Dem
47
GOP
53
There were a few doings in Congress yesterday that are worth, at very least, a brief mention.
First up, Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) has once again introduced his Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act. If you don't know the legislation, you could still probably guess what it would do, namely require voters to provide documentary proof of citizenship when they register to vote. Most Republicans who favor such legislation say that it is meant to stop voter fraud, knowing full well that it's really meant to reduce voting among groups who skew Democratic. Roy is an odd duck, however, and prone to demonstrate something akin to religious fervor on some political issues. So, it's possible that he really believes what he's peddling.
This will be the third time Roy has filed this legislation, and presumably he'll strike out yet again. The bill has passed the House previously, and surely will pass again, but then it will run into the Senate's filibuster and will die a quiet death. That said, we mention it because: (1) if Senate Republicans decide to kill the filibuster, this will be one of the first bills that Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) tees up for a vote, and (2) the GOP is never, ever going to drop this "voter fraud" bit.
Moving along, next up is legislation that was an early contender for "This Week in Schadenfreude" until we saw the affiliation of the member proposing it. It is called the "Red, White, and Blueland Act of 2025," and would instruct Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum to change the "official" name of Greenland to Red, White and Blueland. This seemed a pretty excellent bit of parody of the whole "Gulf of America" bit, until we saw that the member who filed the legislation is Buddy Carter, a Georgia Republican. Are there really voters out there who are impressed by such a silly stunt? Red, White and Blueland? Really? It would seem Nathan Poe was on to something when he observed that, when it comes to extremism, it's very difficult to distinguish parody from the real deal.
And finally, a story where we are going to have to proceed very, very delicately. Yesterday, Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) took the floor of the House and delivered a heated, almost hourlong, speech in which she laid into four different men who she says sexually abused her in various ways, up to and including a rape by her former fiancé.
Of course, the default response to such a presentation, these days, is "believe women." And we believe there was certainly at least some truth present in Mace's narrative. That said, we will also note the following:
We note both the story, and the reasons for examining Mace's remarks critically, because this is clearly not a one-off performance. The Congresswoman would not have gone to so much trouble if this was not the setup for some future action. At very least, she is going to weaponize this against some South Carolina Republicans who are running for office this year or next. For example, South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson (R) is running for governor in 2026, and she specifically called him out by name, and said he was partly to blame for her misfortunes because he did not do enough to protect women against sexual assault. As pure chance would have it, the other major candidate for the South Carolina governor's mansion is... Nancy Mace.
It is also probable that Mace will also find a way to weaponize this against her transgender colleague, and self-selected arch-rival, Rep. Sarah McBride (D-DE). Mace did not mention McBride yesterday, but we presume it's just a matter of time. (Z)