Senate Reluctantly Abandons Trump’s Voting Measure

At 4:36 a.m. on Saturday, the Senate acknowledged political reality, adjourning and sending sleep‑deprived senators home without any concrete progress on the voting restriction bill that President Trump has pressed for months.

Republican legislators had pledged to work tirelessly on election changes that Mr. Trump says the party needs to secure midterm victories. Instead, they left with few tangible results, having staged only a symbolic pre‑dawn procedural vote on a diluted version of the bill that they knew lacked sufficient support.

Even the most vigorous proponents of the measure eventually admitted the obvious: there was insufficient Republican backing to advance the stringent voter‑identification legislation. With the party’s majority under threat, senators moved to abandon the futile effort and return home to campaign for re‑election.

‘We are not in a position to pass it right now,’ said Senator Mike Lee, a Utah Republican and one of the legislation’s most ardent supporters, on Friday night.

Senator John Thune, the South Dakota Republican and Senate Majority Leader, has been making this argument for months, citing stark “math” and “reality” that he says the president overlooked while demanding the Senate pass the election bill.

The president’s proposal would require Americans to present proof of citizenship to register to vote, institute a nationwide voter‑identification mandate, and sharply restrict mail voting. Dubbed the SAVE America Act, the measure lacks both the votes needed for passage and the 60‑vote supermajority required to overcome a Democratic filibuster.

Nonetheless, Mr. Trump ordered the Senate to cancel its scheduled five‑week recess unless it passed the measure. Lee, one of his most vocal supporters, had threatened to block adjournment or force colleagues onto a politically risky vote that would keep them in Washington.

In the end, Mr. Lee did neither. Although he compelled the Senate to vote on adjournment, he accepted a voice vote that did not require senators to formally record their stance.

In a late effort to demonstrate progress on the election measure, Republican leaders drafted a $150 billion budget outline to fund the war with Iran and finance new election restrictions, intending to bring it to a vote. The proposal would pave the way for a reconciliation bill — immune to filibuster — to circumvent Democratic opposition.

However, it was evident that the plan would have collapsed overnight, lacking sufficient Republican support to proceed.

Senator Ron Johnson, a Wisconsin Republican and Budget Committee Chair, said the effort would be postponed until September. He and other senators briefed Mr. Trump on the plan, noting that he endorsed it.

‘We’re in total agreement,’ Johnson said on Friday night. ‘We were essentially articulating the reality. He would prefer a stronger reconciliation bill that will require more time, and he fully supported our approach.’

Yet the budget reconciliation process is intricate, and Republicans are racing against time to pass their agenda before Election Day. The Senate has only three remaining weeks in Washington before the midterms, when control of Congress hangs in the balance.

Lawmakers seeking re‑election were especially eager to return home to focus on their campaigns. Senator Lisa Murkowski highlighted several competitive contests, including that of her Alaska colleague Senator Dan Sullivan, as she advocated for adjournment.

‘The most important thing for Senator Sullivan, as well as my colleagues Susan Collins, Jon Husted, and Pete Ricketts, is for them to return home, be in their states, and resume their work,’ Murkowski said, referring to Republican senators from Maine, Ohio, and Nebraska who face voters in November.

Before departing, Republicans held a test vote aimed at putting Democrats on the defensive regarding the election‑bill’s voter‑ID component, capitalizing on a policy that polls indicate enjoys broad popularity. They sought to advance a bill sponsored by Mr. Husted — facing a tough re‑election fight — that would have mandated voters nationwide to present specific photo identification for federal elections.

Ultimately, the effort failed along party lines, with all Democrats voting against it.

Although some Democrats have voiced support for federal voter‑ID requirements, they argue that Mr. Husted’s proposal would overly restrict acceptable forms of identification, potentially disenfranchising eligible voters who lack the requisite documentation.

Source link