I rarely find myself disagreeing with the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page, which is reliably conservative most of the time. So, I was surprised when the editorial board on Thursday pegged the SAVE America Act as a lost cause and advised Republicans to abandon it.
The bill, which would secure America’s elections, is wildly popular with the public.
It passed the House last month on a mostly party-line vote, with all 218 Republicans present voting yes, along with three Democrats. It’s stalled in the Senate because Democrats, who hate hampering their free stuff army with voter ID laws and proof of U.S. citizenship for voting, have vowed to filibuster it.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune says he’ll bring the bill to the floor this coming week for a “show” vote but will keep it subject to the Senate’s 60-vote cloture threshold to end debate. Which means the Democrats can kill it.
Mr. Thune has resisted bringing it to the floor for a “talking filibuster” and calling the Democrats’ bluff. This is despite President Donald Trump’s insistence that the bill is vital for securing the nation’s elections before the November midterms. The Journal calls the idea of forcing a real filibuster a “mirage.”
A Harvard/CAPS Harris Poll last month found that 81 percent favor requiring voter ID to vote, 75 percent want proof of citizenship, and 80 percent want non-citizens taken off voter rolls. The SAVE America Act would do all that.
The bill itself polled at 71 percent support, including 50 percent of Democrats, 91 percent of Republicans, and 69 percent of independents.
Other than a resolution honoring Mother’s Day or perhaps something even less controversial, I don’t recall any measures with this much support.
Democrats assume that Republicans will cave and not demand at least the “talking filibuster.” That made-up term describes an actual filibuster instead of the instant acceptance of one.
The instant filibuster is a bit like Major League Baseball’s change in the rules for intentional walks, with the batter not even bothering to stand at the plate to watch the pitcher throw four times beyond the strike zone. It does save time to just send the batter to first base, but do fans really want to pay to see the likes of Aaron Judge and Shohei Otani repeatedly denied a chance to hit instead of battling the pitcher?
Personally, I’d ban intentional walks, forcing the pitcher to throw the ball at least near the plate to provide drama, but that’s another column.
In the case of the filibuster, there are good reasons to at least force a 24/7 talkathon. First, it would show that Republicans can play hardball instead of caving to “our friends across the aisle” who are only too happy to punch them in the gut when no one’s looking. Don’t they get tired of seeing Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s “cat-that-ate-the-canary” grin?
It would show that Republicans are finally serious about guaranteeing a citizen’s right not to have his or her ballot canceled by a non-citizen or otherwise unqualified voter.
It would show how out of touch the Democrats are with the average American.
The Journal warns darkly that “the reality is that Democratic Senators could take turns giving interminable speeches. Cory Booker [New Jersey Democrat] last year went 25 hours all by himself.”
Bully for Mr. Booker, who persuaded no one about anything. And this is bad, how?
Go ahead, Democrats, rail against something that upwards of 80 percent of the public want. The Dems would, of course, count on the media gaslighting the public, but they don’t control X and Facebook.
Social media outrage prompted CNN to pull its item on the March 7 Islamist terrorist bomb attack in New York that had started this way:
“Two Pennsylvania teenagers crossed into New York City Saturday morning for what could’ve been a normal day enjoying the city during abnormally warm weather. But their lives would drastically change….”
Yes, that happens when you throw bombs at people. This pixie dust reporting has to hurt the media’s credibility, which is already lower than that of the Clintons.
Another strategy that Republicans could use is the “nuclear option” of doing away with the filibuster altogether and passing the SAVE America Act with their Senate majority. They can change the current rule with a simple majority vote.
Opponents warn that if the GOP does this, the Democrats will do it to them. As the Journal puts it, “they’d certainly copy the maneuver next time to pass far more transformational bills than the SAVE America Act.”
The answer to that is: They’ll do it anyway. Democrats were stopped from doing it in January 2022 only because of two Democratic senators, Arizona’s Kyrsten Sinema and West Virginia’s Joe Manchin, neither of whom is in the Senate now.
What could be more transformational than securing America’s elections? With millions of illegal aliens in America thanks to the Biden administration’s open border, requiring voter ID and proof of U.S. citizenship are crucial to restoring faith in fair elections.
If Republicans fail to protect voting, Democrats will use all their devious means to get back into power—and to make sure they never lose it again.
Notice: This column is printed with permission. Opinion pieces published by AFN.net are the sole responsibility of the article's author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of the staff or management of, or advertisers who support the American Family News Network, AFN.net, our parent organization or its other affiliates.
