Four GOP Senators Join Dems to Stop SAVE Act
“There’s no other reason to say you don’t have to have an ID. It just makes cheating easier. Who wants a noncitizen voting in our election…”
Four Republican senators joined every Senate Democrat Thursday night to block an amendment that would have attached the SAVE America Act to the Republican budget reconciliation package. The amendment failed on a 48-50 vote, falling short of the 60 votes required under Senate rules.
The outcome highlighted a recurring obstacle for supporters of the legislation. Republicans control the White House, the House of Representatives, and the Senate, yet four GOP senators once again provided the votes needed to keep the proposal from advancing.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) offered the amendment. The SAVE America Act would require proof of citizenship for voter registration in federal elections and require voters to present photo identification at the polls.
The four Republicans who voted against the amendment were Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Thom Tillis (R-NC), and Mitch McConnell (R-KY).
BREAKING: Four Senate Republicans just joined Democrats to block one of President Trump’s key legislative priorities.
In a setback for the White House, GOP Sens. Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Thom Tillis and Mitch McConnell broke with their party to help stop the SAVE America… pic.twitter.com/ynjwdxsdEC
— Fox News (@FoxNews) June 4, 2026
Thursday’s vote marked the second failed attempt to move the legislation through the Senate this year.
Graham defended the amendment during floor debate and argued there was no legitimate reason to oppose voter identification requirements.
“There’s no other reason to say you don’t have to have an ID. It just makes cheating easier. Who wants a noncitizen voting in our election if you’re against that, that makes me wonder.”
Democrats rejected that argument. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-CA) said federal law already prohibits non-citizens from voting and argued existing election safeguards are sufficient. He also criticized the amendment as part of a broader Republican effort to change election rules, including mail voting procedures.
The four Republican defections immediately drew criticism from supporters of the legislation.
Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN) questioned why lawmakers would oppose a proposal requiring proof of citizenship and voter identification, arguing the people voting against it were pro-cheating.
Why would you do this unless you wanted to cheat. https://t.co/unymBF4EBV
— Tim Burchett (@timburchett) June 5, 2026
Not everyone was ready to move on from the issue. Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), a longtime supporter of the legislation, called on Senate leaders to bring the bill back for another vote as soon as possible.
There’s NO valid argument against the SAVE America Act.
My bill would make it easy to vote.
And hard to cheat.
As soon as DHS is fully funded (as it should be within 48 hours), the Senate should resume consideration of it—and stay on the bill until it passes.
Pass it on.… https://t.co/PzHvOIf5bQ
— Mike Lee (@BasedMikeLee) June 4, 2026
Lee argued the legislation would make voting easier for eligible voters while making election fraud more difficult. He urged lawmakers to continue pursuing the bill despite the latest setback.
President Donald Trump later thanked Graham for bringing the amendment to the floor and reiterated his support for voter identification and proof-of-citizenship requirements for federal elections.
TRUMP: Endorses Lindsey Graham for June 9 South Carolina vote, backs SAVE AMERICA ACT with photo ID and proof of citizenship requirements pic.twitter.com/RaLohjV6Vk
— Trump Truths (@trumptruthsbot) June 5, 2026
For supporters of the SAVE America Act, Thursday’s vote underscored a political reality that has become increasingly difficult to ignore. Democratic opposition remains unanimous, but the bill’s immediate obstacle is that at least four Republican senators continue to vote against it, leaving the legislation without a clear path through the Senate.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Collins must be laughing. It’s either her or the nazi. The republicans are stuck with her. She should actually leverage her position more than it appears she has.
And two other traitors are retiring. This is one of their final “phucquest-thou” gestures.
Depending on the replacements of McConnell and Tillis and/or a pickup or two somewhere else that gets the count to 50/50 and VP Vance breaks the tie.
The usual suspects.
You and Henry, eh?
Can’t wait for Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton to join the Senate.
My gosh, there will be WORK getting done!
And to show Exactly How Enthused I am about Ken Paxton, I usually give $20 or $40 or $125 to a campaign. I gave that Hard Working Man $2,700!!!!! I LOVE Ken Paxton!
there is 10000% no justification to say that a person doesnot have to have ID when it comes to voting
or
receiving tax funded anything
but but but…. muh raycism
Democrats are just saying black people, brown people, and married women are too stupid and/or lazy to be able to get the proper ID.
They might be right about the first 2 categories. Well, the first one anyways. The racism of low (or no) expectations.
Oh, come on! What kind of comment is that? ID is needed to drive, buy beer, get a bank account, rent an apartment, get into the Dem convention. Everybody knows where the DMV is!
Did you miss the part about proof of citizenship? That is not required for any of the purposes you list. And there is no question that there are some US citizens who would be substantially burdened by a requirement to prove their citizenship before voting. Some might even be unable to vote at all.
But that is an acceptable price, in return for the increase in election integrity that this would deliver. The Dem mantra that no one may ever be disenfranchised, even at the price of allowing a potential for massive fraud, is just ridiculous. If someone can’t prove they’re entitled to vote, then they should not just be assumed to be entitled just because they say so! The default assumption should be that a person is not entitled to vote, and it’s up to them to show that they are. This requirement should be no more burdensome than strictly necessary, but no less either.
the fact that THERE IS A LAW that says you cant vote
( Sen. Alex Padilla (D-CA) said federal law already prohibits non-citizens from voting and argued existing election safeguards are sufficient)
is in fact more the reason to make sure THATTTT law is supported with the id
and the fact that the dems allow non citizens to vote in local elections PROVES THAT THEIR AGENDA is to have non citizens vote
( 19 different localities allow non-U.S. citizens to vote in local elections. )
^^^^THAT IS THAT^^^^^
Do you really think that in those localities they are just allowed to vote in local races? If you do, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I will be glad to sell you.
???
they of course let them vote in the national /federal
keep your bridge
Yes, they are only allowed to vote in local races. They are not on the roll for federal and state elections, and thus cannot vote in those. That’s a simple fact and none of your snark can change it.
The whole “foreigners are voting in our elections” appeal is a red herring. The real threat posed by no-ID necessary voting is the creation of bogus registrations for voters who don’t exist, who then receive mail-in ballots, which are then filled out by the thousands to throw elections. No need to rely on unreliable individual voters when you can just control the process start to finish in an organized manner and on an industrial scale (to be scaled as necessary and sufficient, but no more, which was the purpose of the pause in vote counting in some swing States in 2020).
no argument from me
these blood drinking pukes will hopefully find out whats what sooner than later
If your purpose is to prevent registration of people who don’t even exist, then proof of citizenship shouldn’t be necessary. The only purpose of that is to prevent registration of people who do exist but aren’t entitled to vote.
And it’s a good purpose, because the simple fact is that we don’t know how many foreigners are voting. It may be, as the Dems claim, that the numbers are very low, far lower than the number that this measure would disenfranchise. But it’s not likely. If a method of fraud is easy and almost undetectable then it makes no sense that no one is using it. And the fact that very few are caught is explained by “almost undetectable”. If you fish with a six-inch net you won’t catch many five-inch fish, even if the water is full of them.
I’d say both purposes are worthwhile and both should be pursued.
Yes, but the requirement for proof of citizenship is only needed for the second purpose, not the first one.
And yes, this will disenfranchise some US citizens. That is an acceptable price for election security.
“Sen. Alex Padilla (D-CA) said federal law already prohibits non-citizens from voting and argued existing election safeguards are sufficient.”
“Just writing the law is enough! We don’t actually want to ENFORCE it!”
“( 19 different localities allow non-U.S. citizens to vote in local elections. )”
Here in AZ, we have the opposite problem. We actually passed our OWN voter ID law. The feds (during Biden) came down on us hard and said the state didn’t have the right to “add” requirements onto federal elections. So we designed two ballots — one with only federal races for people who don’t provide ID, and the other complete ballot for documented citizens. The chronically pissy Biden administration then sued over that arrangement as well, until Trump took over and ended it… but the private litigation continues apace.
https://www.votebeat.org/arizona/2025/04/10/trump-administration-withdraws-from-arizona-voter-citizenship-challenge/
when those non citizens walk into the place to vote in a federal election the sympathetic personnel will allow it and if caught
sgt schultz it
Um, exactly no. They will be asked for rigorous voter ID… and if they don’t give it, they are handed the Kids’ Ballot. Multi-partisan poll watchers will make sure of it.
Do you actually have multi-partisan poll watchers at each station? Here in NYC we don’t really have poll watchers in any substantial numbers. Each station is supposed to be manned by one Democrat and one Republican, but there aren’t enough Republicans to go around, so some Democrats are designated to be “Republicans for a day” and represent the GOP’s interests. You can imagine how well that actually works. Where I work the people, Democrat and Republican, are conscientious and won’t allow an ineligible voter to be given a ballot; but not everywhere is like that, and the fraud happens at locations where the staff is all Democrat and are in on it.
Those four should have been expelled from the Republican party a long time ago. But no, that would be too much like standing for something. Republicans don’t do that.
Lisa!!! promised to abide by rules… lost primary… when won on write in by Dems. Alaska is purple from decades of pipeline royalties. Easy money.
What you are describing is awful and disgusting but it is in fact true and the realty in Alaska.
I thought about posting that myself. However you’d then lose your Republican majority in the Senate for other votes), Have to bite the bullet at least for now,
Who the hell cares about a Republican majority for the EASY votes? It’s the hard ones that kill you.
Collins IMO gets a pass based on the electorate of her State. The other three don’t share the same political realities. KY, Alaska and NC are far more ‘center/right populist (MAGA) than Maine and McConnell, Murkowski and Tillis are out of step with the voters putting the wishes of their d/prog cocktail circuit buddies and corporatist/globalist inclinations above the best interests of their base.
Even with that….control of the Senate Majority means control of committees and the schedule. Grifting it to d/prog would be unwise. Best is to hold our nose then try and vote them out by offering financial support to primary challengers. Hopefully the examples of Cornyn and Cassidy will serve to discourage more Vichy GoP inclinations of the DC establishment for Senators who ain’t on their last term and who we could actually primary and still retain the seat.
They’re not all easy votes. These senators are with us on some quite hard votes. And of course they’re needed in order to have a majority and control committees and the senate agenda.
How exactly is one expelled from a party? From the caucus? No party does that, because they need the numbers. But how else?
So the democrats believe that the fact that it’s illegal for non citizens to vote in federal elections means all those people who have violated our laws to either come here or stay here, will suddenly decide to obey that particular law? When I vote in NM, I enter the polling location, give them my name, they had me a ballot. I could give them my neighbor’s name and they have no way of knowing who I am because they’re not allowed to ask for ID. That is not a secure system with “safeguards”.
Insane
Do they not even make you sign your name, and compare the signature to the one on file?! That’s a piss-poor kind of security, but at least it’s something. I’ve used it to refuse a ballot exactly once, and once caught the person admitted that he wasn’t the voter. But once is better than never.
Failing to protect actual voting integrity gives you exactly what we are seeing in California.
Send a letter to your congressman.
On a brick through their window
Dems in pretzel logic.
We can’t apply this to a constitutional right:
Democrats rejected that argument. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-CA) said federal law already prohibits non-citizens from voting and argued existing election safeguards are sufficient.
But we can apply it to the right that could be used to take away a constitutional right.
We also supposedly can’t fight the war on drugs because it is unenforceable or whatever excuse they have, but we can somehow fight a war on guns by going after the rights of legal owners that don’t even commit crimes.
As a voting resident of NC, I’m sorry to have supported Tom Tillis. What a disappointing RINO. Return whence you came since you’re a self-serving blob.
A few years ago I foolishly argued with some idiots on X that IDs were necessary and ubiquitous, leading me to offer to acquire and pay for an ID for anyone who didn’t have one. I had some conditions, but it was a serious offer. Not a single taker.
Notice that the “it’s already illegal” mantra of the left isn’t an argument against Voter ID. It’s a classic red herring. There is no justifiable reason not to pass this and 80% of American’s agree. The problem is that the 30 Million illegals including the millions Biden let bum rush the country is the last hope of Dems to stay in power. Massive potential voting block combined with mail in ballots and ranked choice elections.