SAVE Act Doesn't Have the Votes

The House has passed the SAVE Act, which allegedly eliminates voting fraud (of which there is nearly none). In reality, it is carefully designed to effectively disenfranchise low-income voters (who skew Democratic) by creating barriers that make it more difficult for them to vote. One of the provisions is that, in order to vote, people would have to show proof of citizenship in the form of a passport, birth certificate, naturalization certificate, military ID, or tribal ID. Over 20 million eligible voters have none of these and obtaining one of them is often difficult and expensive. Also, a larger percentage of eligible Black voters lack documentation than white voters. These are features, not bugs.

A less discussed—but nevertheless important—issue is that for married women who use their husband's name, a birth certificate won't do, since that shows the woman's maiden name. In that case, a marriage certificate or court order showing the name change is also needed. In the case of women who are divorced or who have been married multiple times, the process of proving citizenship can be very complex and time consuming. For Republicans, this is also a feature, not a bug, because women also skew Democratic, and at all income levels. Additionally, the SAVE Act could disenfranchise American expats because it requires in-person verification of citizenship in order to qualify for an absentee ballot.

The House-passed bill could come up for a vote in the Senate this week. Democrats are sure to filibuster it. Unless the filibuster is abolished, or a carve-out is made for election laws, it will fail to get the 60 votes needed for cloture. Although Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) supports the bill, he is against abolishing or weakening the filibuster in order to pass the SAVE Act, no matter how much that angers Donald Trump. But even if Thune decided to nuke the filibuster, his nose counters have determined that the votes to do so are not there. The problem is that Republican senators know they could be in the minority some day, possibly as soon as Jan. 3, 2027, and they fear what the Democrats might do if they could pass bills with a simple majority.

Some House members, who don't know (or care) anything about Senate traditions, are calling for the Senate to go back to its roots and require senators to actually stand there and filibuster. Rep. Eric Burlison (R-MO) said: "It's pathetic that our Senate is, you know, acting like a nursing home where people don't actually have to do anything. A filibuster is supposed to be them standing and talking, but they don't want to do that." Some senators have had similar thoughts. Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) urged his colleagues to "stop worrying about getting reelected and pass it." Tuberville is probably not the brightest senator, and telling the other senators not to worry about getting reelected sort of clinches that. (V)

New Post Office Rules Will Disenfranchise Voters

While we are on the subject of disenfranchisement, there is more news on that front. Since July 2025, the postmaster general has been David Steiner, the former CEO of Waste Management, a company that does garbage collection. Apparently collecting mail and collecting garbage require similar skills. Or maybe nobody else wanted the job of running an organization that loses $9 billion every year and operates under constraints that make breaking even impossible; for example, driving 10 miles off the main road to some far-flung farm to deliver a postcard for 61¢.

A new change in postal procedures may save a bit of money (but not enough to get the deficit down to $8 billion/yr), but will disenfranchise some voters. It has to do with the humble postmark, that little stamp the USPS puts on all mail to cancel the stamps so they can't be steamed off and used again. The postmark contains a date and that has legal significance. In particular, in some (but not all) states, absentee ballots postmarked before or on Election Day are counted as valid, even if they arrive a few days late.

Up until now, mail put in mailboxes was collected the same day and postmarked the same day. In other words, people who posted their absentee ballots on Election Day got a postmark of Election Day and the ballot was deemed "on time" in those states that accept and count late ballots. That is about to change. Official policy is now that there is no guarantee that mail deposited in a mailbox, or even brought to a post office, will be postmarked that day—or even the next day. It could be later, depending on where the mail was dropped and local procedures. In some cases, mail from a particular area is trucked to a larger facility, possibly hundreds of miles away, and processed and postmarked there.

For letters to your beloved Aunt Fannie in Peoria, it doesn't matter much. She is probably not going to look at the postmark anyway. But for absentee ballots that arrive after Election Day, it matters a great deal. Every one is carefully scrutinized to see what the postmark date is. If it is after Election Day, the ballot will be rejected in all states, even the 14 states that accept late ballots, and even if the ballot was posted on time. At some post offices, it is possible to request a manual postmark on the spot, but only if specifically requested.

Needless to say, given how slow snail mail is these days, waiting until the last minute to vote by mail is a very bad idea, even separate from the postmark issue. If an Oregon voter who happens to be staying in Florida in November mails an absentee ballot back to Oregon on Election Day there is a chance the ballot might take so long to arrive that it won't be counted, even if it is postmarked on Election Day.

Most voters don't follow postal rule changes closely and may think if they have deposited their ballot in a mailbox before 5 p.m. on Election Day, they made it. People with disabilities, people who lack transportation, and people who work multiple jobs are the most likely not to vote in person and who are most likely to be affected by the procedural change.

Some states are even exploiting the slow mail for partisan advantage. In Florida, in 2023 the state passed a new law setting a tight window for third-party voter registration drives. In the past, some civic groups passed out applications for absentee ballots, collected the signed forms, and mailed them in. Now if they arrive outside the allowed window, there is a fine of $2,500 for each application that arrives late. This is intended to discourage voter-registration drives. Organizations that do voter-registration drives have now switched to just handing out the applications and telling people to mail them in themselves. For people in nursing homes or hospitals or who have disabilities, this might be too high a hill to climb. Again: feature, not bug. Republicans are clever. They understand that if every eligible voter could actually vote, they would have a very hard time winning elections outside of deep-red states and districts, so the only way to win is to prevent Democrats from voting. (V)

Democrats Win Special Elections in Maine and Pennsylvania

On Monday, we discussed three special elections held Tuesday for state House seats. Democrats won all of them and maintained control of the Maine and Pennsylvania state Houses.

In Maine's HD-94 district, Lewiston City Councilman Scott Harriman (D) beat Lewiston school board member Janet Beaudoin (R) 572 votes (53%) to 503 votes (47%). That is a not a great turnout since Maine House districts have about 9,300 people each. It is cold in Maine in February. In 2024, Kristen Cloutier (D) beat Kendil Snow-Black (R) 60% to 40%, so Harriman underperformed the Democrat in 2024 by 7 points. Cloutier was then an incumbent, so that may have helped her in 2024. Harriman's election brings the Maine House to 75D, 72R with one vacancy almost certain to be filled by a Republican in the spring, and three independents. The election was called because Cloutier resigned her seat to become an aide to the state Senate president.

In Pennsylvania, there were two special House elections yesterday that could have altered the balance of power. Before the elections, the partisan breakdown in the state House was 100D, 98R, with five vacancies. Three of them are in deep-red districts and the elections will be held in the spring, so effectively, the House was slated to become 100D, 101R, plus the two seats up yesterday. In HD-22, in the Lehigh Valley, Ana Tiburcio (D) beat Robert Smith Jr., 1,474 votes (67%) to 717 votes (33%). Tiburcio ran on affordability. She is the first Latina in the state House from the Lehigh Valley. The seat opened up when Joshua Siegel (D) was elected county executive. In 2024, no Republican filed, so Siegel ran unopposed.

There was also a special election in HD-42, in suburban Pittsburgh. There, teacher Jen Mazzocco (D) crushed lawyer Joseph Leckenby (R) 10,419 votes (82%) to 2,330 votes (18%). In 2024, Dan Miller (D) beat Leckenby 67% to 33%. This is a 15-point shift toward the Democrats. HD-42 is a blue district, but a 15-point shift is clearly significant.

There are a few special elections for the U.S. House remaining, namely those for the seats of Marjorie Taylor Greene in GA-14 on March 10, Gov. Mikie Sherrill (D-NJ) in NJ-11 on April 16, and the late Doug LaMalfa in CA-01 on Aug. 4. There are special elections for state Houses in Arkansas on March 3, Pennsylvania on March 17, Florida on March 24, and the Michigan Senate on May 5. And primary season is very nearly upon us, as well. Thank goodness, because we just haven't had anything to write about for the last couple of months. (V)

Trump May Order Banks to Collect Citizenship Data

Donald Trump keeps thinking of new ways to control the population. His latest one is a plan to require banks to collect citizenship data on all their customers, with an eye on later denying noncitizens banking services, and maybe later than that rounding up noncitizens for deportation. Hey, get the banks to help out with tracking down and deporting noncitizens. Brilliant! Currently, it is perfectly legal for noncitizens who are in the country legally to have a bank account. Denying people access to banks makes it very hard to live in America these days. For example, many companies deposit their employees' wages and salaries directly in their bank accounts, with no provision for paying them in cash. Many service providers insist on a check or electronic payment. Of course, Trump and his people know this well.

As with voting, proving citizenship is not always easy. Half of all Americans do not have a passport and over 20 million citizens do not have any proof of citizenship. Not everyone has an original birth certificate. They or their parents may have lost it over the years.

The banks are not keen on being Trump's next law-enforcement agency. At the very least, there is a lot more paperwork involved in dealing with subpoenas for information. At the worst, there will surely be fines for making mistakes. Does a 17-year-old bank teller in Idaho really know what a 1962 Kentucky birth certificate looks like? If someone has bought a fake birth certificate on the Internet, is the bank liable if some teller accepts a fake?

Trump is planning to require the banks to collect this information by issuing an XO. That is so much easier than getting Congress to pass a law—which the Democrats would filibuster in the Senate. However, XOs are merely instructions to federal officials. They are not binding instructions to banks. The Treasury could try to issue a regulation requiring this information, but that would be instantly challenged in court as having nothing to do with solvency of the bank and other issues the Treasury can legitimately regulate.

This is not the administration's first attempt to weaponize something that was previously nonpolitical. For example, the IRS recently illegally shared information on immigrants with DHS. The U.S. "voluntary" tax system works because people trust the IRS to obey the law. If it stops doing that, a whole new approach will be needed. In many other countries, residents fill out a form listing their sources of income and send it to the government, which then, based on that information and information it already has, sends each resident a bill to be paid. In the U.S., fewer than 1% of tax returns are audited, so it basically works on the honor system.

The Treasury Department has a unit called FinCEN (the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network), which investigates money laundering and other financial crimes. It could be given new authority to also deal with noncitizens having bank accounts. However, it is unlikely the courts would accept this without an act of Congress authorizing it.

In January, FinCEN ordered banks in two Minnesota counties to report all foreign transactions above $3,000, much lower than the normal $10,000 cutoff. The banks were very unhappy with this and actually want the $10,000 limit to be raised because the number of transactions above $10,000 is huge (think about U.S. companies paying foreign suppliers for products they have ordered). For example, J.P. Morgan Chase alone processes 60 million foreign transactions worth $10 trillion to 200+ countries every day. Some (unknown) number of these have to be reported. Even if it is 0.1%, that is 60,000 per day or 20 million per year. And that is just one bank, albeit the biggest one. Adding more paperwork to the mix is not something FinCEN or the banks are looking for. The banks will fight such a new rule tooth and nail. (V)

Hegseth Bullies Anthropic over Military Use of AI Technology

The Pentagon wants to use Anthropic's chatbot, Claude, for military purposes. It has a $200 million contract with the company for using it. However, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei wants some guarantees that the technology will not be used for autonomous weapons or mass surveillance of Americans. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth was not willing to give any guarantees and has said that the DoD can use Claude any way it damn well pleases and Anthropic has nothing to say about it. Amodei has said if he can't get the guarantees, he is not interested in the contract. Hegseth then said if Amodei doesn't cave by Friday, he will invoke the Cold-War-Era Defense Production Act, which can force any private company to supply the DoD with goods even against the company's will.

If it gets that far, it will be a very nasty court battle since that law was intended to give the government priority for buying scarce goods needed for national security. AI is not a scarce good. In fact, it is not really a good (product) at all. Also, the DPA only applies when there is a national emergency. The Supreme Court seems to be coming around to the idea that the president can declare a national emergency only when there is a, well, national emergency. At the moment, "Pete Hegseth is throwing a temper tantrum" does not constitute a national emergency.

One complication here is that the Pentagon wants to use AI for classified work. AI bots sort of need a kind of security clearance. Claude has already been approved. Elon Musk's Grok has also been approved, despite (or maybe on account of) its willingness to produce sexual content upon request.

The militaries in numerous countries see a role for AI in fighting wars, from letting drones pick their own targets to flying jet fighters. There are clear dangers in fully autonomous weapons since if they break the law, no one is responsible. Amodei understands this, but Hegseth doesn't care. Amodei has said that Claude can suffer hallucinations and cannot be trusted to make final targeting decisions since it could be wrong and cause unintended escalation or mission failures. He does not want to be on the hook for fatal decisions Claude makes, since he knows that is possible, and is warning Hegseth in advance. Hegseth doesn't care since he knows nothing about military strategy and even less about AI. But he does know he is the boss and everyone else (except Donald Trump) had damn well better kowtow to him.

Republicans generally oppose the use of government power to force companies to do things that they don't want to do, absent some very compelling emergency. If Hegseth does invoke the DPA, it will be interesting to see how Senate Republicans who don't like government overreach react. (V)

Casey Means Is Questioned by the Senate

Donald Trump's pick for surgeon general, Dr. Casey Means, faced a hostile Senate hearing yesterday. She vigorously defended her view that American medicine is on the wrong track and playing whack-a-mole with diseases, rather than going after the root causes. She is very much on the same page as HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr.

Although Means has an M.D. degree from Stanford, she became disillusioned with mainstream medicine during her surgical residency and dropped out. She then began a career as an influencer in which she hawked products of questionable value, without disclosing the fact that she would benefit financially from them. She made hundreds of thousands of dollars pushing basil-seed supplements, teas, and elixirs. She definitely understands the art of the grift. However, she has no government experience, no experience running anything, and her medical license is currently not active. But her love for Bobby is genuine.

Surgeons general have sometimes used their position to make statements about vaccines. Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA), chair of the HELP Committee, asked Means about her views about them. As a physician himself, he probably remembers Kennedy lying through his teeth when Cassidy was the deciding vote that got Kennedy confirmed. Will he try for a repeat performance? Maybe. When Means refused to say that people should get vaccinated against measles and the flu, that could have been a hint to Cassidy. Then he asked her if vaccines cause autism, referring to a long-discredited paper on the subject that was in The Lancet and that the journal has since retracted. She said the science is never settled. She said she is looking forward to a new study, even though there have been dozens already. Only all the other ones didn't give the results she wanted. Cassidy also asked her about the birth dose of hepatitis B vaccine, which has almost eliminated the disease in babies, and she again equivocated. Cassidy has either the brain of a paramecium or the spine of a jellyfish and will probably vote to confirm, even though she basically finessed all his questions. And all for nought. Donald Trump has already endorsed a primary opponent, so Cassidy may be a dead man walking. And instead of going out standing tall and doing the right thing and being a hero, he is going to go out as a coward who sold out the country in a desperate and probably losing fight to keep his job.

Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) asked about hormonal birth control pills. Means said: "Doctors do not have enough time for a thorough informed consent conversation." That is sort of different than "They have been around for over 60 years and there is massive evidence that they are safe and effective." Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) asked Means about her touting the use of psychedelic mushrooms. Means said: "What I would say as a private citizen is in many cases different than what I'd say as a public health official." Huh? In other words, in private she doesn't believe any of the stuff she says in public and doesn't follow her own public advice. Sounds like the perfect position for doctor-in-chief for this administration. She must have taken the Hippocritic oath instead of the Hippocratic oath as a young doctor.

Two previous surgeons general, Rich Carmona and Jerome Adams, have said Means is unqualified for the position. But since when is being qualified for a position in this administration a selling point, let alone a requirement? (V)

Barack Obama Was Wrong: There Is No United States, Just Blue States and Red States

Partisanship is now almost total. In 23 states, all the statewide elected officers are Republicans. Here is a table showing the states and the offices. In South Carolina, the comptroller is not elected but is appointed by the governor. In this case, Brian Gaines (D) is a registered Democrat but he was appointed by Gov. Henry McMaster (R-SC), so he is probably not a very good Democrat:

Up and down the line, if the governor is a Republican, so is the lieutenant governor, the AG, the SoS and treasurer (if any) and all the other statewide elected officers.

In the blue states, the same is true, but in reverse. If the governor is a Democrat, so are all the other officers. Here is that list:

There are nine states left over. In four of them, Republicans predominate. In two of them, Democrats predominate. Only in Arizona, North Carolina, and Nevada is control mixed. Of course, all three are ferocious presidential battleground states. Here they are:

Is this likely to get better or worse? Probably worse. The state auditor of Iowa, Rob Sand (D), is running for governor. If he loses and a Republican is elected auditor, then Iowa will go all red. Gov. Andy Beshear (D-KY) is term-limited and will probably be replaced by a Republican. In Kansas, Gov. Laura Kelly (D-KS) is an oddity in a sea of red. Vermont is really a true blue state, and Gov. Phil Scott (R-VT) is a fish out of water. He is personally very popular and is barely a Republican. When he finally retires, the state will go all blue. Within a few years, the only mixed states may be Arizona, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. (V)

There Is a Lot at Stake in Colorado

Colorado used to be a reddish-purple state with a libertarian bent. In 2014, Cory Gardner was elected to the Senate and congressman Bob Beauprez made Democrats sweat in the gubernatorial race. But since Donald Trump arrived on the scene, Colorado has gone deep blue. He is an albatross firmly tied to all Republican candidates in the Centennial State. Four years ago, every Democrat in a statewide race won by double digits.

There are many races on the ballot this year and Democrats are likely to sweep nearly all of them. There are open seats for governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, secretary of state, and treasurer. Sen. John Hickenlooper (D-CO) is likely to be reelected in a landslide. All of the state House and half of the state Senate is up. Democrats have huge majorities in both (23D, 12R in the Senate, and 43D, 21R in the House) and are likely to keep them. All eight U.S. House members are up and Democrats have a good chance to flip three seats this year, giving a 7D, 1R delegation. In addition, there are elections for three seats on the board of education, three seats on the board of regents, one state supreme court judge, six appellate court judges, and at least two ballot initiatives. In a blue wave, the Democrats could win all the marbles, except that defeating Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) is probably a bridge too far since her new district is R+9. A few of the state House and Senate seats are also safe.

If the Republicans botch it, they will be stuck for quite a while. The statewide officers have 4-year terms, the board of education and regents have 6-year terms, the appellate judges have 8-year terms, and the state Supreme Court justices have 10-year terms.

So Republicans are closing ranks and nominating candidates who have a chance in a blue state, right? Well, actually no. Donald Trump just revoked his endorsement of moderate Rep. Jeff Hurd (R-CO), who would have a tough race this year no matter what, and backed a fire-breathing wingnut named Hope Scheppelman, giving the Democrats a nice pickup opportunity. State GOP fundraising has been abysmal, with only $63,987 cash on hand as of Jan. 31. The vice chair, Richard Holtorf, just resigned, saying it is impossible to work with the chair, Brita Horn. The GOP state central committee just passed a resolution of no confidence in Horn, but she refused to resign.

Meanwhile, 22 Republicans have filed to run for governor, where one of them will have to face off against either Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO) or AG Phil Weiser (D) depending on who wins the Democratic primary. The biggest fundraiser on the GOP side is a state senator, Barbara Kirkmeyer, but she is no shoo-in for the nomination. Also near the top is state Rep. Scott Bottoms (R), who claims pedophilia rings are being run out of the state House, Senate, and governor's office. He is obviously confused. Jeffrey Epstein had houses in New York, Florida, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, but not Colorado. With so many races and the odds stacked against them in what could be a blue wave election, maybe the Republicans ought to get their act together, find moderate Republicans, and back them without messy primaries. But that doesn't seem to be on their agenda. (V)

Polls: Trump Is Erratic, Platner is Leading, Texas is Weird

There have been a few interesting polls released this week. Just before the SOTU speech, Ipsos ran a poll and asked about Donald Trump's mental fitness. One of the questions was: "Has Trump become erratic with age?" Here are the results:

So a clear majority of all adults and also of independents think Trump has become erratic. If there is anything worse than a lame duck it is an erratic lame duck. On another question, 79% of respondents said that elected officials are too old.

Next up, the Cook Political Report has a nice chart showing how different demographics view Trump now vs. 2024. Here it is:

As you can see, Trump is doing somewhat better with Black and Democratic voters (!), but substantially worse with every other demographic, including his base of noncollege whites. He is doing especially poorly with independents. This does not bode well for the midterms.

Finally, getting back to Americans thinking members of Congress are too old, a University of New Hampshire poll of the Maine Democratic Senate primary has Graham Platner leading Gov. Janet Mills (D-ME) 64% to 26%. This result is consistent with voters wanting younger candidates, but it is a bit hard to believe in this case since in earlier polls Mills was ahead. Hopefully there will be more polls from some other pollsters soon.

Finally, a University of Texas poll on the Democratic Senate primary in Texas has Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX) ahead of state Rep. James Talarico 56% to 44%. If Crockett wins the primary, we predict the following things will happen:

• National Democrats will not put a penny in her campaign.
• She will be crushed by whichever Republican wins their primary; it doesn't matter who it is.
• Crockett will blame the national Democrats for not supporting her.
• There will be many news stories about Democrats in disarray.

There might be a state in which Crockett could be elected to the Senate, but Texas is not it. Nominating her would basically throw out the chance of flipping the Texas seat and greatly reduce the chances of flipping the upper chamber. Against Ken Paxton, she might do better than against Cornyn—say, losing by only 5-10 points—but we can't envision her winning.

On the Republican side, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) and Paxton are tied. If Cornyn wins, then the Democratic primary is moot and Cornyn will be reelected (with the help of $90 million in ads for him). (V)

---

Previous report         Next report

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger