Fetterman Slams Dems ‘Jim Crow 2.0’ Voter ID Lies As GOP Pushes SAVE Act
Pennsylvania Democratic Sen. John Fetterman broke with Democratic Party leadership this week, signaling his support for voter identification laws, saying he does not view showing ID to vote as unreasonable.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and almost all Senate Democrats have turned down the Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act. This bill, which would protect the integrity of elections, passed the House earlier this week.
Schumer has called the bill “Jim Crow 2.0” because he thinks it would keep people from voting instead of making elections safer. But Fetterman, who has repeatedly disagreed with his party’s messages and positions, pushed back against Schumer’s framing of the bill.
“I would never refer to the SAVE Act as like Jim Crow 2.0 or some kind of mass conspiracy. But that’s part of the debate that we were having here in the Senate right now. And I don’t call people names or imply that it’s something gross about the terrible history of Jim Crow,” Fetterman told Fox News’ Kayleigh McEnany.
The bill would require voters to present photo identification before casting ballots, require proof of citizenship in person when registering to vote, and mandate states remove non-citizens from voter rolls.
However, momentum is building among Republicans.
Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, became the 50th member of the conference to back the legislation. But Senate Democrats have all but guaranteed its demise in the upper chamber, via the filibuster.
Fetterman would not say whether he supports the bill outright. However, he noted that “84% of Americans have no problem with presenting IDs to vote.”
“So it’s not like a radical idea,” Fetterman said. “It’s not something — and there already are many states that show basic IDs. So that’s where we are in the Senate.”
Even if Fetterman votes for the bill on the floor, it probably won’t pass unless there are bigger changes to the way things are done.
Right now, there aren’t enough votes to get past the Senate’s 60-vote filibuster limit.
Republicans, led by President Donald Trump, are pressing for passage of the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, which would require documentary proof of U.S. citizenship—such as a birth certificate or passport—to register to vote in federal elections.
Trump has called on Senate Republicans to resurrect the “standing filibuster,” an older, more grueling procedure that forces senators to physically speak on the floor to block legislation, rather than rely on the modern “silent” version that stalls bills without debate.
“America’s elections are rigged, stolen, and a laughingstock all over the world,” Trump wrote on Truth Social last week. “We are either going to fix them, or we won’t have a country any longer.”
Senate Majority Leader John Thune confirmed that the GOP is weighing whether to adopt the tactic, but emphasized that no final decision has been made.
Thune said such a procedural change would demand significant time on the Senate floor, limiting bandwidth for other priorities such as the farm bill, artificial intelligence legislation, and infrastructure funding.
Fetterman also linked the debate over election integrity to the ongoing fight over border enforcement, saying he wants to ensure that the Department of Homeland Security remains funded and focused on deporting criminal aliens.
“Hopefully we don’t have to pay the TSA people and everyone securing our border and focus on deporting those kinds of criminals wherever they are,” he said. “I never want to vote to shut our government down again.”
Although Fetterman reiterated that he does not support the SAVE Act itself, his acknowledgment that voter ID is reasonable marks a significant cultural shift within the Democratic Party.
Polls show the issue enjoys overwhelming bipartisan support.
A 2025 Quantus Insights survey found that 74 percent of Americans—including 61 percent of Democrats—support requiring photo identification to vote.
President Trump has maintained that securing elections through voter ID, proof of citizenship, and transparent counting procedures is essential to restoring confidence in the system. “Elections should be simple, secure, and transparent,” he said recently. “That vision doesn’t threaten democracy—it protects it.”
"""My husband brought his mistress to our daughter’s wedding—and then asked me to give her my seat beside him.
"""My husband brought his mistress to our daughter’s wedding—and then asked me to give her my seat beside him. For a few seconds, I honestly thought I was looking at the wrong table, because my name card had vanished and Melissa’s was sitting exactly where mine had been on every seating chart. She wore a pale blue silk dress, lifted her champagne as if she belonged there, and avoided my eyes when I stopped beside the chair. David stood up, pointed to an empty seat at the next table, and quietly said, “For tonight, why don’t you sit over there?”
I had spent fourteen months helping our daughter, Emily, plan that wedding, from dress fittings and florist meetings to late-night calls over napkins and seating charts. That morning, while I fastened the pearl buttons on her gown, she made me promise I would enjoy the day and not let anything between her father and me touch it. I meant that promise, because whatever was left of my marriage, I would not make my daughter’s wedding the battlefield where it died. But David had apparently made a different plan, and he expected me to cooperate with it in silence.
When I asked what Melissa was doing there, David’s face showed guilt for only a second before he hid it behind irritation. He acted as though I were creating the problem simply by noticing that his mistress was seated at the family table in the place reserved for the bride’s mother. Then Melissa looked at me and said, “Honey, today really isn’t the day to make Emily uncomfortable.” I almost laughed, because the woman who had been sleeping with my husband for nearly a year was now warning me not to embarrass my own daughter.
I could feel people settling into nearby seats, laughing and talking, unaware that my marriage was being quietly rearranged in front of them. David kept his voice low and told me we should not “do this here,” as if the humiliation belonged to me because I refused to disappear politely. I looked at the empty chair he had chosen for me between a cousin and someone from the groom’s side, and I realized something colder than anger. This was not spontaneous; he had thought about where Melissa would sit, and he had assumed I would move.
For twenty-eight years, I had been the woman who adjusted, explained, forgave, and made excuses when David forgot anniversaries, missed dinners, or put work ahead of family. When he became distant, I learned to expect less instead of asking for more, and somewhere along the way he mistook that patience for permission. Even now, part of me considered taking the other chair, smiling for photographs, swallowing the humiliation, and telling myself it was all for Emily. I actually reached for the chair because protecting my daughter still mattered more to me than winning a public fight.
Then I heard one word behind me: “Mom?” Emily was walking toward us in her wedding dress, still glowing from the ceremony, and at first she looked confused rather than angry. Her eyes moved from me, to the empty chair, to Melissa, then back to the family table where she had personally placed me months ago. David quickly stepped in and announced that he had “rearranged a few things,” as if changing the bride’s seating chart without permission were no more serious than moving a centerpiece.
Emily asked why I was not sitting in my seat, and David casually pointed to the neighboring table and said I would be sitting “right there.” Her smile disappeared, and her eyes dropped to the place card in front of Melissa. I watched my daughter’s expression go completely still as she picked up that card and turned it over in her hand. In that instant, I understood the worst part: Emily had not approved this, and David had brought his mistress into our daughter’s wedding believing he could force everyone to accept what he wanted once it was already done.
What Emily did not know was that six months earlier, I had discovered David’s affair through a message that appeared on his phone while he was in the shower. Melissa had written, “I hate pretending I don’t miss you when she’s around,” followed by another message asking whether Friday was still theirs. When I confronted him, David spent eleven minutes calling me paranoid, insecure, dramatic, suspicious, and unfair before I repeated Melissa’s words exactly. The silence that followed ended our marriage long before either of us ever said the word divorce.
We had kept the details quiet because Emily was planning her wedding, and I refused to turn her happiest season into a crisis about us. David told me he was “confused,” that what he had with Melissa was “more complicated than an affair,” and that he needed time before making decisions. I agreed only that Emily’s wedding came first, so we slept in separate rooms, spoke carefully, and tried to appear functional while our marriage quietly collapsed. I believed David understood that one day required restraint, but he had apparently used that silence to prepare something else.
Three weeks before the wedding, he had casually asked whether Emily had finalized the family table and whether every seat had been assigned. At the time, I thought it was harmless conversation, but standing there with Melissa’s card in my daughter’s hand, I finally understood why he had asked. He had been checking whether there would be room, and when there was not, he simply removed me. Emily looked up at her father and asked, very quietly, “Where is Mom’s place card?”—and for the first time that night, David had no easy answer.
…FULL STORY IN THE COMMENT 👇👇👇"" "
