Voter ID Filibuster Would Be a 24/7 GOP Campaign Ad

What if I told you Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., has the power and the votes — right now — to save Republicans’ congressional majorities, President Trump’s second-term agenda, and maybe the republic itself, all while poleaxing Democrats on the short side of an 84-15 issue?

It sounds like fantasy. But like the Lady of the Lake from Arthurian legend, 2026 is offering up to the GOP a political weapon almost as powerful as Excalibur itself: an extended Democrat talking filibuster of national voter ID legislation.


I think this article (both the headline, and the article it links to) brings up a great point.

Are there any cogent and compelling arguments for why Senate Democrats would threaten to filibuster over this?

As it stands, requiring ID to vote (not to mention that many of the other developed nations do it, even the quite progressive European ones do it) is one of the very few issues that's that lopsided in terms of people who are in favor of it. Large majorities (across many demographical categories) are in favor of it.

Is there a defense they can offer up, that doesn't handily feed accusations that they already try to defend against from the GOP? (and doesn't cut against other positions they've advocated for)


From a strategic standpoint, I'm not sure what their angle is.

They insist that their rebuke of the Voter ID concept isn't about helping to facilitate voting by people who aren't eligible to do so (or weakening the rules so that they could be the "happy coincidence benefactors" of such an arrangement) ... so if we take them at their word on that, then which rationales are left?

It's certainly not a popularity thing (85% of people want voter ID)
It's not an "appeal to a minority voter bloc" thing... majorities of Black, Hispanic, and Asian Americans (over 70%) support voter ID.
It's not an income-level thing...

So if it's not any of those things, then which "thing" is it?

Trying to put myself in the mind of a shrewd politician, what reason would a person have to actively go against something 85% of the population wanted.

As noted, Senate Democrats deny the allegation that they're seeking to benefit off of improprieties that may or may not be more likely (and by "may be more likely" I mean "Well, yeah, anyone with an IQ over 60 obviously knows it's more likely") in "universal mail-in, ID-free" systems.

So I'll take them at their word that that's not the reason, and will open up the floor for someone to provide a (what must be a pretty darn compelling, but everyone else can't seem to put their finger on, and that they've never verbalized to clarify), reason.