Latest news with #SAVE)Act
Yahoo
19-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
The SAVE Act Could Threaten Voting Access—And Repeat History
People participate in a protest in front of the Capitol building in Washington D.C. on Presidents' Day, Feb. 17, 2025. Credit - Dominic Gwinn—Middle East Images/AFP/Getty Images On April 10, 2025, the House of Representatives passed the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act on a largely party-line vote. Republicans hailed the bill as a way to safeguard American elections from undocumented migrants voting. Critics, by contrast, warn it could make voting more difficult—if not impossible—for legally eligible voters. That's especially true for tens of millions of married women, who may not be able to provide the required documentation to prove their citizenship to register to vote. Presenting a birth certificate remains the easiest way to do so under the Act. However, many married women take their husband's surnames and therefore don't have birth certificates that match their current legal names. If the Senate passes the SAVE Act and President Donald Trump signs it into law, it will mean that millions of American women could find themselves in the shoes of Ethel Mackenzie, an early 20th century suffragist. Like McKenzie, they might see their ability to register and vote inhibited due to a congressional effort to prevent non-citizens from voting. When Mackenzie tried to register to vote after California adopted woman suffrage in 1911, she was shocked to find out she couldn't—despite being born in the Golden State. The culprit: the 1907 Expatriation Act, a federal law that stripped American women of their citizenship when they married non-citizens. Mackenzie's case exposed how nativist policies could harm not just immigrants, but also the rights of American women. Now, the Save Act threatens to do the same. In 1855, Congress passed the Naturalization Act. The law made any immigrant woman who married a citizen man into a citizen herself, as long as she met the racial requirements for citizenship. In 1868, the 14th Amendment established birthright citizenship for all people born in the U.S., except for American Indians and the children of foreign diplomats. Surprise over Trump's Gains With Latinos and Asian Americans Stems From a Flawed Assumption In the last three decades of the 19th century, however, nativist sentiment surged. In 1882, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, banning Chinese laborers from immigrating to the U.S. In 1892, Congress extended and expanded the ban in the Geary Act. And in 1907, President Theodore Roosevelt negotiated the Gentleman's Agreement with Japan restricting Japanese immigration to the U.S. That same year, the State Department pressured Congress to pass the Expatriation Act. Officials argued that marriages between citizens and non-citizens were handled differently by different nations and without a uniform rule in the U.S., the department couldn't determine who was entitled to an American passport and protection while outside of the country. Advocates for women's suffrage thought the bill wasn't a good idea and expected the courts to find it unconstitutional. They believed it was was wildly out of step with the ongoing erosion of coverture, a set of legal practices that the State Department had specifically used to justify their recommendation to Congress. Coverture derived from English common law and dictated that women suffered "civil death" upon marriage. They ceased to have a legal identity, and instead became covered by their husband's legal identity. This left them unable to sign contracts or own property. Suffragists fought to curtail coverture. But they also pushed another agenda item—one that helped propel the passage of the Expatriation Act—disfranchising non-citizens. In the colonial era and the Early Republic, voting eligibility was often tied to property ownership and residency, rather than citizenship. As such, non-citizen voting was often legal and common. The practice surged again in the midwest in the 1830s, and was added to several state constitutions in the Deep South as a Reconstruction reform after the Civil War to counter the votes of unreconstructed white southerners. But in the nativist climate of the early 20th century, the practice had fallen out of favor, and suffragists and other progressives fought to end it. Some suffragists argued that immigrants opposed suffrage for women and prohibition, and therefore immigrant voting posed a threat to their agenda. Reflecting how the two concepts became intertwined, South Dakota, Texas, and Arkansas put amendments on their ballots to enfranchise women while simultaneously ending non-citizen voting. The amendments passed in South Dakota and Arkansas. As adoption of the Expatriation Act proved, the push to end non-citizen voting proved too powerful for suffragists to control. The new law made married women dependent citizens; their citizenship status was now entirely derived from that of their husbands. When McKenzie discovered that the new law prevented her from voting, she filed suit, arguing that Congress could not take away by law what the Constitution granted her by birthright. While suffragists expected the courts would overturn the Expatriation Act, the nativist sentiments of the day were stronger than the trend towards women's rights. In 1915, the Supreme Court ruled against Mackenzie. As Ohio Representative John Cable summarized, the Court found that citizenship 'was not such a right, privilege, or immunity that it could not be taken away by an act of Congress.' The justices found that Mackenzie's decision to marry a non-citizen amounted to 'voluntary expatriation.' She was now stateless and unprotected in her own country. The decision left suffragists concerned that without married women' independent citizenship, suffrage would be an impossibility. Such fears proved wrong: in 1920 the ratification of the 19th Amendment prohibited states from barring women from voting on account of sex. Passage of the suffrage amendment encouraged Congress to revisit married women's independent citizenship, because it meant that immigrant women naturalized through marriage could vote, while American women denaturalized by marriage were disfranchised. The League of Women Voters, formed out of the National American Woman Suffrage Association, lobbied Congress for married women's independent citizenship. In 1922, they scored a partial victory when Congress passed the Cable Act, which ended automatic denaturalization for American women if their spouse was an immigrant racially eligible for citizenship. The law also provided a pathway for denaturalized women to reclaim their citizenship. But it still excluded women who married Asian immigrants. Some politicians used this period of denaturalization strategically to their own advantage. In 1928, Ruth Bryan Owen, daughter of William Jennings Bryan, became the first woman to win election to the U.S. House of Representatives from a former Confederate state. But upon her victory, her opponent sued arguing that her period of denaturalization after marrying a British serviceman during WWI meant that she hadn't been a citizen for the previous seven years—a constitutional requirement to serve. The challenge forced Owen, a native born citizen; daughter of a three-time presidential candidate, congressman, and Secretary of State; and a duly elected official from Florida to plead her case before Congress. Her fellow lawmakers chose to seat Owen, rejecting the challenge that threatened to undo the will of her constituents. Voter Suppression Grew Up From the Soil of Emancipation Itself During the 1920s, Congress amended the Cable Act several times. Then, in 1933 the Senate voted to adopt the convention of the Pan American Conference, which argued that differences in nationality laws based on sex should be eliminated. The next year, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Equal Nationality Act, through which American women achieved full, independent citizenship. Sixty years later, a new round of concerns of undocumented migration prompted Congress to make it a crime for non-citizens to vote in federal elections. Lawmakers did so even though it hadn't been legal for non-citizens to vote in either state or federal elections in any state since Arkansas's ban went into effect in 1926. Republicans allege that the SAVE Act will help enforce this existing law. But instead, it threatens to disenfranchise millions of married American women. The law stipulates that people can prove citizenship either by presenting a REAL ID or a military identification card, if they confirm a person's citizenship status. But many can not, which leaves people registering to vote with the option of presenting a state identification card or driver's license in conjunction with a certified birth certificate that includes the 'full name' of the applicant. It's this last provision which poses a problem for up to 69 million women who took their husband's name upon getting married. That means their birth certificates no longer include their full legal names. The law makes no allowances for such situations. It does leave room for states to decide which secondary documents to accept, but this would still be an additional burden on married women, could be applied unevenly across the country, and may open the door for challenges to election results—like the one faced by Ruth Bryan Owen—on the grounds that states didn't meet these onerous requirements. A century after the suffrage movement, the SAVE Act threatens to echo the harms of the Expatriation Act. While it's supporters claim it will target non-citizen voters, instead it could prevent American women from voting. Rachel Michelle Gunter is a public historian currently writing a book titled 'Suffragists, Soldiers, and Immigrants: Drastic Changes to Voting Rights in the Progressive Era.' Her series with the Great Courses, "Forgotten America: Rediscovering Events that Changed the Nation" premieres on May 9, 2025. She is on social media as @PhDRachel Made by History takes readers beyond the headlines with articles written and edited by professional historians. Learn more about Made by History at TIME here. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of TIME editors. Write to Made by History at madebyhistory@
Time Magazine
19-05-2025
- Politics
- Time Magazine
The SAVE Act Could Threaten Voting Access for Many Women—And Repeat History
O passed the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act on a largely party-line vote. Republicans hailed the bill as a way to safeguard American elections from undocumented migrants voting. Critics, by contrast, warn it could make voting more difficult —if not impossible—for legally eligible voters. That's especially true for tens of millions of married women, who may not be able to provide the required documentation to prove their citizenship to register to vote. Presenting a birth certificate remains the easiest way to do so under the Act. However, many married women take their husband's surnames and therefore don't have birth certificates that match their current legal names. If the Senate passes the SAVE Act and President Donald Trump signs it into law, it will mean that millions of American women could find themselves in the shoes of Ethel Mackenzie, an early 20 th century suffragist. Like McKenzie, they might see their ability to register and vote inhibited due to a congressional effort to prevent non-citizens from voting. When Mackenzie tried to register to vote after California adopted woman suffrage in 1911, she was shocked to find out she couldn't—despite being born in the Golden State. The culprit: the 1907 Expatriation Act, a federal law that stripped American women of their citizenship when they married non-citizens. Mackenzie's case exposed how nativist policies could harm not just immigrants, but also the rights of American women. Now, the Save Act threatens to do the same. In 1855, Congress passed the Naturalization Act. The law made any immigrant woman who married a citizen man into a citizen herself, as long as she met the racial requirements for citizenship. In 1868, the 14 th Amendment established birthright citizenship for all people born in the U.S., except for American Indians and the children of foreign diplomats. Read More: Surprise over Trump's Gains With Latinos and Asian Americans Stems From a Flawed Assumption In the last three decades of the 19 th century, however, nativist sentiment surged. In 1882, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, banning Chinese laborers from immigrating to the U.S. In 1892, Congress extended and expanded the ban in the Geary Act. And in 1907, President Theodore Roosevelt negotiated the Gentleman's Agreement with Japan restricting Japanese immigration to the U.S. That same year, the State Department pressured Congress to pass the Expatriation Act. Officials argued that marriages between citizens and non-citizens were handled differently by different nations and without a uniform rule in the U.S., the department couldn't determine who was entitled to an American passport and protection while outside of the country. Advocates for women's suffrage thought the bill wasn't a good idea and expected the courts to find it unconstitutional. They believed it was was wildly out of step with the ongoing erosion of coverture, a set of legal practices that the State Department had specifically used to justify their recommendation to Congress. Coverture derived from English common law and dictated that women suffered "civil death" upon marriage. They ceased to have a legal identity, and instead became covered by their husband's legal identity. This left them unable to sign contracts or own property. Suffragists fought to curtail coverture. But they also pushed another agenda item—one that helped propel the passage of the Expatriation Act—disfranchising non-citizens. In the colonial era and the Early Republic, voting eligibility was often tied to property ownership and residency, rather than citizenship. As such, non-citizen voting was often legal and common. The practice surged again in the midwest in the 1830s, and was added to several state constitutions in the Deep South as a Reconstruction reform after the Civil War to counter the votes of unreconstructed white southerners. But in the nativist climate of the early 20 th century, the practice had fallen out of favor, and suffragists and other progressives fought to end it. Some suffragists argued that immigrants opposed suffrage for women and prohibition, and therefore immigrant voting posed a threat to their agenda. Reflecting how the two concepts became intertwined, South Dakota, Texas, and Arkansas put amendments on their ballots to enfranchise women while simultaneously ending non-citizen voting. The amendments passed in South Dakota and Arkansas. As adoption of the Expatriation Act proved, the push to end non-citizen voting proved too powerful for suffragists to control. The new law made married women dependent citizens; their citizenship status was now entirely derived from that of their husbands. When McKenzie discovered that the new law prevented her from voting, she filed suit, arguing that Congress could not take away by law what the Constitution granted her by birthright. While suffragists expected the courts would overturn the Expatriation Act, the nativist sentiments of the day were stronger than the trend towards women's rights. In 1915, the Supreme Court ruled against Mackenzie. As Ohio Representative John Cable summarized, the Court found that citizenship 'was not such a right, privilege, or immunity that it could not be taken away by an act of Congress.' The justices found that Mackenzie's decision to marry a non-citizen amounted to 'voluntary expatriation.' She was now stateless and unprotected in her own country. The decision left suffragists concerned that without married women' independent citizenship, suffrage would be an impossibility. Such fears proved wrong: in 1920 the ratification of the 19 th Amendment prohibited states from barring women from voting on account of sex. Passage of the suffrage amendment encouraged Congress to revisit married women's independent citizenship, because it meant that immigrant women naturalized through marriage could vote, while American women denaturalized by marriage were disfranchised. The League of Women Voters, formed out of the National American Woman Suffrage Association, lobbied Congress for married women's independent citizenship. In 1922, they scored a partial victory when Congress passed the Cable Act, which ended automatic denaturalization for American women if their spouse was an immigrant racially eligible for citizenship. The law also provided a pathway for denaturalized women to reclaim their citizenship. But it still excluded women who married Asian immigrants. Some politicians used this period of denaturalization strategically to their own advantage. In 1928, Ruth Bryan Owen, daughter of William Jennings Bryan, became the first woman to win election to the U.S. House of Representatives from a former Confederate state. But upon her victory, her opponent sued arguing that her period of denaturalization after marrying a British serviceman during WWI meant that she hadn't been a citizen for the previous seven years—a constitutional requirement to serve. The challenge forced Owen, a native born citizen; daughter of a three-time presidential candidate, congressman, and Secretary of State; and a duly elected official from Florida to plead her case before Congress. Her fellow lawmakers chose to seat Owen, rejecting the challenge that threatened to undo the will of her constituents. During the 1920s, Congress amended the Cable Act several times. Then, in 1933 the Senate voted to adopt the convention of the Pan American Conference, which argued that differences in nationality laws based on sex should be eliminated. The next year, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Equal Nationality Act, through which American women achieved full, independent citizenship. Sixty years later, a new round of concerns of undocumented migration prompted Congress to make it a crime for non-citizens to vote in federal elections. Lawmakers did so even though it hadn't been legal for non-citizens to vote in either state or federal elections in any state since Arkansas's ban went into effect in 1926. Republicans allege that the SAVE Act will help enforce this existing law. But instead, it threatens to disenfranchise millions of married American women. The law stipulates that people can prove citizenship either by presenting a REAL ID or a military identification card, if they confirm a person's citizenship status. But many can not, which leaves people registering to vote with the option of presenting a state identification card or driver's license in conjunction with a certified birth certificate that includes the 'full name' of the applicant. It's this last provision which poses a problem for up to 69 million women who took their husband's name upon getting married. That means their birth certificates no longer include their full legal names. The law makes no allowances for such situations. It does leave room for states to decide which secondary documents to accept, but this would still be an additional burden on married women, could be applied unevenly across the country, and may open the door for challenges to election results—like the one faced by Ruth Bryan Owen—on the grounds that states didn't meet these onerous requirements. A century after the suffrage movement, the SAVE Act threatens to echo the harms of the Expatriation Act. While it's supporters claim it will target non-citizen voters, instead it could prevent American women from voting. Rachel Michelle Gunter is a public historian currently writing a book titled 'Suffragists, Soldiers, and Immigrants: Drastic Changes to Voting Rights in the Progressive Era.' Her series with the Great Courses, "Forgotten America: Rediscovering Events that Changed the Nation" premieres on May 9, 2025. She is on social media as @PhDRachel Made by History takes readers beyond the headlines with articles written and edited by professional historians. Learn more about Made by History at TIME here. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of TIME editors.
Yahoo
08-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
The failed Florida election bill that angered voting rights and voting integrity advocates alike
Former St. Lucie County Republican supervisor of elections candidate George Umansky addressing a crowd in Pinellas County on April 24, 2024. (Photo by Mitch Perry/Florida Phoenix) An election bill requiring new Florida voters to show proof of U.S. citizenship failed to advance in the just-concluded regular legislative session, drawing sighs of relief from both voting-rights and voting-integrity groups, although for different reasons. The measure arose shortly after President Trump issued his executive order requiring voters to show proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote. 'This bill fully answers the president's call,' said Lee County Republican Persons-Mulicka when introducing her proposal (HB 1381) before the House Government Operations Subcommittee on April 1. The bill would have mandated that all voter registration applications, including any with a change in name, address, or party affiliation, could only be accepted after the Florida Department of State verified that the applicant was a U.S. citizen in one of three ways: The applicant's voter record indicated that his or her legal status as a U.S. citizen had been verified. The applicant's legal status as a citizen was matched against records of the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles or U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Or the voter showing one of seven identification sources, such as a driver license, a U.S. passport. or a birth certificate. Critics noted that the provision removed several previous categories to verify voter identification, such as a debit or credit card, student identification, or retirement cards. 'It's not just an issue for noncitizens,' said Brad Ashwell, Florida state director for All Voting is Local Action. 'If the bill had passed, after Oct. 1 any of us who are renewing IDs due to an address change, a party change, a name change, would all have to show proof of citizenship. And it had a list of IDs to do that are pretty cumbersome and that a lot of people don't have — like a passport or an original copy of a birth certificate.' The bill resembled the federal Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, which passed the U.S. House of Representatives last month with four Democrats joining all Republicans in supporting it, Ashwell said. One of the talking points that critics formed in that debate was how the bill would potentially disenfranchise married women who changed their last names. An estimated 69 million American women and 4 million men lack a birth certificate that matches their current name, according to the Center for American Progress, a progressive group. What about passports? In Florida, approximately 40% of the voting population, or around 8.1 million citizens in the state, lack passports, also according to statistics provided by the Center for American Progress. Voting integrity activists also had major problems with the bill. 'There were multiple things in there that appeared good at first glance but, when you read the details, weren't good at all,' said Deb Monks of the group Defend Florida, which held town hall meetings throughout the state discussing the bill. 'I call it window dressing. Some were positive, but if you really looked in it, it didn't accomplish what we needed.' Monks said her organization had more involvement with bills filed in the House by House Republicans Berny Jacques (HB 831) and Webster Barnaby (HB 1203) plus several by Miami Sen. Ileana Garcia (SB 1330, SB 390, SB 394 and SB 396). 'Those fully addressed the citizenship issues as well as cleaning up the voting rolls,' Monks said. None of them received a hearing. The citizenship bill also called for replacing the existing ballot machine recount and audit process with an automated, independent pre-certification vote validation process for every vote cast in every election — the first state in the country to do so, Persons-Mulicka boasted. The likely software that supervisors of elections would need to accommodate that change would be ClearAudit, which creates an image of every paper ballot and lets election officials quickly call up ballots with questionable markings to verify votes. However, not every county in the state uses the ClearAudit technology, which is produced the company ClearBallot. That was a problem mentioned by both voting rights and voting integrity advocates. 'My issue with that is economic — the only way that they're going to be able to comply with that law is if they get software that allows them to audit every precinct for every vote before the certification deadline,' said Ashwell. 'So, if they can't do that, it's going to delay the certification deadline and that's a huge problem. If they do get the software to do that, it wouldn't be a problem, but that costs money, and my understanding is that only about 2/3rds of the counties have that software at this point.' 'The way that we feel, we don't need another machine,' added Cathi Chamberlain of the voter integrity group Pinellas Watchdogs. 'We want to get rid of the machines, so we're really strong on that. We saw what VR [Systems] did in the last election, so these systems are not really reliable. We don't trust them at all. Clear Ballot is extremely expensive, especially for your smaller districts that can't afford that, not just the machines, but the upkeep as well.' A glitch in VR Systems' machines delayed results in the August primaries last year. A spokesperson for the Florida Department of State told the Phoenix that the agency was looking into how many counties use ClearAudit, but did not provide those numbers before this story was published. Not all conservatives were critical of the measure. 'Section 6 [of the bill] authorizes data sharing with other states to purge deceased or ineligible voters, and Section 8 leverages federal jury data to flag ineligible voters,' said Karen Jaroch of Heritage Action. 'That's smart, practical reforms to protect every lawful vote.' Meanwhile, election-related bills sponsored by Democrats and voting rights advocates predictably went nowhere, with none of them getting a hearing. Those advocates' favorite bill encompassing an assortment of provisions was packed into the Harry T. and Harriette V. Moore Florida Voting Rights Act (SB 1582/HB 1409) originally sponsored in the Senate by Democrat Geraldine Thompson, who died just weeks before the session began (Jacksonville's Tracie Davis later become the Senate sponsor). The 113-page omnibus measure proposed a variety of changes, including establishing Election Day as a holiday and authorizing same-day voter registration. It would have required counties with histories of voter suppression to get pre-clearance before making voting changes (a provision of the 1965 federal Voting Rights Act that the U.S. Supreme Court struck down in 2013). It also would have repealed recent laws on vote-by-mail and created a database for felons to determine whether they have had their voting rights restored. Realizing the bill would never get a hearing on its own, Orange County Democratic Rep. LaVon Bracy Davis opted to insert the entire measure onto Persons-Mulicka's bill as an amendment when it came before its sole committee hearing last month. It was voted down by the GOP-dominated committee. Both sides say they expect a version of this bill to be resurrected next year. While Persons-Mulicka was unsuccessful in moving this measure, she was also the sponsor of one of Gov. DeSantis highest priorities this year. That would be HB 1205, a proposal designed to reduce fraud in the signature petition process with citizen-led constitutional amendments, a bill that critics say will make it much harder to get such measures on the ballot. Florida voters have already shown that they want only U.S. citizens to vote in state elections. A 2020 constitutional amendment calling for that was approved by more than 79% of the electorate. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
04-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
President Trump's first 100 days in office: A failure to lead the nation
'Here are 10 ways Donald Trump failed us in his first 100 days in office' ( April 29) In the short span of 100 days Trump has: ▪ Nearly crashed the U.S. economy deleting trillions of dollars including individuals 401Ks; ▪ Made the U.S. the pariah of the world with tariffs and a trade war; ▪ Made us less safe by saying he would not aid a NATO ally under attack if HE doesn't think they are worth it; ▪ Threatened our neighbor Canada; ▪ Threatened Greenland and by extension Denmark; ▪ Deported US citizens and immigrants here legally; ▪ Filled his cabinet with incompetent and unethical morons because they will do as they are told. The United States will not survive another 6 months of this let alone 4 years. But the biggest failure and shame belongs to the Republican Congress that cowers in fear and accepts literally anything Trump says. I believe the house has 'representatives' by design, but is now filled with spineless cowards representing billionaires. It is beyond disgraceful, it is repulsive. Opinion Trump is a liar, a thief, a bully, and a coward. The republican house members are absolutely worthless. Elections have consequences, this time they may be irrevocable and fatal. They must be stopped before it is too late, congress must act. Randy Sacks, Coarsegold 'If you changed your last name after getting married, your right to vote is at risk' ( March 13) The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act would impose new federal proof-of-citizenship requirements for voting, purportedly to ensure election integrity. Instead, however, this cynical piece of lawmaking directly threatens traditional marriage values and as a result could strip voting rights from millions of women. This is because more than eight in ten women in the United States have adopted their husbands' surnames as their own, often per their religious beliefs. The problem? Their names now do not match their birth certificates, one of the few documents the SAVE Act considers acceptable for proof of citizenship (another being a valid U.S. passport). This could force women to either decline to take their spouse's name or sacrifice their hard-won right to make their wishes known through their ballots. To be clear, it is already illegal for non-citizens to vote. This unnecessary measure has passed the US House and awaits action in the Senate, meaning it is just one legislative step away from the president's desk. I urge everyone reading this letter to contact California's US Senators, Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff, to urge a 'No' vote on this assault on our personal, political, and religious freedoms. Dennis J. Pfaff, Redwood City 'Bill by ex-energy company executive would slash solar credits. How shady' ( April 27) In 2018 I purchased a solar power system for two main reasons. The first was to control the price of electricity in my monthly bill. The second was to help the environment by going green. The utilities – with the help of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and members of the state legislative – are chipping away at the incentives that attracted me to the purchase of the solar power system. News articles that come out explain that non-solar user's electric bills are high because owners of solar systems don't pay their fair share and that this pushes the cost to the non-solar user. This is a false narrative. Solar owners have purchased or rent a solar power system with their own money. They provide surplus electricity to the grid during the daytime above what they have used in their own home or business. Owners of solar power systems are not the bad guy. They don't make billions of dollars profit each year. I pay approx. $12 a month for electric service. I received a credit of $7.06 this last February from my surplus of 228 kWh at true-up. Read AB-942 that is being proposed. David McGee, Clovis Police traffic stops 'We asked Fresno police chief about traffic stops and race. Here's what she said' ( April 22) Articles have been written about police officers conducting traffic stops. Perhaps the organizations conducting the studies and the person who wrote the Bee article should read the California Vehicle Code. It lists the driving and traffic laws that ALL drivers needs to obey, like faulty equipment, expired registration, blacked-out front windows, speeding, unsafe driving, and so on. This gives Officers a reason, or in legal terms, 'probable cause' to make a traffic stop. We all study the Vehicle Code, go to DMV, take a written and driving test for our license and sign that we will obey ALL laws. Maybe the studies should be conducted on the people who violated the laws and ask them why they chose to violate the law. To get a good dose of reality drive the city streets and count the intersections where people have spun their tires and have damaged the asphalt. Or better yet, stand at a major intersection and count the number of vehicles that fail to stop, run a red light, speed through the intersection and multiply that by the number of major intersections in the city. Do that before inserting the race card in a study/arrticle. Frances Garcia, Fresno
Fox News
01-05-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
Phil Mickelson rips 'traitor' Chuck Schumer over SAVE Act criticisms: 'He is not representing America'
Golfing great Phil Mickelson fired off on Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., on social media Wednesday over the Democratic leader's criticisms of the Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act. Schumer on Wednesday criticized the Republican-backed legislation which passed in the House earlier this month. The bill would require voters to obtain proof of citizenship in person before they register for a federal election. It would also remove noncitizens from voter rolls. Schumer criticized the Trump administration and the SAVE Act, calling it the "antithesis of democracy." "Donald Trump and Republicans are putting our elections in a vice grip – executive orders from the president on one end, and dangerous legislation from Congress on the other," he said during his speech. "They don't understand the sacredness of elections and keeping them fair. The kind of legislation, the kind of executive orders which are so jaundiced, so slanted on the side of one party, are the antithesis of democracy." In a clip of the speech shared by Mickelson on X, Schumer called the bill "dangerous" and "reminiscent of Jim Crow." Mickelson fired back in a post, calling Schumer a "traitor." "How is this fighting for Americans? How is letting non citizens vote in American elections a good thing? It is NOT," his post read. "He is not representing America, its citizens nor their best interests. He's a traitor." In response to pushback on his post, the LIV Golf pro doubled down. The SAVE Act passed in the House passed 220-208 earlier this month. It moved to the Senate, where it will need the support of Democrats to meet the 60-vote threshold for advancement. Schumer suggested Wednesday that this will likely not happen. "Let me be clear: I will not let this noxious bill, the SAVE Act, become law. Every single Democrat is united against it. They need 60 votes. The SAVE Act is dead on arrival." Follow Fox News Digital's sports coverage on X, and subscribe to the Fox News Sports Huddle newsletter.
