The SAVE America Act, formerly known as the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, may get a vote this week on the floor of the U.S. House.
I like the bill’s two key provisions: Voter ID and proof of citizenship.
But Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D‑NY) has already announced the bill “dead on arrival,” even with House passage, as Democrats will filibuster to block a Senate vote.
“According to an August 2025 Pew Poll, 95 percent of Republicans and 71 percent of Democrats favor voter ID,” reported CNBC. “A 2024 Gallup poll found that 84 percent of Americans support voter ID and 83 percent support proof of citizenship to register to vote.”
Sunday, on ABC’s This Week with[out] George Stephanopoulos, co-anchor Jonathan Karl detailed the public polling before asking Sen. Adam Schiff (D‑Calif.): “What about the idea of voter I.D., a photo I.D. being required to vote?”
“It’s still going to be something that disenfranchises people,” replied Schiff, those “that don’t have the proper real I.D., driver’s license I.D., that don’t have the I.D. necessary to vote, even though they are citizens. This is another way to simply try to suppress the vote.”
Sen. Jon Ossoff (D‑Ga.) opposes voter ID, too … yet he requires government-issued photo identification to attend his campaign events.
Years back, then-Vice-President Kamala Harris warned that “in some people’s mind [voter ID] means you’re gonna have to Xerox or photocopy your ID to send it in to prove you are who you are. Well, there’re a whole lot of people, especially people who live in rural communities, who don’t — there’s no Kinko’s, there’s no Office Max near them. Of course, people have to prove who they are. But not in a way that makes it almost impossible for them to prove who they are.”
Seems Democrat leaders cannot imagine any possible system of checking ID or determining citizenship. Even though the rest of the democratic world does it without a hitch.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
* The key action is in the states, as this headline in Michigan last week attests: “While Washington Argues Over Proof-of-Citizenship Voting Rules, Michigan Grabs the Wheel.”
Illustration created with Nano Banana
See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts
39 replies on “The Impossible Dream ID”
I suppose that the question then will be whether, once again, the majority party will exercise “the nuclear option”.
If you weren’t too lazy, you could ask AI what problems affect older voters meeting the proposed requirements. The issue is complex! I recently renewed my driver license and I had my birth certificate was no longer valid after decades of being good. It doesn’t have an embossed seal! It was good until the government said it wasn’t. Read the AI report! It describes the insurmountable problems have with the proposed law. Are you that frigging lazy? It only took me 5 minutes to find enormous problems with the proposed legislation!
Pam, a renewal of a driver license does not in any state require more identification than presentation of the license approaching expiration. I don’t know whether you were converting to what is called “Real ID” (which requires more identification), or had allowed your old license to lapse, but you’ve fictionalized your personal story, as with your “all-electric SUV that got 80 mpg”.
And, in the end, you are complaining that an old copy of your birth certificate was no longer useful (for whatever you actually did), though getting a new copy is quite easy, and not somehow more difficult for women or for members of minorities than for white males.
As to asking AI for “insurmountable” problems: [1] Anyone using AI ought to double-check any claim that it makes, as LLMs simply digest, regurgitate, interpolate, and extrapolate narrative. The interpolation and extrapolation use unreliable methids, and the narrative itself may be false. [2] You didn’t offer a single example of an insurmountable problem, because the AI didn’t actually give you an example; so you just tried bluffing.
So now all that is left to you is either sullen silence or some ineffectual insult.
From NCDMV
“Documentation: Bring your current or expired license. If lost, bring two documents verifying your identity (e.g., birth certificate, passport.”
I had my birth certificate with me and presented to the agent and was informed that it read mot valid due to no unbiased seal. My birth certificate is only invalid because NC changed the rules.
I don’t need a Real ID. I can fly anwhere and enter any state and/or government building.
Something you can’t do!
10,560 miles, 3.9 milled per kwh, 11 cents per kwh equals $284 for electricity.
To get 10,560 miles on a gasoline vehicle that gets 40 mpg at a gasoline price of $3.00 per gallon would be $792.
792/284=111 equivalent mpg
You are a LIAR!
“2024 & 2025 Kia Niro EV Wind Efficiency
According to multiple sources including Edmunds and Kelley Blue Book, the 2024 and 2025 Kia Niro EV Wind has the following EPA-estimated fuel economy ratings:
City: 126 MPGe
Highway: 101 MPGe
Combined: 113 MPGe
The vehicle is equipped with a 64.8 kWh lithium-ion polymer battery and a single electric motor producing 201 horsepower, all of which contributes to a total EPA-estimated all-electric range of 253 miles.”
You are a supercilious arse as usual!
Ask AI? Seriously?
Your low IQ is obvious!
You aren’t smart enough to use AI.
Yes, yes, Pam, we know that, having been busted for absurdly claiming that you once had an “all-electric SUV that got 80 mpg” you revised that absurd claim. But the original nonsense is still there for all to see, now joined by a claim that you can access any government building.
You are a LIAR!
“ 2024 & 2025 Kia Niro EV Wind Efficiency
According to multiple sources including Edmunds and Kelley Blue Book, the 2024 and 2025 Kia Niro EV Wind has the following EPA-estimated fuel economy ratings:
City: 126 MPGe
Highway: 101 MPGe
Combined: 113 MPGe
The vehicle is equipped with a 64.8 kWh lithium-ion polymer battery and a single electric motor producing 201 horsepower, all of which contributes to a total EPA-estimated all-electric range of 253 miles.”
You really are mentally challenged!
No, I’m not lying; you’re trying now to replace what you originally said with a more defensible claim, despite the link to
what you originally said.(Making things a little bit worse, with your more defensible claim, you’re now pointing to a vehicle made later than whatever you might have owned.)
Your shrieking “liar” in the face of that link makes you still more ridiculous.
Jut another example of Daniel Mc Kieran”s stupidity!
“2022 Volvo XC40 Recharge review: A great SUV made even better — CNET
The 2022 Volvo XC40 P8 (Recharge) all-electric SUV has an EPA-estimated combined efficiency of 85 MPGe (92 city/79 highway) and an official EPA range of 223 miles on a full charge. It features a 78-kWh battery (75 kWh usable) that supports DC fast charging up to 150 kW.
Key Efficiency and Range Metrics
EPA Combined Efficiency: 85 MPGe (Miles Per Gallon equivalent).
City Efficiency: 92 MPGe.
Highway Efficiency: 79 MPGe.
EPA Range: 223 miles.
Energy Consumption: Approx. 39 kWh/100 miles.
Real-world Range: While EPA-rated for 223 miles, real-world testing has shown closer to 170 – 186 miles in highway conditions.
Charging and Battery
Battery Capacity: 78 kWh total (75 kWh usable).
DC Fast Charge (0 – 80%): Approx. 37 – 40 minutes.
Level 2 Charge (240V): Approx. 8 hours.
The 2022 model saw improvements over the 2021 model, which had a 208-mile range.”
My actual equivalent mpg was only 80 because I drove faster than the estimates! I had fun! Do you ever have fun? It appears that you know as little about fun as you do about all-electric vehicles.
Poor little Danny Boy.
So, in other words, just as I said, you were not merely renewing your licensed as you had claimed.
To enter some government buildings, one must have a clearance higher than Q clearance. Indeed, I don’t have that clearance, but neither do you. You are once again fictionalizing your experience.
You continue to fail to read and comprehend! Nothing new for a supercilious arsenal!
I didn’t say “insurmountable” other than to point out that AI used it in the response to possible problems with elderly people complying with the “SAVE” act.
No, Pam, the response that you quoted from the AI never used the word “insurmountable”. You introduced the word, when you wrote “Read the AI report! It describes the insurmountable problems have with the proposed law.”
Rather than my having a problem of reading comprehension, I’m merely calling your repeated falsifications as you attempt to be more persuasive.
“You’re zeroing in on the real tension in the voter-ID / proof-of-citizenship debate, and it’s not hypothetical at all — especially for older Americans.
Here are the main, very real hardships these requirements can create for seniors, particularly those born before the 1940s or in marginalized communities.
⸻
1. No birth certificate (or a flawed one)
A surprising number of older Americans never had an official birth certificate, or have one that doesn’t meet modern standards.
Common situations:
• Born at home (very common before WWII)
• Born in rural areas where records weren’t kept consistently
• Born to midwives whose records were never filed
• Born in segregated hospitals that didn’t properly register births
• Records lost in courthouse fires or floods (this happened a lot in the South)
If the law requires a certified birth certificate, these voters may have:
• Nothing to present
• Or a “delayed” certificate that some states won’t accept
That alone can stop them cold.”
2. Name mismatches over a lifetime
Older people often have document inconsistencies that are hard to unwind:
• Women who changed last names due to marriage (sometimes multiple times)
• First names spelled differently across documents (“Mary” vs “Marie”)
• Clerical errors from decades ago that were never corrected
Fixing this can require:
• Marriage certificates
• Divorce decrees
• Court orders
…which themselves may be missing or costly to obtain.
⸻
3. Cost barriers (even when the ID is “free”)
States often say: “The ID is free, so there’s no burden.”
But the supporting documents aren’t free.
Typical costs:
• Birth certificate: $15 – $40
• Marriage certificate: $10 – $30
• Notary fees
• Passport photos
• Transportation to government offices
For seniors on fixed incomes, even $30 – $50 can be a real obstacle — especially when layered.
4. Mobility and health issues
Many older voters:
• No longer drive
• Live far from DMV or vital records offices
• Have difficulty standing in long lines
• Have cognitive or physical limitations
If in-person visits are required, the burden isn’t theoretical — it’s practical and immediate.
⸻
5. Digital barriers
Modern processes assume:
• Online applications
• Email access
• Scanners or smartphones
• Comfort navigating government websites
Many seniors either:
• Don’t use the internet
• Use it minimally
• Or rely on others, which introduces delay and risk
6. Disproportionate impact on specific groups
The burden is not evenly distributed.
Especially affected:
• Older Black Americans in the Jim Crow South
• Native Americans born on reservations
• Rural poor seniors
• Immigrants who naturalized decades ago and never needed paperwork again
Many of these voters have voted legally for 40 – 60 years without issue — until rules change late in life.
⸻
7. Timing and uncertainty
Even if documents can be obtained:
• Processing can take weeks or months
• Errors are common
• Deadlines may pass before documents arrive
So the harm often isn’t “you can’t ever vote,” but “you can’t vote this time.”
⸻
The bottom line
Requiring voter ID or proof of citizenship can:
• Disenfranchise some older voters through bureaucracy, not fraud
• Turn lifelong voters into paperwork cases
• Function like a modern poll tax for those least able to navigate it
That doesn’t mean ID laws are automatically bad — but without robust accommodations, they impose the heaviest burden on seniors who have done nothing wrong.”
Read!
If you can.
Pam, you literally claimed that “the AI report […] describes the insurmountable problems have with the proposed law”. In denying your claim, I emphasized the alleged insurmountability. Your quotation doesn’t offer a single insurmountable problem.
In addition to being a supercilious ass, it appears you can’t read!
Pam, did you write “insurmountable” without knowing what it meant?
I wrote supercilious arse. A perfect description of you!
Pam, you haven’t answered the question. Either you wrote “insurmountable” without knowing what it meant, or you deliberately misused it.
Read you idiots!!!
Replying to a supercilious arse!
Mobility and health issues may not be “insurmountable” to you, but they are to many.
“4. Mobility and health issues
Many older voters:
• No longer drive
• Live far from DMV or vital records offices
• Have difficulty standing in long lines
• Have cognitive or physical limitations
If in-person visits are required, the burden isn’t theoretical — it’s practical and immediate.”
Pam, you’re quoting my quoting of your use of “insurmountable”, and then pretending that the AI said that the problems were insurmountable. But the AI instead said “That doesn’t mean ID laws are automatically bad — but without robust accommodations, they impose the heaviest burden on seniors who have done nothing wrong.”
And nobody here has objected to “robust accommodations”. I’ve just objected to your lies about insurmountability.
What is NOT insurmountable for you imay be insurmountable for those that the proposed law affects.
“Yes — insurmountability absolutely can depend on the person facing the problem.
What feels impossible to one person may be difficult but manageable to another. “Insurmountable” isn’t just about the obstacle itself — it’s about the relationship between:
• The difficulty of the challenge
• The resources available
• The skills and experience of the person
• Their mental and emotional state
• The time constraints and stakes involved
A few examples
• A complex tax issue may feel insurmountable to someone unfamiliar with finance, but routine to a CPA.
• Running a marathon might be impossible for someone with a serious injury, but achievable for a trained athlete.
• Public speaking could feel overwhelming to one person and energizing to another.
The obstacle hasn’t changed — the person facing it has.
Why this matters
It shows that:
• “Impossible” is often situational, not absolute.
• Growth, training, support, or different framing can change what seems insurmountable.
• Sometimes the problem isn’t too big — the support system is too small.
There are also cases where something truly is insurmountable for a specific individual — due to physical limits, legal realities, or external constraints. But even then, that limitation isn’t universal; it’s contextual.
If you’d like, we can dig into a specific example you’re thinking about.”
Please keep making a supercilious arse of yourself!
Pam, you need to stop reversing yourself on the issue of insurmountability.
First you said ‘the AI report […] describes the insurmountable problems have with the proposed law’. It hadn’t.
Then you said ‘I didn’t say “insurmountable” other than to point out that AI used it in the response to possible problems with elderly people complying with the “SAVE” act.’ It hadn’t.
Now you declare ‘What is NOT insurmountable for you imay be insurmountable for those that the proposed law affects.’ And then you quote an AI discussing a general principle, though the AI that you summon already acknowledged that ‘robust accommodations’ would mean that voter identification requirements are not insurmountable.
The supercilious arse may be the biggest LIAR on this site.
He said: “No, I’m not lying; you’re trying now to replace what you originally said with a more defensible claim, despite the link to what you originally said.” Here is my insurance bill on the 2024 Kia Niro Wind that I lease for $307.35 per month.
2024 KIA NIRO 4D WIND
VIN: KNDCR3L11R510xxxxx
6 month premium
694
So much for Daniel the IDIOT!
This should really frost your gonads!
“FlyerTalk Forums:
FlyerTalk is a living, growing community where frequent travelers around the world come to exchange knowledge and experiences about everything miles and points related.”
I flew first class and only paid a security fee, stayed at hotels like the Park Hyatt Aviara and many others. I had free gift cards that could be used for free car rentals or food. My average cost for two was $1,000 where idiots like the supercilious arse spent $5K plus. San Diego, Santa Barbara, San Francisco, Park City, Key West, Hilton Head, Flagstaff and others.
Don’t believe me? Check out flyertalk.com
See how smart people travel almost free!
“Welcome to the FlyerTalk Forums.
FlyerTalk’s 24/7 forums deliver the latest traveler information on airlines, hotels, and more. Join vacationers, mileage junkies, and industry insiders in dedicated boards: frequent-flyer programs, maximizing miles, airports, destinations, dining, and general travel. Pick a forum, dive into elite expert tips, and connect with a global, interactive travel community.
MILES & POINTS
Explore the Miles & Points forums — a hub for everything frequent flyer related. Unlock the secrets of loyalty programs, discover new strategies, share experiences, and maximize rewards — all in one dedicated space.
TRAVEL & DINING
From global travel updates to dining reviews and special-interest trips, our Travel & Dining forums offer a hub for every type of traveler. Connect, engage, and plan your next adventure here.”
I predict “you” are too stupid to do this!
Personally, I like FREE!
Pam, you declared was that you needed your birth certificate to renew your driver license; you didn’t; that was just another of your embellishments of your personal experience; I noted that no state requires a birth certificate for such renewal. Your attempt to respond to that point involved a weird claim that you could go into any government building; I noted that this claim too were false.
You keep trying to get away from not only from what I have actually said but from what you have actually said.
Why should I care about FlyerTalk? It doesn’t change the fact that you falsified your claim about a license renewal and your claim about access to government facilities.
Daniel is still Lying! That is what supercilious arses do.
The 80 mpg (determined by comparing comparing price per gallon and the cost of electricity in price per kwh)) vehicle was an all-electric Volvo XC40 P8 with over 400 hp and an acceleration of 0 – 60 in 4.7 seconds. The Kia Niro has 200+ hp and gets over 100mpg when comparing gasoline prices and electricity prices of vehicles. I put 15,000+ miles on the Volvo and sold it at a price that I drove the Volvo FREE!
The Volvo was all-wheel drive and the Kia two-wheel drive.
My only costs (other than insurance and property tax) was electricity at 11 cents per kwh. The Kia gets 3.9 miles per kwh (11 cents).
Daniel has trouble with numbers so he won’t comprehend the math of the problem.
I would explain it to Danny Boy but he wouldn’t understand.
Sorry you are incompetent Danny Boy.
Pam, your original claim was not about some measure of equivalence; your original claim was that you once had an “all-electric SUV that got 80 mpg”. Anyone who thinks that I might be lying can just followthe link.
Meanwhile, anyone following your ranting and my replies here has seen you just compounding the falsifications, as you shriek about my not reading.
By all means, keep digging a deeper hole for yourself.
To the supercilious arse Danny Boy. Also known as Mr Know-It-All!
I didn’t say that I needed my birth certificate. I took it in case I did. I can get into any building that requires a Real ID for entry. I do not have a Real ID and I will NOT get one. It took 5 hours over two days at two different locations to get my license renewed. The law for DMV licenses was just changed in NC because of long delays and waiting in iline. I won’t need to go to the DMV in 5 years since I will be able to renew online.
Your lack of knowledge with respect to all-electric vehicles is enormous.
I got the equivalent of 80 mpg on the Volvo and 106 on the Kia Niro. Both are below the government estimates. Want to any additional claims?
Keep up the stupidity, ARSE
Isn’t it obvious that 80 mpg isn’t about gas but the equivalent amount of electricity based on the prices of both gasoline and electricity. The 11 cents per kwh has been the same through Duke Energy for as long as I remember. The price of gasoline at the pump fluctuates almost daily. My 80’ “mpg”based on 11 cents per kWh and the price of gasoline at the time..
But as the reigning “supercilious arse”, you once again demonstrate your complete lack of knowledge about all-electric EVs. I have had two hybrids, three plug-in hybrids and two all-electric vehicles.
I saw a picture of you and you look like Steve Jobs near the end! I liked Steve Jobs.
Pam, my quoting of you couldn’t be both a lie and the truth. You called it a lie because you didn’t want to own your words. When you realized that you couldn’t escape them, you insisted that those words were somehow the truth.
You misread a claim of equivalence as one of identity, and then reported that identity as personal experience. No one who had actually owned an all-electric vehicle would have been as confused as you were when you claimed that you had one that got 80 mpg.
Pam, you said that you took your birth certificate to renew your license and that you couldn’t use it, and when I noted that you didn’t need it for renewal you responded by quoting the DMV instructions instead of just aknowledging that you didn’t need it.
Again: You didn’t originally claim a supposèd equivalence to a gas-mileage figure; you wrote that you once had an “all-electric SUV that got 80 mpg”. You keep claiming that I’m lying, because your original claim was so embarrassing, but anyone can check that I’m quoting you accurately and in context.
You really are STUPID! Such is the story of our supercilious arse. I guessing you aren’t married to a woman and don’t have kids. If you were married, how could they stand you. I spent $274 on electricity for 10,000+ miles. Home much did you spend on your gas guzzler? Or were you riding a broom?
Bye Danny (little) Boy!
I saw your pictures. They explains your Napoleon Complex issues!
In my first reply to you, Pam, I wrote “So now all that is left to you is either sullen silence or some ineffectual insult.” Well, though first you did a lot of claiming that, in quoting you what I said was somehow lying, we did ultimately get to your ineffectual insults.
Your very first comment to this entry could have been “Without robust measures, voter ID requirements could disenfranchise the impoverished elderly.” But you don’t want robust accommodation; you want an excuse not to have voter identification. You haven’t offered an adequate excuse.