Hakeem Jeffries rejects GOP spending bill as ‘unserious and unacceptable’
Hakeem Jeffries rejects GOP spending bill as ‘unserious and unacceptable’
House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries is rejecting a proposal Speaker Mike Johnson has put forward that links continued government funding for six months with a measure to require proof of citizenship when registering to vote.
Calling it “unserious and unacceptable,” House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries rejected on Monday a proposal from Speaker Mike Johnson that links continued government funding for six months with a measure to require proof of citizenship when registering to vote.
The response frames the spending battle to come over the next weeks as lawmakers work to reach consensus on a short-term spending bill that would prevent a partial government shutdown when the new fiscal year begins Oct. 1. Lawmakers hope to avoid a shutdown just weeks before voters go to the polls.
Johnson is punting the final decisions on full-year spending into next year when a new president and Congress take over. He’s doing so at the urging of members within his conference who believe that Republicans will be in a better position next year to secure the funding and policy priorities they want.
What a fucking pathetic process to have to hear about every year.
Every few weeks/months even.
The next Congress could use its majority to change the rules of the game. Every Dem majority since the '09 Obama supermajority had this power.
But I bet they won't.
But I bet they won’t.
they literally didn't the last time around like they didn't every single time before then; why would they next time?
it's bonkers to me that having ID is not mandatory in the US. do all these rednecks think that SSN is number of the beast or something
in my country, you have to have ID and you have to register mail address with the govt (as an official way of delivering documents but not only) this address is also used to automatically register for voting at closest pooling station which is in general less than 1km away in cities and there's one within every village 500 or so or more. for actual voting most of people bring ID, but driving license, passport or official govt app with digital ID is also allowed
it’s bonkers to me that having ID is not mandatory in the US. do all these rednecks think that SSN is number of the beast or something
The real problem isn't convincing people they should get an ID. The problem is that there is no existing federal ID standard outside a passport, and getting a passport takes a significant amount of time and money. In most states, you do have to have an ID to at least register to vote, and in many you have to show ID when voting, it's just that the requirements for ID vary from state to state and, again, there's no federal standard. The Republicans screaming for voter ID laws know all this, but they refuse to do anything to fix it first. Make of that what you will.
On top of all that, there is zero evidence that we have a problem with non-citizens trying to vote. It just doesn't happen. Why would they? What would they possibly have to gain by taking the risk of being caught?
the voter id thing is over simplified, easy sound bite, misdirection selected because having an id to vote has a broad consensus with everybody so long as you don't look beyond the surface of what it actually means:
voters in this country already have id's and have to show id to vote so they're not referring to the act of voting; they're referring to the act of registering to vote because the federal government doesn't define it well so the states insert their own version of it and most of the state governments in this country are republican which use "voter id" as a means to suppress democrat voters within their jurisdictions.
in other words: if you cannot register to vote, then you are not allowed to vote; it doesn't matter that the federal government could recognize your id as legitimate for voting, it only matters than your state does and your state is not legally required to match the federal government's definition of acceptable voting id if it existed. conservative states know this; are a solid majority in this country and are using their majority position to pressure the federal government into adopting it to suppress the other party's voters.
for decades, the conservative state and city governments have been receiving financial and advisory support from dark monied astro-turfed conservative movements that have spent millions of dollars and decades worth of experiments on cherry picked court cases and using their relationship with the governments to test out policies that could have the effect that conservatives desire to see in our society. using "voter id" is something that they spent a lot of time and money and effort reviewing over and over again and it was money will spent because now people think they know what it means based on it's name; but that understanding is shallow.
require proof of citizenship when registering to vote.
Calling it "unserious and unacceptable" is too nice. They need to call it like it is.
"You purposefully are including what you know to be unworkable items so you can claim we don't care about election integrity and shut down the government so you can scream 'The Democrats are letting illegals vote' which is clearly not true, or barring that, trying to muscle us into disenfranchising millions of US citizen voters."
Proof of citizenship:
You should twe…x…Twix that quote to @mikejohnson or whatever. Your writing just flows, it’s awesome.
If you frame it like that, there will be a lot of doctors getting calls about erections lasting longer than 4 hours.
make a free national voter ID law first, then when everyone has one lets talk about requiring this bullshit.
Repubs despise this idea for some reason, but isn't this a compromise that gets them exactly what they want? They couldn't possibly be saying one thing but actually wanting a different outcome, right?
they've always fought a federal ID as far as I can remember. Its similar to how most talk about the border then like staff their mansions with undocumented immigrants. Or how they talk about the deficit and inflation then skyrocket both. They know the media is owned by their friends and will shield them from any sort of accountability.
I dont get it. What is the down side of implementing this policy?
sound reasonable to me that you only want to allow legal citizens to vote as per law
Edit:
@banshee@lemmy.world had shared a good article covering all points in the comments and more
https://www.npr.org/2024/06/11/nx-s1-4991903/voter-registration-proof-of-citizenship-requirement.
I also want seize the opportunity to thank everyone who took the time to downvote my question
In case you're asking in good faith... The downside is that non-citizens voting is simply not a problem. The number of cases is extremely low, there's nothing to "fix" here. The biggest impact of this policy would be that actual American citizens who do not have, or lost, or forgot to bring their proof of citizenship will not be able to vote. It will predominantly affect poor and marginal populations. People that don't have a passport, don't have easy access to their birth certificate, or aren't aware of the new regulation. Fewer people voting is 100% the goal with this policy.
We also have real world examples like Alabama passing a voter ID law and then almost immediately turning around and closing DMV offices in poor, black counties, making getting an ID even more difficult for at-risk communities:
Voter ID laws are very much about cloaking intentional disenfranchisement of legal citizens in a veil of preventing virtually non-existent voter fraud.
imo wouldn't it be a better spend electorally just to help everyone get a passport than to donate to a political campaign who will just use it to buy ads on conservative media?
I have 3 siblings, for a grand total of 6 in my family. Only my mom and I have passports. At present, despite all of us being born in the states and naturalized, only two of us have passports. So only two of us have standardized federal IDs that prove our citizenship. RealIDs are becoming more common, but nowhere near as common as a standard state driving license which does not prove citizenship.
So the requirement is going to require people to grab their birth certificates and social security cards which are not always available to every family member.
For example, my parents live out of state and have all the important family documents so 2 of siblings are screwed unless they make sure to grab those relatively sensitive documents and be prepared to carry them out and about then hang on to them for several hours.
It's impractical, and it wasn't a problem for the years leading up to my birth (96), wasn't a problem in '00 for bush, or '04 for bush, or '08 and '12 for Obama. It's suddenly become a problem because the GOP is getting called out for election shenanigans and they generally know unless they can make voting more difficult or less representative (through gerrymandering and goofy election maps) they will lose.
It does sound reasonable, but the existing mechanisms of enforcement and fraud detection have been, and continue to be, robust enough to keep voter fraud from having any meaningful statistically significant impact.
It only stands to make voting more difficult for most people.
Thank you. I wrongly assumed every American citizen has a national ID that they could just present during registratiin
The implementation is usually the issue. If white people/wealthy don't need to show documentation, for instance. Or they only check areas that are known democrat (or known Republican). And, at the end of the day, many people can't necessarily prove it, and the government does not guarantee free/quick access to citizenship documents, so it disproportionately affects poorer people.
Imagine if they changed this law 2 weeks before an election, and your birth certificate is in Clark county Texas while you live in Florida. It is a very easy way to disenfranchise voters and skew election results.
Eta: there's also no robust evidence that there is almost any voter fraud, much less wide spread. Especially around citizenship. Why risk deportation/prison to vote? So this probably won't solve a problem that doesn't exist, and will create "unintended" consequences for legitimate voters.
Because it's easy at the local level to selectivity apply the rules and only allow the people you want to vote. Here is an actual literacy test that was used. Hint if you were white you passed if not you failed.
“Draw a line around the shortest word in this line.”
You can’t draw a line around something. It’s not a line then. Fucking hell.
Others have given good explanations, so let me just follow them and say voter ID laws are a fix to a non-issue that has the convenient effect of making certain demographics unable to vote where they could and did before without a problem, legally.
It's classism and racism all wrapped up in a made up problem to solve, designed to maintain power that would be lost if everyone eligible to vote could vote.
How many forms of ID do I need to prove I'm a citizen. Is a State issued ID enough, or will I need to bring my Passport, Social Security Card and Birth Certificate? How long will each one of these forms of ID take to be verified and by what authority?
The point is you're creating artificial barriers to real citizens voting while claiming its stopping the non-citizens voting. Especially in a country where voter registration is up to the individual and managed at the county level. It's not like genuine citizens are being enrolled in childhood and never have to update it and so they never have to worry about presenting their ID.
Has anyone ever explained to you how Digital Rights Management only harms paying customers and pirates get a superior media experience? This is something like that.
This really only harms real US citizens and the number of people trying to vote illegally are probably already savvy enough to have falsified but realistic documentation, so like pirates, they're getting a superior experience while you harm the experience of real citizens.
Noncitizens are already not voting. There are more Repubs' deceased grandmothers voting than noncitizens voting.
I'm fairly certain most rich people cast ballots in multiple states. A federal voter ID system would prevent this by being able to track poll location, but obviously the republican solution wouldn't stop illegal acts by rich people.
The other crazy part is a law requiring states to establish citizenship... which is solely the responsibility of the feds.
Here's an excellent article explaining how this would affect underrepresented groups more than others: https://www.npr.org/2024/06/11/nx-s1-4991903/voter-registration-proof-of-citizenship-requirement.
So what happens if there is a shutdown when the election is supposed to happen?
Elections are run by the states, not by the federal government. Also, even in a shutdown some level of spending continues.