The Save Act

[Moogy]

I dislike politicians on both sides but democrat hypocrisy has no limits. These people opposed gay marriage and offered civil unions as an alternative. They supported more border fencing before opposing a wall. Since then they've learned that they can buy votes with the special interests by flipping positions.

Here's Harry Reid back in the 90s

You finally did it! You uncovered the rouse!

Oh, wait ... what's that? The party that represents more progressive views PROGRESSED throughout the years?!? Say it ain't so! How could that be?!? Sparkles, the Democratic party from 2059 will be supporting different things than they do in 2026, too. Oy.

Hell, even the "don't change anything" cons changed ... do we need to post Reagan's comments again: “Rather than … talking about putting up a fence, why don’t we (US and Mexico) work out some recognition of our mutual problems and make it possible for them to come here legally, with a work permit, and then while they are working and earning here, they pay taxes here? And when they want to go back, they can go back, and they can cross. And open the border both ways, by understanding their problems.”

Meanwhile, speaking of hypocrisy with no limits ... compare Trump saying a war with Iran is the result only of a person who is a terrible negotiator, and claiming there will be no new wars, and no regime change if he's President ... and, now, only a few years later ... that same person is proactively (not defensively) bombing the ish out of Iran in a war he started, without the approval of Congress.

You are terrible at defending your Fuhrer.

 

[fskillet]

Why are we acting surprised that a political party's stances on specific topics have evolved? Are parties supposed to have the same stances they had 100 years ago, and not change as demographics in the country/constituents' priorities change?

 

[fskillet]

I mean ****, this took 2 minutes to google.

Key differences from the 1990s Democratic Party include:

• Tough-on-Crime/Criminal Justice: The 1990s party supported aggressive incarceration policies and expanding the death penalty, a sharp contrast to the current focus on criminal justice reform.
• Welfare Reform: Democrats pushed for "ending welfare as we know it," aiming to reduce government dependency, whereas current policy focuses on expanding social safety nets.
• Fiscal Conservatism: The party prioritized deficit reduction and, at times, deregulation to appeal to fiscal conservatives, rather than the current focus on high government spending for social programs.
• Immigration: In the 90s, the party adopted a more restrictive stance on illegal immigration.
• "Third Way" Centrism: The 1990s party sought a moderate middle ground between liberalism and conservatism, shifting away from state-driven solutions toward market-based approaches.

Key differences from the 1990s GOP include:

• Free Trade vs. Protectionism: In the 1990s, Republicans largely championed international trade agreements like NAFTA. Now, the party is heavily focused on tariffs, protectionism, and bringing manufacturing back from overseas.
• Foreign Policy and Interventionism: The 1990s GOP generally supported a proactive international role, including nation-building and humanitarian interventions. The modern party favors an "America First" stance, which is more isolationist and reluctant to engage in foreign conflicts.
• Fiscal Austerity vs. Deficit Spending: While still promoting tax cuts, the 1990s party prioritized balancing the federal budget. The current party is less focused on austerity, having overseen significant deficit spending to prioritize other goals.
• Optimism vs. Populist Grievance: The GOP of the 1990s was characterized as optimistic and pro-business, embodied by figures like Reagan and later Bush. The party has shifted toward a populist style that is often described as angry, pessimistic about existing institutions, and focused on cultural grievances.
  

 

[baltimorened]

I mean ****, this took 2 minutes to google.

Key differences from the 1990s Democratic Party include:

• Tough-on-Crime/Criminal Justice: The 1990s party supported aggressive incarceration policies and expanding the death penalty, a sharp contrast to the current focus on criminal justice reform.
• Welfare Reform: Democrats pushed for "ending welfare as we know it," aiming to reduce government dependency, whereas current policy focuses on expanding social safety nets.
• Fiscal Conservatism: The party prioritized deficit reduction and, at times, deregulation to appeal to fiscal conservatives, rather than the current focus on high government spending for social programs.
• Immigration: In the 90s, the party adopted a more restrictive stance on illegal immigration.
• "Third Way" Centrism: The 1990s party sought a moderate middle ground between liberalism and conservatism, shifting away from state-driven solutions toward market-based approaches.

Key differences from the 1990s GOP include:

• Free Trade vs. Protectionism: In the 1990s, Republicans largely championed international trade agreements like NAFTA. Now, the party is heavily focused on tariffs, protectionism, and bringing manufacturing back from overseas.
• Foreign Policy and Interventionism: The 1990s GOP generally supported a proactive international role, including nation-building and humanitarian interventions. The modern party favors an "America First" stance, which is more isolationist and reluctant to engage in foreign conflicts.
• Fiscal Austerity vs. Deficit Spending: While still promoting tax cuts, the 1990s party prioritized balancing the federal budget. The current party is less focused on austerity, having overseen significant deficit spending to prioritize other goals.
• Optimism vs. Populist Grievance: The GOP of the 1990s was characterized as optimistic and pro-business, embodied by figures like Reagan and later Bush. The party has shifted toward a populist style that is often described as angry, pessimistic about existing institutions, and focused on cultural grievances.

so you're saying politicians change their positions depending upon their reelection needs. I hope that's not a surprise to anyone. John kerry "voted for it before he was against it" in just one year. Same applies to republicans, flip flopping is not the purview of only one party

 

[fskillet]

so you're saying politicians change their positions depending upon their reelection needs. I hope that's not a surprise to anyone. John kerry "voted for it before he was against it" in just one year. Same applies to republicans, flip flopping is not the purview of only one party

Yeah absolutely, I think both parties do it - and i also think it's a good thing.

 

[TigerRagRob]

 

[TigerGrowls]

This testimony is from a former democrat governor. Its very obvious that cheating is the primary Democrat strategy to win elections.



BREAKING: Former Democrat Governor of Illinois Rod Blagojevich WARNS of Democrat efforts underway to STEAL the 2026 midterm elections by way of MASSIVE VOTER FRAUD. He says that RIGGED ELECTIONS by his party were commonplace during his time as Illinois Governor through illegal aliens voting, fraudulent electronic voting machines and phony mail-in ballots and the fraud was particularly egregious in the Democrat-controlled city of Chicago. When asked if the Democratic Party steals elections, Blago's answer was quite blunt: "Is The Pope Catholic?" Thank you to Governor Blagojevich, who also says that the 2020 election was STOLEN from President Trump, for having the courage to put country over party by coming forward to EXPOSE the evil deeds and corruption of the Democratic party that he has PERSONALLY WITNESSED during his time as a Democrat Governor.

 

[Allornothing]

Yeah absolutely, I think both parties do it - and i also think it's a good thing.

This also proves you have no morals. Everyone should just go with the flow, and base their opinion on what it takes to get re-elected?

You showed up (two weeks ago you could afford to pay $9.99 a month) less than 2 weeks ago. You got a long way to go BOY!

 

[fskillet]

This also proves you have no morals. Everyone should just go with the flow, and base their opinion on what it takes to get re-elected?

You showed up (two weeks ago you could afford to pay $9.99 a month) less than 2 weeks ago. You got a long way to go BOY!

Not really - I was talking about a party's policies, not an individual running for office. If an individual flip flops around every election cycle because they're just trying to get elected, yeah that's a problem. If a party's political stances change/evolve because societies change/evolve over time, then yeah that's a good thing.

I reactivated before the spring game because I'm curious to see how the new changes (coaching/NIL) are going to impact the team this year, and I've always liked Larry/Paul's offseason articles. Apparently, since my acct wasn't active during the yahoo-On3 buyout, my account wasn't moved over. Feelsbadman bc i made this account back in '06

 

[Allornothing]

Not really - I was talking about a party's policies, not an individual running for office. If an individual flip flops around every election cycle because they're just trying to get elected, yeah that's a problem. If a party's political stances change/evolve because societies change/evolve over time, then yeah that's a good thing.

I reactivated before the spring game because I'm curious to see how the new changes (coaching/NIL) are going to impact the team this year, and I've always liked Larry/Paul's offseason articles. Apparently, since my acct wasn't active during the yahoo-On3 buyout, my account wasn't moved over. Feelsbadman bc i made this account back in '06

I'm just speaking to your first paragraph.

Would you be willing to share your core beliefs? Show me yours, and I'll show you mine.

Fair enough?

 

[fskillet]

I'm just speaking to your first paragraph.

Would you be willing to share your core beliefs? Show me yours, and I'll show you mine.

Fair enough?

Sure thing my dude.
Support: strong borders, lower taxes on the middle class, robust social services to help those most in need, being a positive steward for our environment, anti-interventionist policies, but i do support soft power initiatives that are aimed at helping the unfortunate in other countries.

dislike/don't care about: any of the culture war **** that's been so prevalent the last 2 decades.

pretty generic responses, but that's all i could really think off of the top of my head

 

[Allornothing]

Sure thing my dude.
Support: strong borders, lower taxes on the middle class, robust social services to help those most in need, being a positive steward for our environment, anti-interventionist policies, but i do support soft power initiatives that are aimed at helping the unfortunate in other countries.

dislike/don't care about: any of the culture war **** that's been so prevalent the last 2 decades.

pretty generic responses, but that's all i could really think off of the top of my head

Are you the same person that I thought I was responding too?

 

[fskillet]

Are you the same person that I thought I was responding too?

lol yeah i think so

 

[Allornothing]

lol yeah i think so

Should have been to instead of too, but I digress. I don't know that I could disagree totally with anything you posted.

 

[LafayetteBear]

Meanwhile the house passed (I think 6) clean funding bills that couldn't overcome the senate filibuster. If it only required 51 votes none of this would ever have happened.

Not so fast, my friend. There are a number of Republican senators who are against the outlawing of mail in voting. They generally represent larger, less populated states where mail in voting is regarded as essential, and widely used. Montana and Alaska are just two of those states. I'm not sure the Repos could even muster 51 votes in the Senate for the Save Act.

 

[LafayetteBear]

Just like Schumer and his shady cast of characters are under orders not to pass the republican bill.

Good for Senator Schumer. He's a good American. He will make a good Majority Leader next year, although I would prefer someone with a more pronounced "take no prisoners" attitude. We need to not just impeach Trump, We need to convict and remove him from office. And then prosecute him.

 

[TigerGrowls]

 

[TigerGrowls]

 

[bdgan]

Not so fast, my friend. There are a number of Republican senators who are against the outlawing of mail in voting. They generally represent larger, less populated states where mail in voting is regarded as essential, and widely used. Montana and Alaska are just two of those states. I'm not sure the Repos could even muster 51 votes in the Senate for the Save Act.

Face it LB, dems want no part of voter ID of any kind. Not even requiring the voter rolls to be cleaned of non citizens, dead people, and people who have moved. Otherwise they'd jump on board but ask that a few things are relaxed to make it easier.

 

[bdgan]

Good for Senator Schumer. He's a good American. He will make a good Majority Leader next year, although I would prefer someone with a more pronounced "take no prisoners" attitude. We need to not just impeach Trump, We need to convict and remove him from office. And then prosecute him.

Schumer is largely responsible for shutting down the government twice even though he was widely critical of republicans for doing the same thing. He calls every other issue Jim Crowe 2.0. Back in the 90s he supported voter ID laws calling them a sensible anti fraud measure to prevent abuse. Schumer's approval rating is much worse than Trump's approval rating.

 

[dpic73]

Face it LB, dems want no part of voter ID of any kind. Not even requiring the voter rolls to be cleaned of non citizens, dead people, and people who have moved. Otherwise they'd jump on board but ask that a few things are relaxed to make it easier.

You're a joke if you think it would be safe for a state to turn their voter rolls over to this corrupt administration to be culled, especially when states already do it themselves. Just because you supported putting the inmates back in charge of the asylum again, doesn't obligate non-criminals to participate.

Where the hell have you been the last 6 years?

 

[baltimorened]

You're a joke if you think it would be safe for a state to turn their voter rolls over to this corrupt administration to be culled, especially when states already do it themselves. Just because you supported putting the inmates back in charge of the asylum again, doesn't obligate non-criminals to participate.

Where the hell have you been the last 6 years?

dpic, do you really believe that all of the states voters rolls have been "culled" to the point where there are no ineligible voters there? We already know that's not true just from discovery that people who are ineligible have voted.

Now, if your position is that the states should do their own reviews, I'd agree. But to say the roles have been culled, I don't think is 100% accurate.

 

[bdgan]

You're a joke if you think it would be safe for a state to turn their voter rolls over to this corrupt administration to be culled, especially when states already do it themselves. Just because you supported putting the inmates back in charge of the asylum again, doesn't obligate non-criminals to participate.

Where the hell have you been the last 6 years?

I didn't say anything about turning voter rolls over to the federal government. I said that democrats would be against any form of ID even if adjustments were made.

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? Do you think the vote is wide open? Do you think you can buy a share this morning and vote this afternoon? Do you think people who no longer own the stock are still allowed to vote?

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. My children were both on the roll even though they've been gone for a decade. I asked what I had to do to remove my children but was told they would have to come back to the state, wait in a line, and complete a form. Guess what? There's no way that's going to happen. Meanwhile I noticed the name of a deceased neighbor on the roll. Is this is what you call a secure system? Don't answer, it was a rhetorical question. Even Schumer and many fellow democrats agreed until they learned that voter ID might hurt their turnout.

 

[dpic73]

dpic, do you really believe that all of the states voters rolls have been "culled" to the point where there are no ineligible voters there? We already know that's not true just from discovery that people who are ineligible have voted.

Now, if your position is that the states should do their own reviews, I'd agree. But to say the roles have been culled, I don't think is 100% accurate.

Do you think they'd be more or less accurate if we put the decisions on who to cull into a psychotic election denier's hands?

 

[dpic73]

I didn't say anything about turning voter rolls over to the federal government. I said that democrats would be against any form of ID even if adjustments were made.

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? Do you think the vote is wide open? Do you think you can buy a share this morning and vote this afternoon? Do you think people who no longer own the stock are still allowed to vote?

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. My children were both on the roll even though they've been gone for a decade. I asked what I had to do to remove my children but was told they would have to come back to the state, wait in a line, and complete a form. Guess what? There's no way that's going to happen. Meanwhile I noticed the name of a deceased neighbor on the roll. Is this is what you call a secure system? Don't answer, it was a rhetorical question. Even Schumer and many fellow democrats agreed until they learned that voter ID might hurt their turnout.

Face it LB, dems want no part of voter ID of any kind. Not even requiring the voter rolls to be cleaned of non citizens, dead people, and people who have moved. Otherwise they'd jump on board but ask that a few things are relaxed to make it easier.

How can you twist poll results that show a large majority of Democrats support voter ID into a misstatement that dems want NO PART of voter ID of ANY KIND?

That hardly frames the issue accurately as opposed to the Republican viewpoint that their elections are being stolen by (imaginary) massive fraud....because a pathologically lying sociopath told you so?

 

[TigerGrowls]

 

[baltimorened]

Do you think they'd be more or less accurate if we put the decisions on who to cull into a psychotic election denier's hands?

well, I have to admit, that was a really good answer to a question, but not the question I asked.

I think both of us agree that the voter rolls have people, I don't know how many, who are ineligible to vote on their rolls. I personally don't care who reviews them, but apparently to this point, if states have that responsibility, they have failed.

 

[JohnHughsPartner]

 

[UrHuckleberry]

It's funny because of all the fraud claims this one would be the easiest to prove, and yet it never is...

 

[Hotshoe]

You're saying that if a person moves from NY to FL they shouldn't have to register to vote in FL elections and that they should be allowed to continue voting in NY?

The 69 million women whose birth certificate doesn't match their driver's license is a red herring. That's true of almost every married woman in America. After you prove your citizenship and register to vote you don't get a new birth certificate with you married name. That's just dumb.

Half of the 29 million people who move are men whose name hasn't changed. Furthermore 75% of the people who move stay in the same state, most in the same county.

You've lost your mind

He's pushing nothing but liberal nonsense. 83% of Americans want this, but he knows better.

 

[Hotshoe]

It is for the 10s of millions of people who don't have access to their birth certificate or don't have a passport. They have to purchase a passport or purchase access to their birth certificate to register to vote.

That is a poll tax

Wow. Then how do they get a drivers license? You guys really are pathetic. These same people can't fly on a plane. 10's of millions don't have access to a birth certificate? Really? Who would those people be? You're simply making sh&t up. Everyone has access to their birth certificate. It's one of the easiest items to obtain. It $10-$20 bucks. You're like Biden saying Blacks don't have access to the Internet or understand it. More white liberal racism.

 

[Hotshoe]

Who said anything about abolishing the entire agency? Dems are asking for reasonable reforms, not ending ICE altogether.

Maybe they did work out things in the past but they didn't have the problems presented by this wrathful, deranged POTUS.

Trump says he won't sign any bills until SAVE America Act passes https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/do...-not-sign-bills-america-act-passes-rcna262336

Bullsh-t. AOC and the Squad have all called for the abolishment of ICE.

 

[tigres88]

Wow. Then how do they get a drivers license? You guys really are pathetic. These same people can't fly on a plane. 10's of millions don't have access to a birth certificate? Really? Who would those people be? You're simply making sh&t up. Everyone has access to their birth certificate. It's one of the easiest items to obtain. It $10-$20 bucks. You're like Biden saying Blacks don't have access to the Internet or understand it. More white liberal racism.

Well this was some inane incoherent ranting, complete with a tremendous amount of things that weren't relevant to the post you quoted. Good job!

 

[dpic73]

well, I have to admit, that was a really good answer to a question, but not the question I asked.

I think both of us agree that the voter rolls have people, I don't know how many, who are ineligible to vote on their rolls. I personally don't care who reviews them, but apparently to this point, if states have that responsibility, they have failed.

Ned, all states regularly cull their voter rolls but that doesn't mean that the rolls are perfectly updated at all times, nor does it mean that that if they missed some that means there is a lot of voter fraud. If you'd be honest with yourself you'd admit it would be a horrible idea to let Donald Trump and Steven Miller decide who gets to be removed. Just because a state isn't perfect does not mean a corrupt madman best known for his attempt to overturn a free and fair election would do it better. That's my point.

 

[dpic73]

Wow. Then how do they get a drivers license? You guys really are pathetic. These same people can't fly on a plane. 10's of millions don't have access to a birth certificate? Really? Who would those people be? You're simply making sh&t up. Everyone has access to their birth certificate. It's one of the easiest items to obtain. It $10-$20 bucks. You're like Biden saying Blacks don't have access to the Internet or understand it. More white liberal racism.

You can play dumb all you want but now you're arguing about a point no one is making. This is not about getting a driver's license, it's about a new Act that would require those that have moved or whose name doesn't match their birth certificate to bring a birth certificate or passport along with their marriage certificate(if it applies) to the registrar's office IN PERSON to get a new registration AND a new driver's license before they can vote.

So this means they may incur the cost of getting those documents, PLUS the cost of a new driver's license just to be able to vote, unlike any other year in our 250 year history, which means the NEW requirements are a poll tax. Not to mention the extra time and hassle required to get this done before November. And not because more than a handful of undocumented immigrants attempt to vote but because a treasonous, paranoid election denier wants to prevent more people from voting because he fears the American people will hold him accountable, and let's be clear, that's why you want it too.

 

[dpic73]

Bullsh-t. AOC and the Squad have all called for the abolishment of ICE.

LMFAO that you think the Squad represents all Democrats.

 

[baltimorened]

Ned, all states regularly cull their voter rolls but that doesn't mean that the rolls are perfectly updated at all times, nor does it mean that that if they missed some that means there is a lot of voter fraud. If you'd be honest with yourself you'd admit it would be a horrible idea to let Donald Trump and Steven Miller decide who gets to be removed. Just because a state isn't perfect does not mean a corrupt madman best known for his attempt to overturn a free and fair election would do it better. That's my point.

I personally don't believe either trump or miller would ever see the lists. They must have better things to do with their time.

I agree though that voter rolls are not perfect, and likely never will be. Similarly, I doubt if there has been an election in modern times that has had the outcome changed due to ineligible voters. And I believe that anyone who wants to get an ID to vote can get one, and I believe that the entire "married woman will be disinfranchised" is a BS argument and I believe that anyone who votes should have to show an photo ID.

Now having said all that, I don't know why either party is so hung up over this bill. We have far greater problems to deal with at the federal level. States are supposed to deal with elections, make/allow them

 

[LafayetteBear]

Face it LB, dems want no part of voter ID of any kind. Not even requiring the voter rolls to be cleaned of non citizens, dead people, and people who have moved. Otherwise they'd jump on board but ask that a few things are relaxed to make it easier.

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 ...

 

[LafayetteBear]

You're a joke if you think it would be safe for a state to turn their voter rolls over to this corrupt administration to be culled, especially when states already do it themselves. Just because you supported putting the inmates back in charge of the asylum again, doesn't obligate non-criminals to participate.

Where the hell have you been the last 6 years?

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.

 

[dpic73]

I personally don't believe either trump or miller would ever see the lists. They must have better things to do with their time.

I agree though that voter rolls are not perfect, and likely never will be. Similarly, I doubt if there has been an election in modern times that has had the outcome changed due to ineligible voters. And I believe that anyone who wants to get an ID to vote can get one, and I believe that the entire "married woman will be disinfranchised" is a BS argument and I believe that anyone who votes should have to show an photo ID.

Now having said all that, I don't know why either party is so hung up over this bill. We have far greater problems to deal with at the federal level. States are supposed to deal with elections, make/allow them

I'm tired of repeating it over and over so why don't you prove this won't be an issue for women, because the government certainly hasn't.

Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act (“SAVE Act”) (H.R. 8281)
One Pager
• The SAVE Act’s burdens are extreme—most Americans would be unable to register to
vote using their driver’s license or other state-provided identification alone.
o Millions of Americans, including tens of thousands in each congressional district,
would be prevented from registering to vote easily, if at all.
• The SAVE Act is a federal takeover of state election administration that would amend
the National Voter Registration Act to mandate states require Americans to provide
documentary proof of citizenship (“DPOC”) to register to vote in federal elections.
o These provisions will apply to all new registrants across the United States—
including already-registered voters who update their registration as the result of a
move, a name change, or a party switch.
• Americans would not be able to register to vote with their driver’s license—REAL IDs
do not meet the SAVE Act’s requirements of showing a holder’s citizenship, and noncitizens are legally permitted to have REAL IDs.
o Americans would not be able to use military IDs or Tribal IDs alone when
registering to vote.
o People who have changed their names, including millions of married women,
would not be allowed to use their birth certificates when proving their citizenship.
• The SAVE Act would disallow states from accepting the NVRA’s mail voter registration
application unless the applicant presents DPOC in person at the office of an appropriate
election official.
o The SAVE Act would essentially gut mail and online voter registration.
• The SAVE Act would require individuals to bring DPOC to vote if they live in a state with
same-day voter registration and intend on both registering to vote and casting a ballot at
the same time.
o This would pose a significant burden to many voters, most of whom do not show
up to their polling places with their passports or birth certificates.
• The SAVE Act would lead to purges of eligible voters based on faulty sources of
citizenship information, including certain state agency databases that may contain
unreliable citizenship data.
• The SAVE Act would require the heads of federal agencies to respond to citizenship
data about voters to state governments—which could number in the thousands—
within 24 hours.
o Given the extremely short turnaround time, this process would undoubtably be rife
with flaws and significantly overburden already-taxed federal agencies.
• The SAVE Act would subject election officials to hefty criminal fines and up to five years
in federal prison for simple mistakes.
o These criminal penalties would also apply to any executive branch employee who
provides undefined and overboard “material assistance” to any noncitizen who is attempting to register to vote.

https://democrats-cha.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/democrats-cha.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/SAVE%20Act%20One%20Pager.pdf