From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

They're now saying the quiet part out loud: Senator Elissa Slotkin of Michigan said in a speech before supporters that stopping the SAVE Act is essential because a law requiring ID to vote would make it impossible for Democrats to win elections.


https://www.foxnews.com/politics/elissa-slotkin-says-save-america-act-would-make-hard-democrat-win-elections


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

On 2026-08-07 10:44 p.m., BTR1701 wrote:

They're now saying the quiet part out loud: Senator Elissa Slotkin of Michigan
said in a speech before supporters that stopping the SAVE Act is essential because a law requiring ID to vote would make it impossible for Democrats to win elections.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/elissa-slotkin-says-save-america-act-would-make-hard-democrat-win-elections

The headline on that article says the SAVE Act was defeated 50-48. If
that was the final vote, she must be doing a happy dance....
--
Rhino
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

They're now saying the quiet part out loud: Senator Elissa Slotkin of >Michigan said in a speech before supporters that stopping the SAVE Act
is essential because a law requiring ID to vote would make it
impossible for Democrats to win elections.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/elissa-slotkin-says-save-america-act-would-make-hard-democrat-win-elections

Will you please to ghod stop trolling me with this crap? She doesn't understand, but you do and have no excuse. You of all people know it
violates federalism. Motor Voter probably violates federalism too but in
states that didn't implement it in their electionn code, it expands
voter registration methods but forces counties to provide federal-only
ballots.

Motor Voter is active voter registration when applying for a driver's
license or various Social Security programs like Medicaid in which the
home address and SSN get verified. I always opt out at the driver's
services department.

My state, which had passive voter registration refused to amend its
eolection code for several years and yes, we had the bullshit of
federal-only ballots for a time. The Republican Party held out,
stupidly. You know who was affected? Drivers at downstate driver's
services public offices as they served multiple counties. Passive voter registration could be offered only if the employee was a deputy
registrar. Both registrar and applicant had to live in the same county
because the law wasn't flexible enough to allow a state employee to
register someone to vote regardless of county. Show up on the wrong day
and the office wouldn't have had the right employee available.

This hurt white people likely to vote Republican because the Party
thought this would make it too easy for blacks to register. In a city, registrars went door-to-door. When I was a precinct commmitteeman, I was
also a deputy registrar and offered to register anyone I met who wasn't
on the rolls.

You know who is likely to vote by mail? An older if not elderly rural
voter for whom travel to the polling place is a signifiicant distance
away. Again, a likely Republican voter.

Who is going to have a passport? Not a rural voter. Not a Southern
Baptist. Your overeducated college graduate living in New York for whom
liberal arts education included Communist indoctrination.

These would be the very people you despise who would become
overrepresented in the electorate.

In post after post, I have explained how Motor Voter could be modernized
to incorporate vital statistics records liie birth certificates which
are largely computerized these days and readily looked up. Well, there's
your citizenshipship and it's better than a driver's license or REAL ID.

You've gotten it so wrong it's ridiculous. You know better.

In states requiring ID to vote, no one can point to a single election
with a differet outcome. This will always be a bullshit issue.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

On Aug 8, 2026 at 6:01:59 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

They're now saying the quiet part out loud: Senator Elissa Slotkin of
Michigan said in a speech before supporters that stopping the SAVE Act
is essential because a law requiring ID to vote would make it
impossible for Democrats to win elections.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/elissa-slotkin-says-save-america-act-would-make-hard-democrat-win-elections

Will you please to ghod stop trolling me with this crap? She doesn't understand, but you do and have no excuse. You of all people know it
violates federalism.

That ship sailed long ago. Of all the intrusions on federalism we've had to endure (and continue to have to endure) this would be extremely minor.


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

On Aug 8, 2026 at 6:01:59 AM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote: >>BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

They're now saying the quiet part out loud: Senator Elissa Slotkin of >>>Michigan said in a speech before supporters that stopping the SAVE Act
is essential because a law requiring ID to vote would make it
impossible for Democrats to win elections.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/elissa-slotkin-says-save-america-act-would-make-hard-democrat-win-elections

Will you please to ghod stop trolling me with this crap? She doesn't >>understand, but you do and have no excuse. You of all people know it >>violates federalism.

That ship sailed long ago. Of all the intrusions on federalism we've had to >endure (and continue to have to endure) this would be extremely minor.

All I have to win this argument is point out that federalism is alive
and well with the Second Amendment. There are enough important cases in
lower courts to become landmark cases in which the Supreme Court will
find unconstitutional nearly every state law regulating gun ownership
lver the next three terms.

And they won't make a single American do any militia training to
exercise his right to bear arms.

Are you going to address how the idiocy of the SAVE Act would hurt
likely Republican voters or ignore that because it's inconvenient? And
ignore that state voter ID to vote laws didn't change any election
outcomes?
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

On Aug 8, 2026 at 5:23:07 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

On Aug 8, 2026 at 6:01:59 AM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

They're now saying the quiet part out loud: Senator Elissa Slotkin of
Michigan said in a speech before supporters that stopping the SAVE Act >>>> is essential because a law requiring ID to vote would make it
impossible for Democrats to win elections.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/elissa-slotkin-says-save-america-act-would-make-hard-democrat-win-elections

Will you please to ghod stop trolling me with this crap? She doesn't
understand, but you do and have no excuse. You of all people know it
violates federalism.

That ship sailed long ago. Of all the intrusions on federalism we've had to >> endure (and continue to have to endure) this would be extremely minor.

All I have to win this argument is point out that federalism is alive
and well with the Second Amendment. There are enough important cases in
lower courts to become landmark cases in which the Supreme Court will
find unconstitutional nearly every state law regulating gun ownership
lver the next three terms.

And they won't make a single American do any militia training to
exercise his right to bear arms.

Are you going to address how the idiocy of the SAVE Act would hurt
likely Republican voters or ignore that because it's inconvenient? And
ignore that state voter ID to vote laws didn't change any election
outcomes?

That would be grossly outweighed by shutting down the ballot harvesting
machine here in California.


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

On Aug 8, 2026 at 5:23:07 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

. ..

Are you going to address how the idiocy of the SAVE Act would hurt
likely Republican voters or ignore that because it's inconvenient? And >>ignore that state voter ID to vote laws didn't change any election >>outcomes?

That would be grossly outweighed by shutting down the ballot harvesting >machine here in California.

My state has a practical election code with respect to absentee voting.
We do not distribute ballot blanks except upon request for the oobvious
fraud implications.

Despite our superior election code, my state's voters do not demand good government generally.

California won the race to the bottom in elections. Your voters must
decide for themselves to climb out of the very deep hole. The federal government cannot bail you out. Your voters showing ID to vote still
won't demand good government, unless they decide to demand good
government. No law makes STOOPID unconstitutional.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

On Aug 9, 2026 at 7:51:54 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

On Aug 8, 2026 at 5:23:07 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

. ..

Are you going to address how the idiocy of the SAVE Act would hurt
likely Republican voters or ignore that because it's inconvenient? And
ignore that state voter ID to vote laws didn't change any election
outcomes?

That would be grossly outweighed by shutting down the ballot harvesting
machine here in California.

My state has a practical election code with respect to absentee voting.
We do not distribute ballot blanks except upon request for the oobvious
fraud implications.

Despite our superior election code, my state's voters do not demand good government generally.

California won the race to the bottom in elections. Your voters must
decide for themselves to climb out of the very deep hole. The federal government cannot bail you out. Your voters showing ID to vote still
won't demand good government, unless they decide to demand good
government. No law makes STOOPID unconstitutional.

Well, we have our own voter ID initiative on the ballot this fall-- much to
the consternation of the reptiles in Sacramento-- and since it polls at 75%+ among both Republicans and Democrats, hopefully we won't have to rely on the federal government.


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

On Aug 9, 2026 at 7:51:54 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

On Aug 8, 2026 at 5:23:07 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

. ..

Are you going to address how the idiocy of the SAVE Act would hurt
likely Republican voters or ignore that because it's inconvenient? And >>>> ignore that state voter ID to vote laws didn't change any election
outcomes?

That would be grossly outweighed by shutting down the ballot harvesting
machine here in California.

My state has a practical election code with respect to absentee voting.
We do not distribute ballot blanks except upon request for the oobvious
fraud implications.

Despite our superior election code, my state's voters do not demand good
government generally.

California won the race to the bottom in elections. Your voters must
decide for themselves to climb out of the very deep hole. The federal
government cannot bail you out. Your voters showing ID to vote still
won't demand good government, unless they decide to demand good
government. No law makes STOOPID unconstitutional.

Well, we have our own voter ID initiative on the ballot this fall-- much to >the consternation of the reptiles in Sacramento-- and since it polls at 75%+ >among both Republicans and Democrats, hopefully we won't have to rely on the >federal government.

Jesus. Your fraud problem has little to do with voting fraud at the
polls but universal distribution of ballot blanks, which no other state
did during COVID.

Perfect California solution, ignoring the problem that does exist,
addressing the problem tht does not exist.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

On Aug 9, 2026 at 11:54:50 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

On Aug 9, 2026 at 7:51:54 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote: >>

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

On Aug 8, 2026 at 5:23:07 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote: >>>

. ..

Are you going to address how the idiocy of the SAVE Act would hurt
likely Republican voters or ignore that because it's inconvenient? And >>>>> ignore that state voter ID to vote laws didn't change any election
outcomes?

That would be grossly outweighed by shutting down the ballot harvesting >>>> machine here in California.

My state has a practical election code with respect to absentee voting. >>> We do not distribute ballot blanks except upon request for the oobvious >>> fraud implications.

Despite our superior election code, my state's voters do not demand good >>> government generally.

California won the race to the bottom in elections. Your voters must
decide for themselves to climb out of the very deep hole. The federal
government cannot bail you out. Your voters showing ID to vote still
won't demand good government, unless they decide to demand good
government. No law makes STOOPID unconstitutional.

Well, we have our own voter ID initiative on the ballot this fall-- much to >> the consternation of the reptiles in Sacramento-- and since it polls at 75%+ >> among both Republicans and Democrats, hopefully we won't have to rely on the >> federal government.

Jesus. Your fraud problem has little to do with voting fraud at the
polls but universal distribution of ballot blanks, which no other state
did during COVID.

Perfect California solution, ignoring the problem that does exist,
addressing the problem tht does not exist.

Proposition 39, an initiated amendment to the Constitution of the State of California:

SECTION 1. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES

To enforce existing voter qualifications, including US citizenship,
established by California's Constitution, the people hereby amend the California Constitution: (A) to promote public confidence and trust in the electoral process, which encourages civic participation and supports a healthy democracy; (B) to deter and detect voter fraud by maintaining accurate voter registration records and confirming eligibility to vote; and (C) to minimize the risk of voter impersonation by requiring proof of identity to vote.

SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA VOTER IDENTIFICATION REFORMS

Article II of the California Constitution is amended to add section 3.1 to
read as follows:

Section 3.1

(a) The Secretary of State, and county elections officials, shall each have
the duty to maintain accurate voter registration lists, shall use best efforts to verify citizenship attestations using government data, and shall annually report what percentage of each county's voter rolls have been citizenship-verified.

(b) Each time a voter casts a ballot in person in any election in the State, the voter shall present government-issued identification, or if voting by
mail, the voter shall provide the last four digits of a unique identifying number from government-issued identification that matches the one designated
by the voter for their voter registration. The type of identification designated by each voter must be indicated in their voter registration record, noted on the mail ballot envelope provided to them, and available to them on request by phone or electronically. Election officials shall only count a regular or provisional ballot after verifying the identity of the person
voting pursuant to the requirements of this section, and verifying that the person has cast only one ballot in the election. Government-issued identification means documentation that allows conclusive verification of the voterrCOs identity. Upon request by an eligible voter, the state shall provide, at no charge, a voter ID card for use in casting a ballot.

(c) This section shall be self-executing. The Legislature shall also promptly enact laws to implement this section, provide for voting by military and overseas voters consistent with federal law, and ensure that all State and local officials comply and support the compliance with this section. Citizens may seek judicial review and remedy of the State's or any county's compliance with this section. During every odd-numbered year, the State Auditor shall audit the State's and each county's compliance with this section and report
its findings and recommendations for improving the integrity of elections to the public.

----------------------
The only thing I would add is a penalty for state legislators if they fail to fully implement the amendment if it passes. We ran into this problem with Prop 36, passed three years ago, to address the explosion in crime, specifically property and retail theft. Newsom and the Assembly did everything they could
to keep it off the ballot and when that failed, they unsuccessfully sued to stop it. It eventually passed by an overwhelming margin in every single county in the state, including the deepest of the deep blue, like Marin and San Francisco Counties. So victory, right? Nope. The Assembly just ignored it. To this day, they've refused to fund it, so none of its provisions have taken effect.

So in order to deal with these petulant children who take their ball and go home when they lose, these citizen-led initiatives need to have some teeth in them. For example, with Prop 36, there should have been a provision that withheld the salaries of every legislator that refused to implement the
clearly stated voice of the people. In other words, you don't get paid until you do what we've told you to do. This Voter ID proposition needs a similar clause inserted because you know that those scumbags in Sacramento will pull something similar if it passes.


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

Proposition 39, an initiated amendment to the Constitution of the State of >California:

Thank you for posting the text. As I pointed out earlier, this doesn't
make mailing out unsolicited ballot blanks, the main potential source of fraudulently-cast ballots, unconstitutional.

I don't understand how the citizenship check will be performed. That
still requires a birth certificate check. To what extent are state birth certificates computerized? Can these be made available to the county
clerk during voter registration? That would verify citizenship for a
signifcant number of people. An after-the-fact citizenship check would
be costly and I have no idea how the audit would gather birth
certificates from outside California on a timely basis.

The DMV would scan out-of-state birth certificates, then make them
available to county clerks. Not much point in having this done in
elementary school since the 18 year old may no longer live in California.

The federal government would have to make naturalization records
available for lookup by county clerks at registration, plus certificates
of Aericans born abroad when the birth is registered at the consulate.

Make sure the needed databases get built first, then do it on a
prospective basis.

The required identity documents to vote in person, unnamed, won't prove citizenship. They don't sound difficult to comply with. "Last 4 digits"
is a misunderstanding of Motor Voter. That applies to SSN only. The
entire driver's license is in that database and needed for the identity
match. Do most people memorize their driver's license number? I know
mine but I doubt too many other people do. I don't see how people would
know just the last 4 digits without looking.

This is a hell of a lot better than the SAVE Act but it doesn't have
much direction on how not to make the citizenship check overly
burdensome to county clerks.

The audit? Too difficult in the extreme without databases to use.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

On 2026-08-09 6:07 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

Proposition 39, an initiated amendment to the Constitution of the State of >> California:

Thank you for posting the text. As I pointed out earlier, this doesn't
make mailing out unsolicited ballot blanks, the main potential source of fraudulently-cast ballots, unconstitutional.

I don't understand how the citizenship check will be performed. That
still requires a birth certificate check. To what extent are state birth certificates computerized? Can these be made available to the county
clerk during voter registration? That would verify citizenship for a signifcant number of people. An after-the-fact citizenship check would
be costly and I have no idea how the audit would gather birth
certificates from outside California on a timely basis.

The DMV would scan out-of-state birth certificates, then make them
available to county clerks. Not much point in having this done in
elementary school since the 18 year old may no longer live in California.

The federal government would have to make naturalization records
available for lookup by county clerks at registration, plus certificates
of Aericans born abroad when the birth is registered at the consulate.

Make sure the needed databases get built first, then do it on a
prospective basis.

The required identity documents to vote in person, unnamed, won't prove citizenship. They don't sound difficult to comply with. "Last 4 digits"
is a misunderstanding of Motor Voter. That applies to SSN only. The
entire driver's license is in that database and needed for the identity match. Do most people memorize their driver's license number? I know
mine but I doubt too many other people do. I don't see how people would
know just the last 4 digits without looking.

In Ontario, the last 6 digits of the driver's license number is your
birthdate in YY-MM-DD format. Mind you, I'm not sure how many people
have actually noticed that; someone pointed it out to me many, many
years ago.

This is a hell of a lot better than the SAVE Act but it doesn't have
much direction on how not to make the citizenship check overly
burdensome to county clerks.

The audit? Too difficult in the extreme without databases to use.

--
Rhino
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

In Ontario, the last 6 digits of the driver's license number is your >birthdate in YY-MM-DD format. Mind you, I'm not sure how many people
have actually noticed that; someone pointed it out to me many, many
years ago.

In my state, the first digit, alpha, is the first letter of the last
name. Digits 8 and nine are the last two digits of year of birth. I have
no idea if there is any meaning to any other digit.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

On 8/8/26 5:23 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

On Aug 8, 2026 at 6:01:59 AM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

They're now saying the quiet part out loud: Senator Elissa Slotkin of
Michigan said in a speech before supporters that stopping the SAVE Act >>>> is essential because a law requiring ID to vote would make it
impossible for Democrats to win elections.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/elissa-slotkin-says-save-america-act-would-make-hard-democrat-win-elections

Will you please to ghod stop trolling me with this crap? She doesn't
understand, but you do and have no excuse. You of all people know it
violates federalism.

That ship sailed long ago. Of all the intrusions on federalism we've had to >> endure (and continue to have to endure) this would be extremely minor.

All I have to win this argument is point out that federalism is alive
and well with the Second Amendment. There are enough important cases in
lower courts to become landmark cases in which the Supreme Court will
find unconstitutional nearly every state law regulating gun ownership
lver the next three terms.

So? Are you denying that there are also people who support
Gun Control who also believe in secure elections?

And they won't make a single American do any militia training to
exercise his right to bear arms.

Are you going to address how the idiocy of the SAVE Act would hurt
likely Republican voters or ignore that because it's inconvenient?

So you say that secure voting is a Republican conspiracy
and there are no non-Republicans who support secure
elections? I couldn't care less if every journalist in the
world says that, a lie never becomes true.

And
ignore that state voter ID to vote laws didn't change any election
outcomes?

Then quit complaining, since that's all that matters to you.






--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2