Trump’s SAVE Act Efforts Get Help From an Unlikely Source

The ongoing congressional efforts to pass the SAVE America Act are mired in a pit of division that spreads far beyond just the US Senate. While voter ID is an 80-20 issue across the nation, polling on the SAVE Act, while rare, is decidedly negative. It seems there is a narrative battle at play across the media, and yet Team Trump may have just found its ideal spokesman.

Polls and Problems

CBS released a poll last week highlighting support for voter ID and how the numbers mesh with the SAVE Act. While the term “80-20” issue is pervasive and oft overused, in this instance, it is right on the button. A full 80% of Americans polled favored “requiring a photo I.D. to vote.” But, of course, that is not the only pillar of the legislation.

The bill also requires showing proof of citizenship to register to vote. On this matter, while not in the fabled 80-20 zone, fully two-thirds (66%) approve. There is a party affiliation division when it comes to how much fraud respondents think occurs, with Republican voters more likely to believe it is “widespread” (54%) than Democrats (14%). But a clear majority believe it does occur, even if only in limited instances (85% of Democrats, 93% of Republicans, and 90% of independents).

The fact that 80% of Americans support requiring a valid ID to submit a ballot signifies clearly that, whether people think fraud is taking place or illegal votes are being cast, they at least want further measures to ensure it doesn’t.

A Narrative Mess on the SAVE Act

Left-leaning media outlets are in the process of capitalizing on the public’s lack of knowledge – a deficit they themselves seem to have created. Citing the CBS poll, CNN ran the headline “MAGA says the SAVE America Act is crucial. A new poll shows Americans don’t agree.” Well, that’s technically true. MAGA-identifying voters want the SAVE Act passed to stop or limit illegal voting. But 65% of Democrats and 79% of independents want the same end result. That they don’t see this bill as the vehicle for achieving that suggests a messaging problem rather than one of intent.

Let’s note for a moment that the polling says just 28% support the SAVE Act. Pretty damning. But then, let’s consider that only 31% actually oppose it. A full 41% admit that they are “not sure” what it even involves. Further, 54% either don’t know what is in the bill or have only a “general sense” of what it contains.

But here’s the kicker, both the SAVE Act and funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), currently in a partial shutdown, have become entwined in the narrative structure. And not simply because President Donald Trump has threatened not to sign any legislation until the SAVE Act is passed.

Enter Trump’s Best Spokesman

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), along with his Senate counterpart and fellow New Yorker Chuck Schumer, sent an open letter to the Republican leadership listing their “demands” for DHS funding. Naturally, much of the text was devoted to reining in ICE, but one part in particular stands out. “Prohibit funds from being used to conduct enforcement near sensitive locations, including medical facilities, schools, child-care facilities, churches, polling places, courts, etc.,” the missive reads. “Polling places”? As the internet meme goes, “What an odd thing to say.”

Why would illegal aliens be at polling places in the first place?

Jeffries doubled down on this strange request, saying in a video message, “ … the reason we are in a DHS shutdown right now is because Republicans have refused to agree to the type of bold, transformative, meaningful, dramatic reforms we are demanding in order for the Department of Homeland Security funding bill to move forward.” And here’s where it gets interesting. He continued:

“And I won’t go through all of the demands … but one of those demands is keep ICE out of sensitive locations. And we’ve defined that as schools, houses of worship, hospitals, and polling sites. We want an explicit prohibition that ICE can go nowhere near any polling sites in the United States of America.”

Again, what a strange thing to say, to single out. Why would illegal migrants ever be at a polling site?

The SAVE Act and DHS funding are linked in the public mind, largely through the actions and words of Democratic Party leadership and their allies in the Fourth Estate. The fate of the legislation (and the midterm ramifications of its passing or failing) is a narrative-based endeavor. With Jeffries’ insistence on highlighting protecting illegals at polling sites as a key demand, he may just be shifting public perception in a direction the rest of his party doesn’t appreciate.