Trump's election bill tops 50 Senate votes, but Democrats could still block it

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Source: NBC News

WASHINGTON — The SAVE America Act to require proof of citizenship nationwide to register to vote and overhaul voting laws has now topped 50 votes in the Republican-controlled Senate.

The bill is supported by President Donald Trump and passed the House last week, meaning the Senate’s 60-vote filibuster rule is the only thing standing in the way of it becoming law.

The tally guarantees a battle over the bill on the Senate floor as Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., has promised a vote. But he warned last week that there are “not even close” to enough votes for getting rid of the filibuster, despite Trump's calls to do so. If the filibuster remains intact, the legislation will still fail as Democrats are certain to use every tool to block it.

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, the chief sponsor of the bill, is pushing Republicans to use existing rules to force Democrats to engage in a “talking filibuster” on the floor of the Senate. The idea is to tire out opposing Democrats and pass it. But the tactic is a long shot, viewed by previous Senate majorities as doomed to fail if attempted. The rules make it considerably easier for a filibustering minority to sustain the 60-vote threshold than for a majority to break their will and advance a bill with 51 votes.

Read more: https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/trumps-election-bill-tops-50-210950640.html

---

Susan Collins is a fake moderate

[BumRushDaShow]

1. The GOP has 53 members and (D)s/(I)s have 47

They need 60 votes for cloture (end a filibuster).

So even if all 53 GOPers vote for it, they still need 7 (D)s and/or (I)s to move to the debate and final vote.

But to put a twist on the media's idiotically parroted phrase - "It's complicated". In this case it is NOT "complicated".

[BaronChocula]

8. Fetterman - pro, Murkowski - no

as of today (I think). I can't see any more Dems signing on to this.

[BumRushDaShow]

14. Am hoping it is DOA in the Senate

(even if Thune brings it up for a vote over and over)

[Wiz Imp]

20. Fetterman has not said he supports it.

He supports parts of it but he said that the parts which requires changes to curtail mail-in registration were "a nonstarter" for him. That sounds more like a no vote at this point to me. Regardless, even he says it will never get 60 votes in the Senate.

[bluestarone]

34. Jesus Christ, when so many Democrats are against this, Fetterman should NOT even

Consider voting for this piece of CRAP! Just gripes my ass how he's supporting thr rethugs on an election issue!

[Fiendish Thingy]

2. Filibusters can be initiated by a simple email to the clerk stating the intention to filibuster

Numerous bills have been blocked that way, for decades.

If republicans try to change the rules, Dems should disrupt the chamber until they back down.

If Fetterman votes for this, he should be expelled from the caucus after the midterms and stripped of committee assignments.

This will be the ultimate test of Schumer’s leadership.

[OldBaldy1701E]

3. "This will be the ultimate test of Schumer's leadership."

Well, that does not fill me with 'warm fuzzies'.

[onenote]

5. What if. after the midterms, the Senate is split 51 D/49R

Would you still support expelling Fetterman, thereby handing Vance the tie breaking vote on legislation?

[Fiendish Thingy]

7. Tell me, what legislation is going to be passed with the filibuster intact?

51 votes won’t get anything passed except a reconciliation bill that Trump will veto.

If Fetterman helps pass the SAVE act, it will mean he knows his days in the senate are numbered.

If he takes that step, He needs to be made an example of.

If he votes to confirm Trump judges, he needs to be made an example of.

If he votes against removal of Trump or any cabinet members after they are impeached, he needs to be made an example of.

[onenote]

9. So you'd hand control over the Senate back to the repubs

Fetterman sucks, but if he stays in the caucus, the majority leader isn't an R and Vance can't break ties. And Fetterman more often than not has voted with the party on judicial nominations, so you'd be ensuring Trump's worst of the worst would get confirmed.

Which, of course, is your right.

[Fiendish Thingy]

10. It would be Fetterman handing control to the republicans

In the examples I described, if Fetterman voted with the republicans, he would be giving them control in the senate,

If he supports the Democratic Party and its agenda, then he will vote accordingly.

[BumRushDaShow]

16. Here is a tracker/scorer for how progressive/conservative our members of Congress are

https://progressivepunch.org/

It can be sorted by chamber & party, as well as more granularly by topics/issues, "overall/"crucial votes" (for the current year) and the same breakdown for "lifetime votes".

SENATE

https://progressivepunch.org/scores.htm?topic=&house=senate&sort=overall-lifetime&order=down&party=D

If you sort by "lifetime"/"overall", you will see a group who is consistently voting the same as Fetterman -

40 Kaine, Tim
41 Shaheen, Jeanne
42 Warner, Mark
43 Slotkin, Elissa (1st Term)
44 Hassan, Maggie
46 Gallego, Ruben (1st Term)
47 Fetterman, John

You can do all kinds of sorts with this and it gives you a good view of where they stand.

Fetterman is a show-boater so gets all the attention, and there are certain issues that he is hardcore on one way or the other. But there are others there who have been just as destructive and manage to get a pass for some reason (perhaps due to the states they were elected in, although there is no excuse now for Tim Kaine).

So for example, if you just look at this year's session and sort by "crucial votes", your "F" ratings are in order of least to worst -

43 Kaine, Tim 78.34
45 Fetterman, John 1 73.23
46 Shaheen, Jeanne 72.73
47 Hassan, Maggie 71.98

So sometimes one has to really dive into the data to see the reality.

I found this tool a few years ago and it has been enlightening.

[Deminpenn]

19. Fetterman might be a lot of things, but showboater isn't one of them

Personally, I believe he's an introvert by nature. He marches to his own drummer, though, that's for sure. He also seems very black and white, no gray areas.

I also believe Brendan Boyle, a smart and serious Dem who represents part of NE Phila, will run against him in 2028 and likely win both the primary and general election.

[BumRushDaShow]

30. "Fetterman might be a lot of things, but showboater isn't one of them"

Walking into the Senate like this -



IS "show-boating", regardless of his inherent personality.

As I mentioned - he has certain issues/subjects that he is passionate about but otherwise acts as a "populist".

And I actually don't expect that he will run for another term "due to health issues" (and he definitely still has many). So it might end up being an open primary with a whole pile of people who would run for that seat from across the state (and I might expect that would include someone like Malcolm Kenyatta, who is a Millennial and currently a Vice-Chair of the DNC).

Will have to see who runs and wins/loses this November for the contested House seats - particularly those seats we lost in 2024 like Susan Wild's (PA-7). She might end up being a non-Philly candidate (to appeal to the rest of the state) as she is not going to run again for PA-7.

[Deminpenn]

40. Fetterman has dressed like that for years

People forget he's a very large human, 6'8 or 6'9. At one point he was nearly, if not over, 400lbs. I've seen large men who dress similarly presumably because it's more comfortable. I think one should follow the dress code of your workplace, but I can understand why Fetterman dresses the way he does.

As for a 2028 Dem Senate primary, Kenyatta just ran for statewide office, aud gen, and lost. The Boyle brothers have been building a base and a plan for their political careers for a long time. The truth is our state hasn't yet shown itself willing to elect a person to the governorship or as a US senator other than a white male.

[BumRushDaShow]

42. Oh I know

But he DID wear a suit and tie in the PA State Senate as Lt. Governor (i.e, President of the Senate) when he had to operate in that chamber.

I suppose you missed my frequent posting of his and Wolf's campaign ad that riffed on that subject -

He is who he is but he can be conformist if he needs to be.

And I would agree that this state isn't ready yet for other than white male for Senate (the McGinty campaign was entirely mishandled), although no one thought that PA would install a black woman (Joanna McClinton) as the Speaker of the State PA House either and she's a helluva far cry from that ass Mike Turzai.

[Wiz Imp]

47. Casey has said he was not retiring and thus has not ruled out running again.

He would win easily in a strong Democratic year.

[BumRushDaShow]

49. Oh I know like Sherrod Brown

Casey would go for some seat!

[Fiendish Thingy]

22. Thanks

IIRC, Shaheen is retiring, and the rest aren’t up for re-election until 2028.

Plenty of time to recruit primary challengers.

[Wiz Imp]

24. Thanks.

I've pointed this out several times but almost everybody seems to ignore it. The Fetterman bashing around here is extremely tiring. It wouldn't be so bad if people were consistent and directed as much scorn against all of the Democratic Senators who vote consistently similarly to Fetterman. As your list shows, there are quite a few. But most everyone here ignores them and acts like Fetterman is some big outlier. He is not.

And if you could go back and look at votes pre-2025, you'd see Manchin's score was FAR lower than Fetterman (so comparing the 2 is ridiculous), not to mention, that Manchin caused numerous pieces of progressive legislation to either never be brought up for a vote, or watered down in order to gain his vote. That never happened with Fetterman during 2023-24 when Dems held the majority.

[mikewv]

27. Agree!!! nm

nm

[BumRushDaShow]

31. That is because Fetterman made himself into a "media sensation"

so his name and positions are out there WAY more than the others. It's probably because he is "younger" (in relative terms) than the others on the list who are in their 60s and 70s (not counting the even younger Slotkin and Gallego, where that database noted that they were still early in their first term).

[Ilikepurple]

11. I believe for tie-breaking it matters how Fetterman votes, not what party he's a member of?

I do agree that as much as Fetterman draws my ire, he still votes with the party enough that he’s more useful as a Democrat than not. Also, it’s important he stays in the D caucus in this scenario as the majority has the upper hand in committee composition. Thank you and Fiendish Thingy for your short debate as it’s helpful to bring things into focus.

[onenote]

43. For deciding who is the majority leader, it matters a lot.

If he's tossed from the caucus, he'll almost certainly become an independent and the repubs will have an enormous incentive to recruit him to caucus with him, offering him positions that the Democrats are denying him. And if that succeeds -- and why wouldn't it -- the Repubs end up with Thune or someone else as majority leader. And that is a big loss for us if otherwise we would have the majority leader and the speaker, assuming we retake the House.

FWIW, while I don't like Fetterman and would be happy to see someone replace him when he comes up for reelection, he has only voted for one of Trump's second term judicial nominees. Other Democrats who have voted for Trump nominees far more often include Durbin, Whitehouse, Kelly, Kaine, Hassan, to name just a few.

[Wiz Imp]

46. Fetterman would never caucus with Republicans

People may not like some of his positions, but he has voted with Democrats like 80% of the time and has made clear he will never change his party affiliation.

[onenote]

50. If he was ousted from the Democratic caucus and stripped of committee positions

why wouldn't he accept an offer to caucus, as an independent, with the repubs?

[Wiz Imp]

21. If the SAVE Act passed the Senate, it would mean at least 8 Democrats voted for it.

In that case, blaming it all on Fetterman is absolutely ridiculous. As has been shown numerous times, Fetterman's voting record is effectively no different than a number of other Democrats. If you're going to trash Fetterman, you should trash all of those others equally as hard. But that never happens here.

Fortunately in this case, it doesn't matter beccause there is ZERO chance of the SAVE Act passing.

[Fiendish Thingy]

23. Unless, as threatened, they change the rules in the filibuster. Nt

[Wiz Imp]

25. If they change the rules eliminating the filibuster, then ZERO Democratic votes are needed to

pass it. (That's what the original article was about). So Fetterman's vote becomes meaningless. There is no reason to single out Fetterman

[Fiendish Thingy]

26. Unless more republicans than Murkowski vote No. nt

[Wiz Imp]

28. The title of the Post and the article it refers to is "Trump's election bill tops 50 Senate votes"

SO the article already tells you they have the 50 votes needed to pass without the filibuster. From the article:

Sen. Susan Collins, the centrist from Maine who faces a competitive re-election bid this fall, became the 50th Republican supporter of the legislation, an elated Lee announced last week.

So, there is no "unless more Republicans vote no" scenario. The article explicitly tells you Fetterman's or any Democrats vote is absolutely meaningless if they eliminate the filibuster.

[Wiz Imp]

29. You apparently missed this:

The tally guarantees a battle over the bill on the Senate floor as Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., has promised a vote. But he warned last week that there are “not even close” to enough votes for getting rid of the filibuster, despite Trump's calls to do so.

The filibuster is not being eliminated.

[Fiendish Thingy]

41. They aren't talking about eliminating it, but changing the rules

They want to change the rules to require a literal “talking” filibuster, with Dems required to hold the floor to prevent a floor vote.

[Wiz Imp]

44. SO? Let them do it. It will fail and make them look like idiots.

Even the Wall Street Journal editorial page says it would be a stupid thing to do.
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/the-hot-air-of-the-talking-filibuster-b3643289?gaa_at=eafs&gaa_n=AWEtsqd8lCdtTDZV9_drwaHxIhVHuA6y_AJjjcOMRNk9lewLHxnn6dtduhPXIPv2NeM%3D&gaa_ts=69960244&gaa_sig=6wG31k_Na8eiuq4_zp59VzxAM3I1xDj4AZRmt0l4Q_RpI9KBusQD8cusML0RhzJbDc3NXG8oJVBeB0la5kfZ0A%3D%3D

The Hot Air of the Talking Filibuster
As Washington grows ever more gridlocked, members grow ever more interested in testing the filibuster. With most Republican senators adamant that they won’t abolish the procedure outright (which is for the good), some in the activist base are instead demanding Senate leaders change it, by reviving the “talking” filibuster.

Specifically, Florida Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (with support from conservative senators, like Utah’s Mike Lee) want Majority Leader John Thune to ditch “cloture,” the longstanding process that ends debate—and a bill’s progress, if there is not 60 votes. Democrats would instead be forced to actively talk to stall a vote on the SAVE Act, a House bill requiring proof of citizenship when registering to vote and photo ID at the polls. Mr. Lee summed it up: “Return to Senate tradition. Require filibustering senators to (gasp) actually speak. Using existing Senate rules. Pass the SAVE America Act.” His X post contained (surprise, surprise) nostalgic video of Jimmy Stewart waging his one-man filibuster battle against corrupt Washington.

Talking by turns: Senate Democrats are pretty much united against the SAVE Act. So it won’t be one Jimmy Stewart “holding” the floor: it’ll be 47. Under talking-filibuster rules, Democrats get two speeches apiece—each of unlimited length—simply to oppose moving on to the bill. In a total opposition scenario, that’s 94 speeches. If each Democrat spoke for, say, eight hours at a time—each twice—that’s about 750 hours (31 days) of talking. Under traditional talking-filibuster rules, there is no way to end this torture.

Then again . . . and again: Democrats can easily take turns eating, sleeping and flying home during this marathon. Only one of them needs to be on the floor giving a speech. The GOP, by contrast, will need to maintain almost all its members on the floor at all times. At any moment, Schumer might demand a quorum call—which demand 51 senators. Schumer could also move to adjourn, which would restart the legislative day—providing Democrats a whole new round of 94 speeches. Indeed, any new question or point sparks another round of speeches. What is the left’s top priority in 2026? Blocking entirely the GOP agenda. A talking filibuster provides Democrats a pain-free, headline-friendly way of taking the Senate (and by extension the entire GOP Congress) offline for a very long period.

You also keep ignoring the fact that Republicans have the 50 votes necessary to pass the legislation by simple majority making Democratic votes completely meaningless unless there are 8 of them to brek the filibuster.

[Fiendish Thingy]

48. best of luck to them

I hope they succeed.

[karynnj]

33. If it is 51/49, Removing Fetterman by any means does not make Vance a tie breaker

At the time of expulsion, it would be 50 D to 49 Republicans. Shapiro would call for a special election. So, he would remain at 50/49 for months. Unlike MA, there is no provision for appointing an interim Senator or, like NJ appointing a Senator who must run in the next House election year even if the seat is not up.

[BumRushDaShow]

36. "Shapiro would call for a special election. So, he would remain at 50/49 for months. "

The Senate DOES have a gubernatorial "appointment" privilege (that the House does not have) IF the state allows it and PA DOES allow it.

17th Amendment

Amendment XVII

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any state in the Senate, the executive authority of such state shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, that the legislature of any state may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

(snip)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxvii

When John Heinz (R) died in office back in April 1991, then-Governor Bob Casey appointed Harris Wofford (D) as his temporary replacement about 1 month later, until the Special Election was held (at the-then upcoming November 1991 General Election) to fill the rest of the term (which ended up being for 4 more years as Heinz had just been reelected in 1988).

So there was very little lapse in representation (and Casey was even criticized for waiting that long ).

Wofford ended up winning that Special Election but lost to Frothy when the term was up and the seat was up again.

[karynnj]

37. Thanks for the correction.

[BumRushDaShow]

39. No problem - I remember that whole period when Heinz had the plane/helicopter accident

(which happened right outside of here in Philly )

[onenote]

51. Not talking about removing him from the Senate--talking about removing him from the Democratic caucus

and stripping him of committee assignments. That was the suggestion. And if that happened, he would have no reason not to -- and, indeed, a significant incentive -- to declare himself an independent and offer to caucus with the repubs. He might not vote with them ll the time, but he would ensure the majority leader was a republican and would get committee assignments he would otherwise not have.

Which, of course, is why the suggestion the Democrats toss him out of the caucus is pure fantasy.

[karynnj]

52. Oh, you are correct. Pushing him out of the caucus is beyond stupid

[Wiz Imp]

4. There is ZERO chance of it passing.

I believe Murkowski has said she will vote against it meaning 8 Democratic votes would be needed. No Democrats have said they will vote for it (and before people claim Fetterman supports it, while he has said he supports parts of it, he actually said this: changes to curtail mail-in registration were "a nonstarter" for him.) But even if he did vote for it, that's only one. Who would the other 7 be? (Hint: they don't exist.)

It passed the House last year with 4 Democratic votes and Thune never even brought it to the floor for a vote in the Senate. The makeup of the Senate has not changed. I'm not sure why he would bring it for a vote now given there is no chance of it passing.

[AverageOldGuy]

6. I recall election night 2016 . . .

. . . when there was no way Trump would win over Hillary.

[Karma13612]

12. This isn't the same situation

At all.

[Wiz Imp]

18. Ridiculous comparison

Name me the 8 Democrats who are going to vote for it?

[Ilikepurple]

13. Lots of good info here, but not a ZERO (all capitals?) chance of passing.

There are relatively few noncontradictory propositions that have a zero chance of obtaining. In my experience, such language is often abused to allay the fears of children as in “there’s a zero chance you’ll die from space junk tonight” or “there is no chance of a an interstellar object colliding within your lifetime”. I find the hyperbole in adult settings is often used to shut down debate and borders on apodioxis. I’m fine with just knowing the facts and your analysis of them. You’ve provided a strong argument for your position, but it is not apodictic and kind of strange to treat it as such.

[no_hypocrisy]

15. Behind-the-scenes

1. If it becomes a "talking filibuster," more voters will know and understand the consequences of the Bill becoming law.
2. A majority of women will lose their right to vote in federal elections as they will either lack the documents or the time or the will to return their suffrage. Eff You, Susan B. Anthony.
3. John Thune likely is between a rock and a hard place. IOW, he knows this vote won't defy the filibuster as there aren't enough non-Republican votes to pass it. But he fears TSF if he DOESN'T put it up for a vote.
4. If there IS a vote, the Republicans voting in favor of The Save Act will be remembered by their Democratic adversaries, not so much for making the voting process "more fair, more honest," but for keeping women from exercising their constitutional right to vote (both Democrats and Republicans)
5. Thune would want to avoid ANYTHING that endangers a republican majority in the Senate. This won't help.

[karynnj]

35. I hope Democratic think tanks are working on ways to help people get legitimate IDs if needed.

While others can be impacted, it disproportionately affects married women who changed their name and who do not have real ID or a passport.

This is extremely. undemocratic and will prevent many eligible people from voting. However, it might not be as helpful to Republicans as is assumed.

a) Although women vote for Democrats at a higher rate, the BIGGEST difference is for single women when women are further broken down by married and single.

b) using a different breakdown, we do better with younger women. I have no data, but just looking at friends and family, i suspect that younger women are less likely to take their husband's name.

C) in past elections, it was often noted that Democrats were far more likely to have passports.

For those reasons, it may be that Republicans will have a common interest with Democrats in fixing this.

The state could create a "citizenship" id in their name of choice with an easy process using their existing documents such as birth certificates and marriage certificates.

At least in some states, the marriage certificate includes the place of birth for both.

[lostnfound]

45. People who move? College students missing their birth certificate? Hispanics with multiple last names?

“Easy process” will not be created.

There’s also a requirement for purges every 30 days. Plenty of opportunities to suppress the vote.

[travelingthrulife]

17. Republicans...destroying our democracy one pillar at a time.

[travelingthrulife]

32. So none of these apparently uneducated Senators knows that this is an illegal poll tax?

It will be enough to muck up the works though.

I hate Republican traitors to our democracy.

[BumRushDaShow]

38. "So none of these apparently uneducated Senators knows that this is an illegal poll tax?"

When then-PA Governor Tom Cor-BUTT pushed for Voter ID along with the ass who headed up the PA state House who made this promise -

the shit hit the fan.

The suits and threats of suits here in PA made them keep adjusting the state bill to avoid the "poll tax" death sentence (the PA birth certificate with raised seal, has a cost, so they had to come up with other ways to verify and putting in place a special ID if it wasn't a driver's license, etc, like a non-driver driver's license equivalent). The law ended up being put on hold by the courts just before the 2012 election and was eventually mooted a couple years later.