The bill aimed at saving America from rigged elections finally goes to the Senate floor on Tuesday, but its fate appears doomed before it gets there.
While Senate Republican leaders say the process will allow plenty of time for talking, the “talking filibuster” is dead on arrival — and so ultimately is the SAVE America Act. A former congressman and White House Chief of Staff told The Federalist that the alleged support by some Senate Republicans is “disingenuous at best.”
A Capitol Hill source familiar with the floor plan told The Federalist that on Tuesday afternoon the Senate will proceed with a motion on the House-passed Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) America Act. Because it was sent over as a message from the House the bill is considered a priority, which allows debate on the bill to begin with a simple majority vote.
That’s where simple ends.
‘Robust Debate’
Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., has promised a “robust debate” on the package, which requires documentary proof of U.S. citizenship to be eligible to register to vote in federal elections and photo ID to cast a ballot. The idea is to make Democrats explain why they refuse to support the extraordinarily popular election-integrity bill.
“[Democrats] will be forced to defend their outrageous positions on these issues – and explain to the American people why common sense and the Democratic Party have parted ways,” Thune said last week.
The Capitol insider told The Federalist that Republicans will have control over the amendment process, which will allow the majority to push President Donald Trump’s requested additions. Trump wants to include provisions banning corruptible mail-in ballots (with some exceptions), barring men pretending to be women from competing in women’s sports, and ending so-called “gender-affirming” procedures on children.
There will be a kind of “One Big Beautiful” amendment and stand-alone amendments, the Capitol Hill source told The Federalist. Leadership expects the “robust debate” to take seven to ten days, she said. But after all is said and done, the proposed amendments and the final bill will still require 60 senators to sign off on a cloture vote, unless Democrats have a sudden and unthinkable change of mind.
But at least election security-hating liberals will “be on the record with their extreme views, which is important for Americans to see,” the insider said.
It’s one big copout, avoidance politics, according to critics of the GOP-controlled Senate’s show.
Multiple sources who have spoken to The Federalist said Thune is running cover for RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) who don’t support the SAVE America Act, don’t want to go through the work of a talking filibuster, or both. Thune said there is no appetite in his conference to “nuke the filibuster,” the 60-vote rule to end debate on a bill.
That’s a distraction, critics said.
‘It’s Lacking Political Will’
“The talking filibuster does not nuke the filibuster process,” Mark Meadows, former White House Chief of Staff for Trump in his first term, said Tuesday in a brief interview with The Federalist. “It doesn’t require a change of rules, it just requires you to exercise the rules that have been longstanding and available to the Senate for decades.”
A talking filibuster would more than likely require a lot more time and energy than the limited debate now in the works. Under a talking, or standing, filibuster, Democrats would have to hold the floor to stave off a simple majority vote on the legislation. The Dems could eat up a lot of time talking about why they don’t support preventing noncitizens — including illegal immigrants — from voting in U.S. elections. Eventually, proponents of the talking filibuster assert, the election integrity deniers would run out of time and the will to stop the SAVE America Act’s passage, with a simple majority.
Meadows last week fired out a list of 25 Republican senators that he claims do not support the SAVE America Act, despite their posturing. The list includes the usual Trump haters, former Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Alaska’s ultimate RINO Lisa Murkowski. It also includes the likes of John Barrasso of Wyoming, Arkansas Sens. John Boozman and Tom Cotton, war super fan Lindsey Graham, Jim Justice of West Virginia, and stalwart conservative Charles Grassley.
“The SAVE America Act isn’t lacking public support. It’s lacking political will,” Meadows wrote on X earlier this month. “Put it on the floor. Force the standing filibuster. Save America.”
Meadows released a separate list of GOP senators that he asserts are all-in on the election-integrity bill. No surprises here. The list includes senators like Mike Lee of Utah, lead sponsor of and ardent fighter for the SAVE America Act, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Jim Banks of Indiana, Ted Cruz of Texas, and Bill Hagerty of Tennessee.
Meadows promised to keep posting the whip count “so America knows which senators are supportive of passing the SAVE America Act via standing filibuster.”
‘We Should Pass It’
The Federalist reached out to the offices of all of the Republican senators who made Meadows’ naughty list. Seven responded to the following questions:
Does the Senator support the bill?
Does he support the “talking filibuster” effort to pass the bill?
If so, what is he doing to encourage his colleagues to pass a bill supported by the vast majority of his constituents — Republicans, independents, and Democrats alike?
Thune’s office pointed to the majority leader’s floor speech last week in which he reiterated his support for the SAVE America Act.
Grassley’s spokeswoman noted the Iowa senator is a cosponsor of the SAVE America Act and a longtime supporter of voter ID. He led the push for USCIS to verify voters’ eligibility in Iowa ahead of the 2024 elections, she added. Grassley is expected to deliver a floor speech Tuesday afternoon on “the importance of the SAVE America Act.”
A spokeswoman for Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W. Va., said the lawmaker supports the SAVE America Act and will be sharing her opinions at Tuesday’s weekly Senate GOP Leadership press conference.
A representative from Sen. James Lankford’s office said the Oklahoma Republican “remains committed to supporting the bill on the Senate floor and will invite colleagues to join him throughout the week to speak directly to the American people about why this legislation is important to strengthen confidence in our elections and ensure the results can be trusted and verified.”
Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kan., told The Federalist that he has long supported voter ID requirements.
“…[W]hich is why I cosponsored the SAVE America Act to make certain only U.S. citizens are voting in federal elections,” the Kansas Republican said in an email.
Most of those responding to The Federalist’s request for comment, however, didn’t answer the talking filibuster question.
Sen. Pete Ricketts’ office pointed to the Nebraska Republican’s past comments supporting the talking filibuster.
Sen. Tim Scott’s office pointed to the South Carolina Republican’s recent appearance on CNBC’s Squawk Box.
“When the vast majority of every demographic in this country comes to the same conclusion, that the SAVE America Act should be passed, we should pass it,” Scott said. While he added that he thought the talking filibuster would “improve comity,” he didn’t definitively state his support for the strategy.
‘Tired of Excuses’
The Senate’s No. 2, John Barrasso, R-Wyo., has routinely spoken of his support as a co-sponsor of the bill. On Monday, the Senate Majority Whip told reporters he was “doing everything to make sure we get on this bill tomorrow.” Is he?
In a recent letter to the Cap City News, a Cheyenne resident wrote that he believes Barrasso is “clearly is running a subterfuge against the act and not supporting secure elections that require photo identification with proof of citizenship to vote.”
“He is the Senate Whip and is not pushing for a talking filibuster to break through the 60-vote cloture rule,” Stephen Jacobson asserts in the letter to the Cheyenne newspaper.
Asked earlier this month by Fox News’ Maria Bartiromo whether he supported using the talking filibuster to get the SAVE America Act past, Barrasso said, “That’s one way to do it.”
That’s not an answer that inspires a good deal of confidence in Meadows and others critical of what they see as Senate majority leadership’s lackluster shepherding of the critical election security bill.
“Saying you are supportive of the SAVE America Act but not supporting the process to get it to the president’s desk is at best disingenuous,” Meadows said. “The American people are tired of excuses.”
Matt Kittle is a senior elections correspondent for The Federalist. An award-winning investigative reporter and 30-year veteran of print, broadcast, and online journalism, Kittle previously served as the executive director of Empower Wisconsin.
