![\"WASHINGTON,](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-tx\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/2261152568-GI.JPG\" "\\"House")
<\/p>\n <\/p>\n
House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-Louisiana, speaks on the SAVE Act at a news conference in February at the U.S. Capitol. He was joined by House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-Louisiana., House Republican Conference Chairwoman Lisa McClain, R-Michigan, House Administration Committee Chairman Rep. Bryan Steil, R-Wisconsin, Rep. Chip Roy, R-Austin, and House Majority Whip Tom Emmer, R-Minnesota. <\/p>\n
Michael M. Santiago<\/p>\n
Getty Images<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n AI-generated summary reviewed by our newsroom.<\/p>\n <\/a><\/p>\n Read our AI Policy.<\/a><\/p>\n SAVE Act mixes voter ID with proof\u2011of\u2011citizenship and unrelated culture war items.Bill\u2019s added provisions and Trump\u2019s mail\u2011vote push erode support and risk court challenge.Congress prefers prolonging fights to rile up voters rather than passing targeted laws.<\/p>\n The political furor of the moment is over the SAVE America Act<\/a>, or the \u201cSafeguard American Voter Eligibility Act.\u201d<\/p>\n Based on that title, you would think that the bill is about voting. And it started out that way, with a requirement to show photo ID to vote in federal elections (the federal government can\u2019t regulate state and local elections).<\/p>\n Voter ID is an 80%-20% issue. Republicans, who have been championing voter ID<\/a> for two decades, have won the argument.<\/p>\n So, Republicans should bank the easy win, pass the bill and move on, right? Well, no.<\/p>\n Winning policy arguments, solving problems and preserving those solutions in law is no longer what Congress does. You have to feed the conspiracy theory caucus as well. So, they threw in requirements that voters must prove citizenship when they register to vote.<\/p>\n Of course, only citizens should be permitted to vote. But voter ID solves 99% of that problem. Regardless, throwing in the proof of citizenship requirement gives us something else to fight over, even though it adds political friction to the process.<\/p>\n The proof of citizenship requirement in the SAVE Act loses proponents some votes in both the House and Senate, and it advances the nationalization of elections<\/a>. But the bill would probably still pass.<\/p>\n But President Donald Trump, in his delusion over stolen elections, insisted that Republicans eliminate most mail-in voting<\/a>, which many states have long allowed. That almost certainly violates the Constitution\u2019s provision granting states power over the time, place and manner of elections<\/a>. And it loses the bill even more votes and makes it subject to being overturned by the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n Maybe, just maybe, even that bill might still pass, somehow.<\/p>\n Then, Republicans threw transgender culture war issues into what started as a voter ID bill \u2014 elements that are utterly non-germane to the bill and ensure it is impossible to pass.<\/p>\n Now, of course men shouldn\u2019t be allowed to compete in women\u2019s sports. But what does that have to do with voter ID? What does it have to do with elections? Is it worth losing voter ID? Is it worth killing the filibuster, as Republican senators would have to do to get the bill through with a simple majority?<\/p>\n No, but it really lathers up the party\u2019s base. It gets everyone kung fu fighting online, and it gets people ranting on Fox News evening shows and on MAGA podcasts.<\/p>\n The final genius move was telling voters that the Republic is at stake if the SAVE Act doesn\u2019t pass. That it\u2019s the most important legislation of our lifetimes.<\/p>\n The truth is that the SAVE Act contains elements that would be nice to have, but none of which are critical to the survival of the republic. Vote fraud has never been more than a marginal problem<\/a>, there is zero evidence of large-scale vote rigging, and none of our past several elections have been \u201cstolen.\u201d<\/p>\n But it worked. The Republican grassroots is furious that Republicans can\u2019t pass the SAVE Act. Aren\u2019t GOP senators opposed to keeping men out of women\u2019s sports? Don\u2019t they want to limit voting to U.S. citizens?<\/p>\n Senators began going through the procedure to consider the bill<\/a> Tuesday, and they\u2019ll spend several days on it. But the votes to pass it aren\u2019t there, and the votes won\u2019t be there.<\/p>\n It\u2019s hard to avoid the conclusion that the SAVE Act in its current form was designed to not pass. To prolong the fight, not solve the problem. To make base voters angry and get them to fight. To provide a reason for politicians to appear on cable TV and to get the most partisan voters to turn out in November.<\/p>\n Our representatives no longer want to solve problems through legislation. They want to prolong problems and increase frustration, because frustration gets them on TV, raises their profiles, builds their brands, inflames their voters and gets them re-elected.<\/p>\n So, we can\u2019t even solve the easy issues. Most voters support limits on late-term abortion, legal status for those brought to the U.S. illegally as children (known as the \u201cDreamers\u201d)<\/a> and voter ID. All those issues could be resolved if Congress would pass simple, targeted bills.<\/p>\n The Founders designed a system where our representatives would come to the Capitol, debate and discuss issues, compromise with each other to solve problems, and then go home. That system increasingly looks like a dream.<\/p>\n Tom Giovanetti is president of the Institute for Policy Innovation<\/a>, a free-market think tank in Dallas. Follow him on X: @tgiovanetti<\/a><\/p>\n We love to hear from Texans with opinions on the news \u2014 and to publish those views in the Opinion section.<\/p>\n \u2022 Letters should be no more than 150 words. <\/p>\n \u2022 Writers should submit letters only once every 30 days. <\/p>\n \u2022 Include your name, address (including city of residence), phone number and email address, so we can contact you if we have questions. <\/p>\n You can submit a letter to the editor two ways: <\/p>\n \u2022 Email letters@star-telegram.com<\/a> (preferred).<\/p>\n Tom Giovanetti Do you have an opinion on this topic? Tell us! <\/p>\n