The Save Act

[LafayetteBear]

Do you have any idea how owners of corporations elect directors, approve auditors, and approve other important matters? How do you think they know who's eligible to vote?

bd: I certainly DO know how owners of corporations (aka shareholders) elect directors, approve auditors, and approve other important matters. They vote. And most shareholders VOTE BY MAIL. I'd wager that I receive at least two corporate shareholder election notices per week, and they invariably contain a ballot which I can fill out, sign, and mail in if I so wish. And there is no requirement that I provide a copy of my California Driver's License along with such mail-in ballot.

LOL, I think you stepped in it a little with that post of yours. Whoops!!

 

[dpic73]

Was that in the Save Act as well?!! I know that Trump had his minions send out written requests to every state asking for a copy of its voter rolls, complete with Driver's License Numbers, Social Security Numbers, etc., but I did not think that ask was part of any proposed legislation. If so, there's one more reason to oppose the Save Act.

Yes, it does

The short answer: Yes, the SAVE America Act (the current version) does include a voter roll submission requirement, though it's not quite framed as "turning rolls over to the government."


Specifically, the bill would require states, within 30 days of enactment, to submit voter lists to the USCIS/DHS SAVE system to verify citizenship for voter eligibility. Congress.gov States can already voluntarily use this system, but the bill would make it mandatory.


Critics argue this goes further than just verification. The Campaign Legal Center characterizes this as an attempt to pressure states into sharing voters' sensitive personal information with the federal government, noting that the SAVE America Act places no restrictions on what the federal government can do with the data once DHS receives it, and includes no safeguards against using it to force voter purges or question election results. Campaign Legal Center


The broader context: The voter roll data issue exists alongside — but is separate from — the bill's primary requirements. The core of the SAVE Act prohibits states from accepting and processing a voter registration application unless the applicant presents documentary proof of U.S. citizenship. Congress.gov


The SAVE America Act passed the House in February 2026 and is currently stalled in the Senate due to a Democratic filibuster, with President Trump urging Republicans to change Senate rules to allow passage with 50 votes rather than the 60 needed to end a filibuster. SCOTUSblog


So to directly answer your question: the legislation does require states to submit voter rolls to a federal DHS verification system, which critics say amounts to the federal government gaining broad access to voter data — though supporters frame it purely as a citizenship verification mechanism.

https://claude.ai/chat/3516a2f6-5b87-452f-b28c-7ac96f36fd83

 

[LafayetteBear]

Two years ago I went to vote in a blue state. No voter ID, just a signature. I had to submit a provisional ballot because for some reason my name was removed from the roll.

Wait, wut?!! Your name was removed from the voting roll? What would they call that again? "Culling," no? And here I thought you said that the voting rolls were never culled.

BTW, I get a voter information/registration card from my County Registrar of Voters on a regular basis. I think it is annually, but I am positive it is no less frequently than every two years. They use that to update my information on voting rolls, as well as to keep track of me for jury service notices. (Yes, LafayetteBear has served on a jury. More than once.) And that is here in this haven of extreme government ignorance and mismanagement (aka California). Just imagine how well a truly sophisticated and well-governed state like Mississippi, Kentucky or Idaho does in keeping its voter rolls tidy and up to date.

 

[bdgan]

bd: I've posted, repeatedly, that I would support a voter ID requirement IF AND ONLY IF it was accompanied by: (1) changes to state laws and policies (in each and every state) that made it easier, faster, and cheaper to get the requisite form of ID; and (2) provisions in the voting laws that required polling places to accept provisional ballots, and count them if an issue with a voter's ID is resolved within a reasonably prompt interval following election day. Elections are never officially confirmed within a week or two of Election Day. It always occurs a bit later. So that should not be problematic.

The big problem with the Save Act is that it is larded up with a lot more vote restricting provisions than just voter ID. It includes provisions requiring proof of citizenship, outlawing mail-in voting, and even anti-trans stuff (as if voting legislation needed to include stuff related to this country's tiny community of transsexuals). It's almost as if the Republican sponsors of the Save Act had no intention of getting it enacted. Oh, wait ...

1) Proof of citizenship is what it's all about.
2) Mail in ballots can still be requested if away from home or health issue makes it difficult to vote in person. Just no mass mailing of ballots.

 

[bdgan]

bd: I certainly DO know how owners of corporations (aka shareholders) elect directors, approve auditors, and approve other important matters. They vote. And most shareholders VOTE BY MAIL. I'd wager that I receive at least two corporate shareholder election notices per week, and they invariably contain a ballot which I can fill out, sign, and mail in if I so wish. And there is no requirement that I provide a copy of my California Driver's License along with such mail-in ballot.

LOL, I think you stepped in it a little with that post of yours. Whoops!!

Corporate voting is only for shareholders of record as of a certain date. They need time to prove you're a shareholder with a legal right to vote. That's the only way you get a ballot. They aren’t mass mailed to everybody.

Most voting is done online and you can only vote if you have a control number. You're out of luck if you aren't legally authorized to vote. Your control number can only be used once.

Stepped in it? I was in charge of this stuff for a publicly traded company. I think I know how it works.

 

[bdgan]

Wait, wut?!! Your name was removed from the voting roll? What would they call that again? "Culling," no? And here I thought you said that the voting rolls were never culled.

BTW, I get a voter information/registration card from my County Registrar of Voters on a regular basis. I think it is annually, but I am positive it is no less frequently than every two years. They use that to update my information on voting rolls, as well as to keep track of me for jury service notices. (Yes, LafayetteBear has served on a jury. More than once.) And that is here in this haven of extreme government ignorance and mismanagement (aka California). Just imagine how well a truly sophisticated and well-governed state like Mississippi, Kentucky or Idaho does in keeping its voter rolls tidy and up to date.

This wasn't culling. This was because someone with the same last name went through the process of having their registration removed and they removed me by mistake.