Starting the voter suppression early

Trump is tightening the screws on voting rights.

President Donald Trump dropped a bombshell this morning, canceling plans to sign a bipartisan landmark housing affordability bill until he gets action on his controversial elections overhaul legislation. He’s expected to press senators at a GOP lunch today to pass the “SAVE America Act” by any means necessary.

So Trump. To hell with making housing affordable for the non-billionaires, first ya gotta suppress the vote.

The Brennan Center:

For months, we have warned of a drive by President Trump and his administration to undermine the 2026 election. It is unprecedented, outlandish. Now Trump himself is blaring his intent — and over the past week, the public issue has exploded. The fight for a free and fair vote is taking shape, starting on the floor of the House this week as it once again considers the SAVE Act.

Make no mistake: The SAVE Act would stop millions of American citizens from voting. It would be the most restrictive voting bill ever passed by Congress. It is Trump’s power grab in legislative garb.

Today, the House Rules Committee is voting to send the measure to the full House for a vote. Effectively, the bill would require Americans to produce a passport or birth certificate to register and thus to vote. Brennan Center research shows that 21 million people lack ready access to these documents. Half of all Americans don’t have a passport, for example. and millions of married women who have changed their names might need to jump through extra hoops to vote.

Always put the burden on women. It’s only fair.

The measure likely will pass the House, as it did in an earlier form last year. Once again, it will be up to senators to block it. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) declared it “dead on arrival.” But this time around, a mobilized outside drive is pushing lawmakers to restrict voting. “It must be done or democracy is dead,” instructed Elon Musk. The SAVE Act will not expire quietly, surrounded by loved ones. It’s on all of us to stand up and speak out, once again.

And now we see how it fits into the broader strategy.

In recent days, Trump has repeatedly demanded that Republicans “nationalize” the elections on behalf of his political party. Each time his aides try to clean up his remarks, he doubles down. “A state is an agent for the federal government in elections,” he wrongly insisted.

Constitutionally, that’s upside-down land. The Constitution is unambiguous: States run elections. Presidents have no role. 

Unless/until they are Donald Trump. That’s in the fine print.

Steve Bannon, the Trump strategist who served prison time for defying a congressional subpoena, declared on Tuesday, “We’re going to have ICE surround the polls come November. We’re not going to sit here and allow you to steal the country again.” When we see how politicized and aggressive immigration forces have become, that threat becomes more than a podcaster’s bombast.

Here, the law is clear: That would be a federal crime. My colleague Sean Morales-Doyle explains: “Can the president send troops or ICE agents to polling places? No — both federal and state laws explicitly prohibit the federal government from carrying out these implied threats.” It’s a federal crime to intimidate voters, too.

But can we enforce it?

Comments

7 responses to “Starting the voter suppression early”

  1. marcel proust Avatar
    marcel proust

    From Talkingpointsmemo: Postmaster general says USPS won’t deliver mail ballots if states don’t give Trump admin voter rolls

    https://www.newsweek.com/lawmakers-blast-usps-postmaster-general-mail-ballots-threat-blatantly-illegal-12116199

  2. Sumi Avatar

    After years of questioning the validity of Obama’s birth certificate, Trump now says birth certificates are acceptable forms of ID? Birth certificates don’t contain the holder’s signature, photograph or, in most cases, current address. In many states, the sex listed can later be falsified. And, for many women, the surname listed doesn’t match their married one. Birth certificates are at best a secondary form of ID.

  3. iknklast Avatar

    millions of married women who have changed their names might need to jump through extra hoops to vote.

    for many women, the surname listed doesn’t match their married one.

    For reasons that are my own damn business, I changed my name when I married…also, when I divorced, I went back to my maiden name and changed again when I remarried. I can attest to the problems that will be. In fact, I may never be able to vote again under this law.

    While we lived in Maine, I attempted to get a Maine driver’s license. They were already observing these rules. They required not only my birth certificate, but both marriage licenses. Those I was able to provide. For some reason not known to me (because it shouldn’t be needed to prove that I had lived under all three names), they also required my divorce decree. I got that. They also required proof of my name change after divorce. Since that did not happen at the time of my divorce, but a couple of years later, I had to request that information, as well. I never received it. I do not know the case number, I do not know the exact year (though I do know the approximate year), and the county in which it happened kept records that far back (it’s been more than 30 years) archived somewhere in file cabinets in the basement. It has not got all those old records digitized. I requested it, I never received it. I was unable to get a Maine driver’s license.

    When I moved back to Nebraska, they were not requiring all of that. It is possible they won’t require that much in the future, but since they are fully in the thrall of MAGA, I am not counting on it. I suspect, since I have a D after my name, they will do everything possible to prevent me from voting.

    And I have the means to pay for the documents, and the knowledge where to request them. How will this affect women without the resources I have? I don’t think I have to guess…

  4. maddog1129 Avatar

    You left Maine? I must have missed that part of the story.

  5. iknklast Avatar

    Yeah. My husband couldn’t handle the isolation, and there was no theatre locally (even though the research we did prior to buying a house said there was). Overall, it was probably a good move, though, being back in the Lincoln community (I refused to go back to Nebraska unless it was Lincoln. It’s the only Nebraska city I think I could live in.)

  6. Axxyaan Avatar

    As a Belgian, I really don’t understand the “change your name thing”. Everybody just keeps their own name here when they marry.

  7. Ophelia Benson Avatar

    It should be that way everywhere. A “custom” that makes women disappear is a bad custom.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *