Why "STOP TALKING!" Isn't the Answer
Talking is what makes the Senate the Senate.
“The SAVE America Act is election reform and rollback of wokeism-run-amok that will ‘save America’ if Democrats would just stop filibustering it.”
That narrative can be misleading. So let us dissect it:
The “SAVE Act” is really a bucket. Into it Republican strategists threw voting procedures and other measures where Democrats have gone kamikaze to please their base. A majority of Democrats say voting should require a verifiable ID.
Also, most Americans doubt a person simply “asserting they feel woman-like,” contrary to all genetic evidence, should get naked with girls in their locker rooms, shower with them, compete against them in contact sports and condemn to “racist hell” anyone who objects.
But it wasn’t the “stroke of political genius” some in D.C. thought to bucket these issues for a vote just before the 2026 midterms and make Democrats crucify themselves. Voters are smarter than D.C. assumes. To those for whom these are serious issues, using them in a political “stunt” to boost re-election isn’t considered a virtue.
In ancient times (meaning at least 20 years ago), if Republicans tried such a stunt, Democrats would simply counter with a voter ID and integrity in women’s sports alternative supported by an even broader cross-section of America. That they cannot do that is part of Democrats’ dysfunctionality, and a topic for a separate discussion.
In the meantime, facing a vote designed to slaughter Democrats in purple states, Senate Donkeys have grasped for ways to “not vote.” So, they threatened to filibuster.
But that term, “filibuster,” is widely misunderstood, even in the United State Senate. What people miss is that a Senate was added to the Constitution to protect the one, the few, the minority, the exception. Consider this example:
In the 1700s Americans of all backgrounds enjoyed a good malt beverage. But malt barley didn’t grow in New England (in soils better suited for cranberries), nor did it grow in the South (where tobacco and cotton were king). Malt barley grew in the mid-Atlantic, the DelMarVa region, key to the economy of one particular state, Delaware.
If 12 states decided the solution to the Revolutionary War debt was to tax malt barley, the vote in the Senate might be 24 to 2. The price of beer would hardly be affected since American brews still had to be cheaper than imported European beers.
The United States Senate was designed to protect Delaware in this situation. The two Senators from that state could “talk to death” any such lopsided attempt to make one state pay for the debts of all the rest. Every Senator knew this and also knew it protected them all. For the first 127 years, no rule could force a Senator to stop talking.
In 1917, the same year the Bolshevik Revolution led Marxism to triumph in Russia, the judgement that “the good of the many outweighs the good of the one” prevailed in the United States Senate. Senate Rule 22 was created to allow a supermajority of Senators to shut down debate.
In order to get the Save America Act up for a vote, some have called to go a step further, eliminating the “supermajority” requirement. A simple majority could decide “we’ve heard enough.” This would lock-in “majority rules” in America and completely eliminate the whole reason our Constitution included a “Senate” in the first place.
There is an alternative. Rather than try to shut down debate . . . follow the original intent of the Constitution. Make Democrats come to the floor of the Senate and talk about their opposition. Do not “honor their threat.” Make them take the floor and speak.
My guess is that after the first 100 hours of explaining why ID’s are needed to board planes but not govern nations, and why men should shower with girls, Democrats will allow a vote and be glad the debate is over.
Repealing the filibuster isn’t the answer. Let Senators explain themselves right out of office.
-o0o-
Trent Clark of Soda Springs has served in the leadership of Idaho business, politics, workforce, and humanities education.
Talking about this unnecessary bill is also not the answer. As you know, the Heritage Foundation (hardly a bastion of Democrats!) found only 77 cases of illegal voting by foreign nationals over a multi-year period. It is an insult to the hardworking secretaries of state that it was ever drafted. Not to mention that managing elections is, constitutionally, the purview of the states and not a federal government issue. It cannot pass—talking or not. (And the addition of the transgender component is nothing but a transparent and cynical ploy). The Senate has much more important talking to do about things that affect millions of Americans.