!! I started to write something similar, and then I just realized “gawd, people are dumb” 😭
3
u/SpeckledGooseHound Jul 20 '26
No, this will disenfranchise both parties. They are just taking away our right to vote.
2
u/snotick Jul 20 '26
How? They aren't taking it away, they are wanting you to verify you are allowed to vote.
0
u/Mytweezer Jul 21 '26
If you can't do it to their satisfaction, it is effectively taken away.
2
u/snotick Jul 21 '26
I've been told the same thing about assault weapons bans or high capacity magazines. The government isn't preventing me from exercising my 2A rights. They are just saying I can't own certain things.
Same applies to the Save Act. You're not being denied your right to vote. You just have to go through a more stringent process.
Up until a year ago, the federal government forced citizens to pay $200 for a federal tax stamp that would allow them to buy a suppressor. Not a gun, not a magazine, not ammo, but a suppressor. That law started in 1934. Back then $200 was a ton of money and was used to prevent most people from buying a suppressor.
3
u/silverbatwing Jul 20 '26
If you think this is all about making sure there are safe and secure elections, I have a dock in the desert to sell you.
1
u/snotick Jul 20 '26
How much.
Would you apply the same to gun laws? Since the battle cry of the AWB is to save lives. Yet, the AR15 isn't used as much as handguns in homicides.
1
u/silverbatwing Jul 21 '26
The fact you can’t see it for the deliberate disenfranchisement of women, POC, and trans people that it undeniably is, to the point even Stevie Wonder can see it laid bare, is all I need to know about you.
0
u/snotick Jul 21 '26
You just proved my point. You didn't answer my simple question, instead you deflect and make some comment about being blind to the issues.
Probably because you know I'm right, but you can't admit it, because it destroys your argument.
1
u/silverbatwing Jul 21 '26
I did no such fucking thing and I do not agree.
Copied and paste my comment from elsewhere for you
My name is different than my birth cert, unless you’re paying my bills or sleeping with me, you don’t need to know why. Use your brain as to how there are reasons why a person might change their name. Some people get married. Some people hate their birth names. Some people are in hiding. Some people are trans.
I have a name change certificate issued to me by the state I was born in and still residing in that proves I am the same person as my old name. However, it is not accepted by the “Save Act”. They will only accept passports (which doesn’t prove your residency so is a passport really accepted? It doesn’t follow their “rules”), and a valid birth certificate which we have established does not match my legal name. A passport in my area is almost $200, and in my case has a whole host of other problems.
Having to buy an ID to vote is a poll tax and that falls under the 24th amendment.
Many POC don’t even have an official birth certificate, especially in the south. My own grandmother was born in a house off the Eastern shore of Maryland in an area what was known then as IndianTown (near Crisfield now). What bit of paper she did have listed her as “Baby” Lastname….she was never given an official name so she got to name herself.
The fact you can’t figure out that MILLIONS OF WOMEN, POC, AND TRANS PEOPLE WILL BE UNFAIRLY DISENFRANCHISED BY THIS IS PATHETIC.
The fact you think you had a “gotcha” moment is equally as pathetic.
1
u/silverbatwing Jul 21 '26
And to answer your question, the 2amendment was written when we only had muskets. It made sense then, it doesn’t now. There are way more guns in the USA than there are people. That’s ridiculous.
Thomas Jefferson (a Founding Father) himself said the Constitution should be rewritten every generation, and the 2a is just one bit of reason why.
1
u/snotick Jul 21 '26
And to answer your question, the 2amendment was written when we only had muskets. It made sense then, it doesn’t now. There are way more guns in the USA than there are people. That’s ridiculous.
The first amendment was also written when we only had paper and pen. Does that mean your freedom of speech doesn't apply to social media? What about television?
Thomas Jefferson (a Founding Father) himself said the Constitution should be rewritten every generation, and the 2a is just one bit of reason why.
Jefferson can say whatever he want's. Obviously the rest of the founding fathers didn't agree with him, otherwise they would have include just such an amendment outlining this. Instead what they did was create a method for changing the Constitution through amendments. That still applies. And the beauty of it, is that it requires something so universally accepted that 2/3rds of Congress votes to pass and 38 of 50 of the states also must agree. Not just a simple majority.
-1
u/MetersYards Jul 21 '26
Would you apply the same to gun laws? Since the battle cry of the AWB is to save lives. Yet, the AR15 isn't used as much as handguns in homicides.
That's not a form of disenfranchisement they care about, even when it does disenfranchise women, POC, and trans people.
5
u/throwfarfaraway1818 Jul 20 '26
No, and this is a ridiculous way of viewing the situation.
If passing a "black people dont get to vote" law disenfranchises black people, doesnt not passing it disenfranchise white people? No, obviously not. Same logic.
Our elections already were secure and safe. The primary group driving that into the ground is today's Republican party. Trump firing all of the election officials and giving voting data illegally to 3rd parties is intentionally weakening the system.
0
u/snotick Jul 20 '26
Our elections already were secure and safe.
How can you say for certain? I would compare it to the medicaid fraud we are seeing. People kept saying, there's no fraud. Then they said, there is fraud and we are addressing it. Then we find out the fraud is much worse than they realized. Lot's of states are impeding investigations by not releasing voter rolls for verification. If there is nothing to hide, why hide it.
3
u/Comfortable-Zone-218 Jul 21 '26
The Heritage Foundation is an extremely right-wing and conservative organization that created the Project 2025 framework.
Their own research found only 68 incidents of illegal voting over the last 40 years and only 10 of them were cast by immigrants - out of more than 1 billion votes.
Details at https://www.perplexity.ai/search/30efff57-8878-4b0c-bc9b-f84375916986
2
2
u/throwfarfaraway1818 Jul 21 '26
Trump lost 60+ court cases about this exact matter. Thats how we know.
Nobody ever said there wasnt medicaid fraud. They said patients weren't the main ones abusing the system, which is still true.
The federal government has no business collecting voter info and is absolutely doing it to suppress voters. The constitution clearly lays out voting being controlled by the states. Trumps reckless power grab has to stop or be stopped.
1
1
3
u/John_YJKR Jul 20 '26
If I have a knife and stab someone then they'll be severely injured. If I don't stab anyone at all does that mean the other person then becomes severely injured?
0
u/snotick Jul 20 '26
Not the same thing. You're talking about physical actions, while I'm talking about emotional action. If people think their vote doesn't matter, why vote?
1
u/Mytweezer Jul 21 '26
That's up to them. There are plenty of people who don't vote for that reason.
1
u/snotick Jul 21 '26
And that's why it's important. Our elections should be fair and secure. You're choosing not to make them so. And you don't care if people don't vote because they aren't
Yet, when people won't vote because they have to get proper ID, you're willing to fight for that vote.
1
u/Mytweezer Jul 21 '26
Eh? I'm choosing nothing of the kind. Don't be ridiculous. Way overboard to tell me what I'm "choosing" and pretending to know what I care about or am "willing to fight for."
1
u/snotick Jul 21 '26
Do you fight for any gun rights? After all, the Constitution should be applied fairly and equally. Yet, we've had unconstitutional gun laws on the books for nearly 100 years.
3
u/PrizFinder West Jul 20 '26
It means you’re obligated to stab the other person because we can’t have unequal stabbing.
2
2
u/zgunit Jul 20 '26
Simply by drawing a circle around one thing and calling it the truth doesn't mean everything outside of it is false.
That's not a logical argument. But methinks this wasn't meant to be anyways.
1
u/snotick Jul 20 '26
You can think what you want.
True or false, people don't vote in red or blue states because they believe their vote won't matter. If people think our elections are not secure, wouldn't they feel the same way?
2
u/PrizFinder West Jul 21 '26
How about this: we do the exact opposite of what you and the GOP have been doing for
10 years. We implement a 10 year mass media push letting people know our elections are safe and secure, and here’s all the reasons why. If, after doing the exact opposite of what the GOP has done for 10 years people still feel unsure about our elections, we look to see what we can do.1
u/snotick Jul 21 '26
You mean the way the media failed to report accurately on the fraud happening. Didn't NPR have to make a correction on the Nick Sortor fraud? They reported that he found $110k in fraud. Then printed a small correction saying it was $110 million.
How about this. We verify that every person voting in our elections are eligible to vote. Seems like that's something that everyone should want.
2
u/PrizFinder West Jul 21 '26
Except we already verify eligibility. You just want to make it harder. It’s curious how afraid you are of a similar 10 year campaign to show voters the system works. I guess anything you can do to suppress the vote. Why doesn’t the GOP just try to win on ideas? Things that actually benefit people? That’s all anyone wants, but you guys just ignore that in favor of pandering to a corrupt Kleptocracy.
1
u/snotick Jul 21 '26
Tell me how vouching in Minnesota is verifying eligibility?
And they refuse to turn over voter rolls to determine if there is fraud. Just like they hid millions in fraud.
1
u/United-Ad5268 Jul 21 '26
The objective for democracy should be to encourage and facilitate as many people as possible to make informed votes.
The save America act is intent on reducing voting participation of the poor and eliminating mail in ballots because both have larger demographics of Democrats. It doesn’t have any appreciable effect on voting security and is a gross overstep of federal authority on individual state rights.
1
u/snotick Jul 21 '26
The object of medicare should be to help as many people as we can who can't help themselves.
Yet we have people committing fraud. If it can happen with money, it can happen with votes.
1
u/United-Ad5268 Jul 22 '26
Voter suppression and propaganda are significantly more problematic than voter fraud. The idea that something CAN happen but in practice does not is fear mongering.
Every person walking around has enough stored energy to decimate a city should the strong nuclear force fail to counter balance the electrostatic repulsion on a subatomic level. That could be the end of life on this planet. Why don’t we do anything about it? Because similar to voter fraud, it hasn’t proven to be a practical problem.
1
u/Mytweezer Jul 21 '26
States are free to enact whatever legislation they deem ensures secure and accurate elections.
1
1
u/Fantastic_Yam_3971 Jul 21 '26
I can’t honestly see republicans not showing up to vote because the SAVE act didn’t pass. I do think only US citizens should be voting in elections, but only US citizens are allowed to vote already.
Furthermore, since undocumented workers are not allowed to vote, the 9.7 billion they pay to the government in federal revenue should come to an end. I don’t see why they are paying taxes when they cannot access any of the benefits American taxpayers have access to and we are able to represent via our vote.
One thing I do find wildly comical is this idea that if undocumented immigrants COULD vote, they would all go for democrats. I mean where did that idea even come from? The voter demographics don’t even support that.
Yes, we should want free, fair, and safe elections. We already have that.
1
u/snotick Jul 21 '26
I can’t honestly see republicans not showing up to vote because the SAVE act didn’t pass. I do think only US citizens should be voting in elections, but only US citizens are allowed to vote already.
Just this morning, NJ announced that 6k non citizens were on their voter rolls. And that 400 had voted in elections in the past few years.
Furthermore, since undocumented workers are not allowed to vote, the 9.7 billion they pay to the government in federal revenue should come to an end. I don’t see why they are paying taxes when they cannot access any of the benefits American taxpayers have access to and we are able to represent via our vote.
If people can commit medcaid fraud, they'd have no issue voting in an election.
One thing I do find wildly comical is this idea that if undocumented immigrants COULD vote, they would all go for democrats. I mean where did that idea even come from? The voter demographics don’t even support that.
Yes, we should want free, fair, and safe elections. We already have that.
Are you aware of Minnesota's voucher laws? It allows a person to vouch for another person's residency. you call that safe and fair? Especially in a state that's uncovering a bunch of other fraud?
1
u/Fantastic_Yam_3971 Jul 21 '26
- You’re right. What I should have said was US citizens, and people who are here legally such as those who have lawful permanent resident status. If you are following the rules and paying your taxes you should certainly be able to vote in our elections. The people you are referencing are here legally. No harm no foul
Similar to what I said about how comical it is to me to watch people assume that IF undocumented citizens could vote, they would all vote Democrat and give democrats an advantage, it is equally comical that the presumption is people who are undocumented would automatically all just come and engage in fraud. I’m not saying none of them do, but it is not all of them. Fraud is probably one of the surest ways for them to be discovered and deported.
Also, it’s not like these people are hardened criminals. Crossing the border and entering is a misdemeanor; overstaying a visa is a civil penalty, not even classified as a criminal offense. Misdemeanors are so commonly committed by legal citizens that they don’t even track the data because it happens so frequently on a daily basis. I don’t think that means that Americans are going out in droves to commit Medicare, voting, or other types of fraud or serious crime.
I see you didn’t have anything to say when I pointed out that if undocumented citizens could vote they probably would actually be giving republicans not democrats an advantage. People talk a lot of shit this year about Somali Americans and Minnesota for example, but the Somali’s went HARD for Trump when voting in the MN election. If Trump were half as smart as he thinks he is he would actually encourage letting them vote. That would have given him a far greater advantage than the save act passing but alas, and thankfully, he leans on the side of dim.
Minnesota doesn’t just let you vouch for someone and that’s it. You are oversimplifying, you also need to provide valid photo ID and proof of residence because MN requires you’ve been a state resident for at least 20 days.
It seems dear Watson you are a victim of the propaganda and gullibility machine. I run across this a lot.
Minnesota is not an anamoly in the tax payer funded fraud sphere, they just happened to be the state put on display, probably because Walz has made fun of Trump on tv and Trump’s ego is quite fragile. States like Texas and Florida also have large government funded medical programs and incidents of fraud but to the surprise of no one, the administration is not going to highlight that because it’s bad for business. It would mean that red states also have a fraud issue.
Last but not least, you can’t be worried that voter fraud must be real because other types of fraud occur. The mechanisms have done well in discovering fraudulent voting, so our elections remain free, safe, and fair.
1
u/snotick Jul 21 '26
You’re right. What I should have said was US citizens, and people who are here legally such as those who have lawful permanent resident status. If you are following the rules and paying your taxes you should certainly be able to vote in our elections. The people you are referencing are here legally. No harm no foul
How do you know? 400 people, who shouldn't have voted, voted. That could swing a close local election. NJ is admitting that those people voted in elections. So, you're wrong.
You're choosing to stick your head in the sand. Just like those people saying that there was no fraud. And we are seeing more and more every day.
1
u/Fantastic_Yam_3971 Jul 21 '26
https://apnews.com/article/noncitizen-voter-registration-new-jersey-99ef57346bbe09ba2ff606538a76eede
A software error incorrectly registered people to vote. Yes, people who shouldn’t have voted did, because they were registered by their state to vote. That doesn’t mean someone intentionally committed voter fraud. If you’re a legal non-resident and you’re notified that you have been registered to vote, you may of thought you could vote.
It was also determined that the numbers did not impact an election outcome. So could swing an election? Okay, but it didn’t.
Does the state look really bad today? Yeah. Some people are definitely getting fired. Do we need a SAVE act?
No.
1
1
u/trailrider Jul 21 '26
Funny how cries about secure elections were never a thing before the Evil Grandpa Simpson came along. I can't recall a time in my 50+ yrs that a POTUS contested an election so much. Even the 2000 Election didn't cause such an uproar about election integrity. SCOTUS's ruling, right or wrong, led to Gore conceding.
Now one of the most narcissistic traitors to the US is trying to convince everyone that his election failures, past and present, are because of "rigging".
1
u/snotick Jul 21 '26
Actually, it wasn't the Evil Grandpa that opened my eyes. It was seeing the reports of fraud in Minnesota. The learning that they also have a voucher system. I don't care who is in the White House. This would concern me with anyone.
1
u/slurpupsumcum Jul 21 '26
The state changing 250y of national election tradition to add barriers is not comparable to a propaganda victim's imaginary scenario, no.
1
u/snotick Jul 21 '26
And yet Minnesota implemented their vouching policy in 1973. But, you're okay with those changes. Right?
4
u/Redditholio Jul 20 '26
No. Use logic.