House set to vote on election rule changes that could limit access for millions

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: Scripps News

Posted 8:09 AM, Feb 09, 2026 and last updated 4:26 PM, Feb 09, 2026


Election reform is expected to take center stage on Capitol Hill this week, with the House of Representatives set to vote on the controversial SAVE Act, which would impact elections nationwide.

Federal law already requires voters in national elections to be U.S. citizens. The SAVE Act would go further by requiring documented proof of citizenship when registering to vote and mandating a form of photo identification at polling places.

The legislation has been a longtime rallying cry for Republicans, including President Donald Trump, who is actively lobbying Congress for election changes. On his Truth Social platform over the weekend, Trump said he is asking “all Republicans to fight” for the legislation.

Democrats and progressive groups are pushing back, arguing that proof-of-citizenship requirements at voter registration are not practical. Democracy Docket reports that at least 21.3 million voters — about 9% of American citizens of voting age — lack access to documents required under the bill.

Read more: https://www.scrippsnews.com/politics/elections/house-set-to-vote-on-election-rule-changes-that-could-limit-access-for-millions

[BaronChocula]

1. Don't tell republicans

this would disqualify a lot of potential republican voters.

(I know, I know. Their math says it will disproportionally hit more potential Dem voters).

[lostnfound]

2. GOP - FAFO.? Motivation level of women with changed last names

I’m opposed to this bill, obviously. But women having to jump through extra hoops for married names will not please any of them. And it remains to be seen whose voters are more motivated to overcome these barriers in order to vote. It’s possible it could backfire or at least equalize.

The older the voter, the more likely a name change.

Really irritating this Scripps article doesn’t mention this key aspect, though..

[durablend]

3. "YOU'LL NEVER HAVE TO VOTE AGAIN"

Remember that?

[durablend]

4. Shithead Fetterman is for it.

https://www.abc27.com/pennsylvania-politics/fetterman-backs-save-act-says-voter-id-not-jim-crow/

[ProudMNDemocrat]

5. Can hard-core Republican voters PROVE they were born in the United States or have IDs?

Let us assume that EVERYONE of voting age(18) has a US Birth certificate, can prove residency, and has a photo ID no matter what state they live in.

Set aside the costs of obtaining all the proper documents required, what are the chances everyone complies that are registered to vote regardless of party?

To get my REAL ID, I had numerous hoops to jump through. I had to produce...
A valid notarized US Birth Certificate
Social Security Card with valid SSN #
Marriage License with Maiden Name(and name of my late husband)
Proof of Residency(a signed and notarized Lease agreement with proper address of where I currently live. Plus, all Utilities are part of the rent I pay.)
Financial statement(Bank statement with my current address)
Proof of Renter's Insurance (with my current Address. That was optional, but included that anyway.)

What the Republican's SAVE Act will do is violate the 19th Amendment in that for women, the name on the Voter Registration form MUST MATCH the name on the birth certificate. That will disenfranchise Republican women voters as well because they take on their husband's name when married. There can be NO exceptions for that!

I doubt that Republicans realize the impact that will have to their voters, all in the face of VOTER INTEGRITY.

Republicans have NO INTEGRITY.

[BaronChocula]

6. You had to do all of that for a RID???

I know I had to send away for a certified birth certificate copy, but that was the only delay.

[ProudMNDemocrat]

7. Minnesota was very specific.

[valleyrogue]

8. Lawsuits galore. If passed, I doubt this will ever take effect. n/t