reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker argues that Democrats have been inconsistent on voter ID, particularly photo ID. He notes that for years Democrats claimed voter ID was a tool of voter suppression, then began hedging. He contends that Democrats now publicly say they support voter ID, with some leaders claiming their objection is not to a photo ID, but to other inclusivity formats like leases, utility bills, debit cards, or photocopies. He asserts that, in contrast, the Democrat floor leader said he objected to photo ID and called for inclusive voter ID options, but that Democrats have also supported photo ID in many other contexts (air travel, school enrollment, opening bank accounts). He argues this inconsistency shows Democrats “backpedaling” when pressed to support ID at the polls. The speaker cites severalDemocrats who have, at times, supported or stated favorable views toward voter ID, yet later qualified or avoided the position. He mentions a senior Democrat from New Jersey who said he would support a voter ID bill until pressed, then began avoiding the commitment. He references a junior Georgia Democrat who claimed, “I think you should have to prove that you are who you say you are before you vote. I support voter ID,” while also noting concerns about the specific requirements under discussion. He also quotes additional Democrats to illustrate what he sees as mixed messages: a Democrat from Arizona suggesting support for a strict voter ID approach; a Democrat from Rhode Island describing their state’s “sensible voter ID law” and frequent roll reviews as effective; the Democrat Senate leader stating that “Democrats support voter ID” ten days earlier; and a Georgia Democrat reiterating the expectation to prove one’s identity before voting and describing it as “basic.” The speaker announces an amendment vote on a clean voter ID bill, intended to require a photo ID at the polls, such as a driver’s license, tribal ID, military ID, veteran ID, or a passport. He clarifies that this amendment would not affect the Save America Act and would not obligate Democrats to vote for the final bill; they could vote for the amendment and against the overall act. The amendment’s purpose, he says, is to force Democrats to demonstrate whether they truly support photo ID in a concrete, real-world form. The speaker invites Democrats to demonstrate their actual stance by supporting the clean photo ID amendment and asserts that this would reveal where they truly stand.

The SAVE Act, requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration, passed the House with every Republican and four Democrats voting for it, while 98% of Democrats voted against it, despite 84% of Americans supporting voter ID. One argument against voter ID is that it suppresses voting among elderly, poor, and minority groups, echoing post-slavery laws. Obtaining a valid ID can cost $10-$30, and updating documents or traveling to ID offices can be inconvenient. Recently, it was revealed that Social Security numbers were given to millions of illegal immigrants, and thousands of them were found on voter rolls and had voted. While voter ID has cons, the pros outweigh them. Subsidizing IDs for low-income people and acknowledging that voting is a shared inconvenience for all citizens could be solutions. The opposition to voter ID may stem from partisan politics, but politicians should prioritize the will of the people over party loyalty.

Speaker 1 discusses Christopher Krebs, former head of CISA, claiming: Krebs weaponized his position against free speech in the election context and in the context of the COVID-19 presidential memorandum, and that he might have instructed the Department of Justice and other parts of government to investigate what Krebs participated in while head of CISA. Speaker 1 asserts they did not know Krebs personally, but that he came out right after the election, which was a “rigged election, badly rigged election.” He claims the country’s outcomes included open borders and millions entering the country, and asserts that “Russia and Ukraine, that would have never happened,” and that “October 7 would have never happened,” followed by the Afghanistan withdrawal with “13 dead, but so many killed, actually. I mean, so many so many killed outside of the 13 soldiers, hundreds of people killed.” He says, “and maybe, I don’t know, never,” but mentions it, that Krebs was saying the election was great, adding that “it’s been proven that it was not only not great.” He cites lawyers and law firms signing on, “giving us hundreds of millions of dollars,” and claims the election was proven by legislatures not approving, and other forms from “the all of the different, scamming operations,” describing it as a very corrupt election in which COVID was used to cheat. Speaker 1 contends Krebs claimed, “we’ve proved this is the most secure election in the history of our country,” describing the result as a disaster. He insists they should adopt “paper ballots, same day voting, voter ID,” and proposes adding a certificate showing citizenship before voting—“a citizen piece of paper that says you’re a citizen before you can vote.” He reiterates support for voter ID, paper ballots, and same-day voting. He describes events: if you don’t have same-day voting, they change the air, move boxes, and then don’t bring the boxes back, implying a lack of safety in elections. He asserts that elections must have borders and, ideally, a free press, which he claims we do not have, calling the press dishonest. Speaker 1 concludes that Krebs is a “fraud” and a “disgrace,” and says, “We’ll find out whether or not he was right,” promising that Krebs “has a big price to pay” if the election wasn’t safe, labeling Krebs as “a bad guy.” He also states he has no idea who Krebs is, though acknowledges Krebs “was in the room at some point,” and ends by noting that the last two points are important for the country.

Efforts to prevent noncitizens from voting are gaining attention, despite it being rare. Only American citizens should vote, and in Georgia, a 100% citizenship verification process revealed that about 1,600 attempted registrations could not verify citizenship and were excluded from voter rolls. A recent court case, initiated by a coalition including Stacey Abrams' New Georgia Project, upheld the right to conduct citizenship verification before adding individuals to the voter rolls. This ruling sets a precedent for other states. All officials emphasize their commitment to ensuring only U.S. citizens vote, adhering to federal laws and state regulations. It's crucial for states to enshrine this in their constitutions, as Georgia has done.

The claim is that 69 million married women won't be able to vote if they took their husband's name, disenfranchising voters. Voters want ID, signature verification, chain of custody controls, and updated voter rolls. They also want partisan observers watching the voting process. The only reason to be against these measures is if you want illegal aliens to vote in large numbers. Every other country requires an ID to vote. The idea that married women, a Republican voting demographic, can't get ID is a dumb talking point. The REAL ID Act creates an ID at the DMV that proves citizenship. Democrats want illegal aliens to vote. The Biden administration gave millions of illegal aliens Social Security numbers, making it easy to vote, collect welfare, and get free government benefits. They want illegals to steal elections.

Speaker 0 discusses the likelihood of achieving 60 votes and questions whether the situation is merely a show. He acknowledges uncertainty, noting, “We don't know that we don't have 60 votes yet,” and counters the assumption that there aren’t even 51 votes by saying, “Multiple members of your conference say that there aren't even 51 votes.” He cautions against assuming Democrats won’t be won over, stating, “you're making an assumption that at the end of this debate that none of the Democrats will be won over,” but he also concedes the possibility that none will be won over. Despite the uncertainty, he argues that the debate on the floor of the Senate is important and that the issue is at the core of elections in the United States. He asserts that the American people care about this issue and that constituents have raised it frequently, making it a significant topic to discuss publicly. He believes it is important to have the fight and the debate, regardless of how it ends. A central point he emphasizes is the defense of the position requiring citizenship to participate in voting processes. He states, “at the end of the day, I just don't know how you defend a position that you need to be a citizen in this country, not only to register a vote, but also to be able to show an ID when you vote.” He wonders how long Democrats will defend that position and reiterates the possibility that none of them will be won over. Nevertheless, he reiterates the value of the Senate floor debate, indicating that the process itself is important.

This proposal is a serious matter. People who register and vote illegally disenfranchise actual US citizens. The speaker objects to the suggestion that their motive is to disingenuously sow fear and uncertainty about election legitimacy, calling the accusation inaccurate and lacking proof. The speaker believes there is ample reason to bring the proposal forward and expresses deep disappointment that it cannot pass. It is not too much to ask to put teeth into existing laws stating that only US citizens can vote in US elections. The House passed it, and the Senate could pass it now. It is inexcusable not to.

Voter ID laws are a vestige of post-slavery laws where Black people had to prove their right to vote, often failing due to tests or lack of appropriate ID. These laws also affect married women whose passports may differ from their birth certificates or driver's licenses. Less voter ID laws allows more people to vote, which is how most democracies operate, unlike the United States.

We are committed to ensuring that only U.S. citizens participate in elections, and so far, there is no evidence of noncitizen voting. However, there have been instances where noncitizens voted; this year, 135 were identified as having voted, with another 400 registered but not yet voting. Just because something is illegal doesn't mean we shouldn't have measures in place to prevent it, similar to how we maintain TSA for air travel security.

Mail-in ballots pose significant issues. Voter ID requirements are also contentious, with arguments against them often lacking clarity. It's perplexing why some oppose having ID, especially since it's required for many everyday activities, like obtaining a driver's license. Recently, Gavin Newsom signed a bill prohibiting inquiries about voter ID, raising questions about the rationale behind such a decision. In contrast, organizations like the Democratic National Convention require extensive identification for their events. If ID is necessary for various transactions, why not for voting, which is crucial? Many citizens, including Democrats, support voter ID, but some politicians resist it, possibly to maintain opportunities for fraud. Ultimately, the lack of voter ID raises concerns about the integrity of elections.

Speaker 1 outlines a plan to revisit all 50 states and 'clean up voter rolls' and 'ensure as best they can that people are citizens when they're registering to vote in a federal election.' He notes letters have been sent to states under two statutes: 'Help America Vote Act' and 'NVRA, National Voter Registration Act.' States must maintain data, keep rules up to date, and have procedures for federal registrations to safeguard citizenship. He says many states are 'sloppy, cutting corners, not doing this, certainly not doing the list maintenance required,' and not properly ensuring people are on the rolls. The goal is that 'every citizen, whatever their party, whatever their views are, they should feel confident in the outcome of the election.'

It is against the law for noncitizens to vote in federal elections. However, some states are not requiring proof of citizenship when noncitizens register to vote. Governor Glenn Youngkin in Virginia issued an executive order to clean up voting rules. The Biden administration's Department of Justice sued the governor and the Commonwealth of Virginia to try to prevent them from cleaning up their voter rolls. This creates doubt and concern because everyone should want the law to be followed.

There are concerns about noncitizens potentially voting in elections due to lack of citizenship verification. Democrats oppose a bill requiring proof of citizenship to vote. Loopholes exist, allowing noncitizens to vote without consequences. Democrats are accused of exploiting this for political gain. The issue is seen as election interference and a threat to American voters. The conversation highlights the impact of illegal voting on citizens' rights.

My colleagues claim that common sense voting laws, like requiring a government ID, are racist. I have multiple government IDs, showing personal responsibility. I have a global entry card, military ID, Texas driver's license, license to carry, congressional card, and passport. Obtaining these IDs is not impossible, it's personal responsibility. I fought for this country as a helicopter pilot to protect free and fair elections. Having a government ID is not racist, it's American. Translation: My colleagues argue that basic voting laws, such as needing a government ID, are discriminatory. I have various government IDs, demonstrating personal responsibility. I possess a global entry card, military ID, Texas driver's license, license to carry, congressional card, and passport. Acquiring these IDs is not impossible, it's about personal responsibility. I served as a helicopter pilot to defend free and fair elections. Having a government ID is not discriminatory, it's American.

It is against the law for noncitizens to vote in federal elections. However, some states do not require proof of citizenship when noncitizens register to vote. Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin issued an executive order to clean up the state's voting rules. The Biden-Harris administration Department of Justice sued the governor and the Commonwealth of Virginia to prevent them from cleaning up their voter rolls. This creates doubt and concern in the minds of many Americans.

A crowd gathered at the Saint Paul Armory after the governor signed a measure making driver's licenses available broadly, described as “driver’s licenses for all,” effectively serving as a photo ID for all residents, regardless of citizenship. The discussion then centers on how these licenses interact with voting and registration processes. One speaker notes that if someone comes in with a driver’s license, they would receive a photo ID and register accordingly, even if their social security number is incorrect or missing. The concern raised is whether that person, after obtaining a driver’s license, could then cast a vote despite incomplete registration information. The dialogue explores the potential for a non-citizen who possesses a driver’s license to participate in elections. In response, another participant—referred to as the chair—addresses the procedure for handling incomplete registrations. The chair explains that the designation on the roster for someone whose registration is incomplete can be resolved if the person presents an acceptable identification document. In such a case, the challenge from the roster would be cleared, and the individual would be permitted to cast a ballot. A subsequent aside acknowledges the potential problem inherent in this approach, with a speaker named Anderson prompting clarification. The core question remains: could a person who is not a citizen, but who presents a driver’s license at the voting point, be permitted to vote? The chair provides a definitive statement regarding eligibility: at both the time of registration and at the time of submitting a ballot, every voter signs an attestation affirming their eligibility to vote, including that they meet all eligibility requirements that they are a US citizen. This underscores the requirement that, despite the availability of driver’s licenses to a broad population, the attestation of citizenship remains a binding condition for voting. The exchange highlights a tension between broad ID access and the constitutional requirement of citizenship for voting, with the chair reiterating that citizenship is required to vote, even if driver’s licenses are issued more inclusively.

Speaker 0: President Trump is urging Congress to pass the Save America Act, describing it as one of the most critical pieces of legislation in our nation's history. He asserts the Save America Act is overwhelmingly popular with all Americans because each provision is rooted in common sense, and outlines five simple requirements as requested by the president of the United States. 1) Voters have to show ID to cast a ballot in an American election. He states this is very simple and notes that 90% of Americans, including more than 80% of Democrat voters, agree with this. 2) The Save America Act will require all voters to show proof of citizenship in order to register to vote. He asserts this is popular and rooted in common sense, insisting that only American citizens have the right to vote in American elections. He claims that after Joe Biden and the Democrats allowed tens of millions of illegal aliens into the country, it is more important than ever to ensure that only American citizens are registering to vote on our nation's voter rolls, and he calls on Congress to pass this. 3) The Save America Act abolishes the incongruously unsecure practice of universal mail-in ballots, which he says "throw the door wide open for fraud." He notes that the act maintains exceptions for Americans to use mail-in ballots for illness, disability, military, or travel reasons. He references the bipartisan 2005 report of the Commission on Federal Election Reform, chaired by former president Jimmy Carter and former secretary of state James Baker, which concluded that absentee ballots remain the largest source of potential voter fraud and that Congress should address this. 4) The Save America Act permanently bans men from competing in women's sports. He notes that President Trump signed a landmark executive order upholding the promise of Title IX and ending this practice, and argues that now it’s time for Congress to codify this into law. 5) The Save America Act bans transgender mutilation surgery for children. He states that the president signed a common-sense executive order to do this and kept his promise to the American people, but now Congress needs to codify it. He asserts it is well past time for Democrats in Congress to stop perpetuating the radical and false claim that you can somehow change a child's sex, stating that you cannot. He concludes by saying passing the Save America Act is the most important thing Republicans—and frankly Democrats—can do to strengthen election integrity and protect democracy. He asserts it is what the American people elected Republicans to do and that they must deliver on it as soon as possible. The president calls on Congress to get the job done and send this historic piece of legislation to his desk immediately for signature.

The Senator believes the Save Act, requiring proof of citizenship for federal election voting, must come up for a vote in the House and Senate, ideally attached to the next spending bill in September. He claims 3 out of 4 Americans agree only US citizens should vote in federal elections and should prove citizenship when registering, similar to the I-9 form for new jobs. The Senator hopes Mike Johnson will attach the Save Act to a continuing resolution to highlight the contrast between parties. He questions whether Chuck Schumer would risk a government shutdown to allow non-citizens, including 10 million illegal immigrants, to potentially influence the election outcome.

The speakers claim that noncitizens could sway elections if even a small percentage voted, alleging it's easy for them to register. They say there are no federal requirements for states to verify citizenship before voter registration. A proposed Republican bill to mandate proof of citizenship is expected to fail in the Senate. They cite Title 18 US Code 611, stating noncitizens can vote in federal elections if they reasonably believed they were citizens. They suggest that migrants granted asylum could claim they thought they could vote, avoiding penalties. They claim states like New York allow voter registration without ID or a Social Security number, only requiring a utility bill or similar document. One speaker alleges Democrats are working to conceal the number of illegal votes cast. They argue that providing noncitizens with benefits and pressuring them to register to vote is a deliberate strategy to gain illegal votes. They suggest a scenario where Chinese nationals could register and vote for Biden to avoid Trump's tariffs, calling it election interference. They conclude that illegal votes disenfranchise citizens and that Democrats prefer noncitizens over US citizens.

The speaker states that there is no dispute: the conduct of our elections, the way government comes into power, is a national security issue, and the security of our elections is incredibly important. The speaker says they are comforted as a citizen and as someone at the Department of Justice by the fact that national security eyes are on this, as well as criminal and civil rights review. They add that, at the end of the day, as a voter themselves and someone involved in politics before taking the job, they like every citizen to vote. They note that a lot of people don’t vote, don’t have confidence, and don’t care. It is important that people have confidence in, accept the outcome of the elections, and also be more likely to vote. The speaker concludes that this is a very good thing, whoever they’re voting for.

In California and New York, it is illegal to ask for or show ID when people vote. According to the speakers, there is no logical reason for this law other than to facilitate election fraud. To commit fraud, one would eliminate the need for ID and allow mail-in ballots.

Some believe that many millennials, dreamers, and undocumented people, who contribute to the country, are fearful of voting because they worry immigration will find them and deport their families. One speaker claims that this is untrue because voting is confidential and voting rolls are not transferred for investigation. Another speaker expresses disbelief, stating that the President is questioning whether an illegal person is voting, and reminding people that only citizens can vote. The speaker believes the President is saying not to worry about being caught for illegal voting. The speaker emphasizes that undocumented people cannot vote because they are not citizens.

The first speaker describes a scenario in which a person can obtain a driver’s license again because licenses are issued broadly to those who register to vote. If the individual’s Social Security number does not match, they are flagged, but as long as they present an ID (the driver’s license) and sign that they are eligible to vote, they can vote and are no longer flagged, remaining in the system. Mister Lanell then responds by clarifying the process. He says that for anyone presenting documentation to register to vote, that documentation serves as affirmation of their identity. He notes that the driver’s license has not been used as proof of citizenship for the purposes of registering to vote; rather, it affirms that the person is who they say they are. He adds that in any case where someone were to cast a ballot, if they were ineligible to vote, there are reports generated post-election for voters who are challenged. Counties run these reports to show the status of voters that had been updated due to having cast a ballot, and these reports can be reviewed and referred to the county attorney. The first speaker concludes by restating the original question and provides a direct answer: the answer is yes to their question.

The speaker expresses shock at the idea of allowing people to vote without an ID. They mention that some people believe all Indians and Chinese look alike, making it difficult to identify individuals. They argue that anyone could show up and vote, even pretending to be someone else. The speaker believes that having an ID should be a basic requirement for voting and suggests that everyone should be required to provide identification.