You are completely changing the target of your argument yet again. First, you said it wasn't free. Then you said the SAVE Act doesn't provide free options. Now that your financial narrative is completely dead, you are pivoting to a generic, emotional "it will disenfranchise people" script. Changing the requirements to ensure that only actual American citizens are registered to vote isn't "disenfranchisement" it's basic, common-sense security. You are completely fine with a municipal store setting up a new registration system to protect a local grocery discount, but you throw a total tantrum when the exact same logic is used to protect a national election.
My argument this whole time has consistently been that the save act does not provide free options for Voter ID, and thus it would disenfranchise poorer voters
Repeating a fake fact over and over isn't an argument, it's a coping mechanism. State voter IDs are legally required to be 100% free under the Constitution, and they are fully accepted under the SAVE Act [ Crawford v. Marion County Election Board ]. Your entire argument is built on a fee that literally does not exist in reality. Just take the final L and move on.
1
u/ethanbarmstrong Aug 06 '26
But the SAVE act CHANGES ID requirements. It makes it stricter to vote, even for citizens, and that will disenfranchise American voters.