House Speaker Mike Johnson is daring Democrats to vote against his plan to temporarily fund the government, but it’s Republicans who will likely scuttle his play call.
Mr. Johnson’s push to tie a six-month funding patch with legislation that would require proof of citizenship to vote survived its first hurdle in the House ahead of a vote on Wednesday.
Despite the popularity of the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act in the GOP, a growing contingent of Republicans plan to vote against the funding bill.
The speaker can only afford to lose four votes in the face of unified Democratic opposition and at least a half-dozen Republicans have publicly announced their opposition. They argue that attaching the legislation is nothing more than a messaging ploy, and that there’s not enough time to actually enforce the SAVE Act ahead of the Nov. 5 election.
Rep. Matt Rosendale of Montana, one of the Republicans who has vowed to vote against the bill, said that he believed Mr. Johnson’s plan was “disingenuous and dishonest” because attaching the SAVE Act to the stopgap guaranteed its failure with Democrats.
“Just attaching a [stopgap] to it is nothing more than a messaging proposition and a strategy that people have used, and I don’t think it’s sincere,” Mr. Rosendale told The Washington Times.
The SAVE Act would amend the National Voter Registration Act to require people to register in person with documents that prove they are citizens such as a Real ID, passport or other identification that shows place of birth.
The NVRA currently does not require proof of citizenship but asks registrants to attest that they are citizens or face penalties.
It would also require that election officials share information with the Department of Homeland Security and Social Security Administration to determine whether voters are eligible.
If the agencies determine someone is ineligible to vote, election officials would have to remove the noncitizens from voter rolls.
Mr. Johnson bullishly planned to plow ahead with the bill despite objections within the GOP.
He warned of the effect that noncitizen voting could have in tightly contested House races and in the presidential race, and contended that “if you have a few thousand illegals participating in an election in the wrong place” it could sway the outcomes.
“I’m not going to engage in conjecture and you know, try to game out all the outcomes,” Mr. Johnson said. “I think this is something that we should do. That’s what we’re doing. I told the [GOP Conference] this morning, I’ll say it here again. I am resolved on this.”
Former President Donald Trump agreed in a post on Truth Social, and demanded that if the GOP doesn’t get “absolute assurances on election security” it should shut the government down.
Some lawmakers don’t want a partial shutdown but are leaning toward voting “no,” like Rep. John Rutherford, over concerns the stopgap would hurt military funding by not including an increase in spending until March.
Mr. Rutherford, Florida Republican, instead wants to finish the remaining spending bills by the end of the year instead of kicking the government funding fight to next year. So far, the House has passed five of the dozen government funding bills, while the Senate has passed none.
“Let’s get these bills done by December, not push it into the next year,” Mr. Rutherford said. “I hope that’s where we wind up going.”
Meanwhile, Democratic leadership has been pressuring its members to vote against the bill because of the SAVE Act, and reject the notion that Republicans will put them in a tight spot with a politically charged vote heading into an election.
When the SAVE Act passed in July, five Democrats supported it, which would give the speaker more breathing room with Republican rebels.
But their support a second time around is not guaranteed. Democratic Caucus Chairman Pete Aguilar of California said this is nothing more than the GOP playing politics through the funding bill, which will turn off Democratic supporters of the SAFE Act’s merits.
“This is Speaker Johnson just trying to make Donald Trump happy. So we’re not worried about it. I know the question is about the politics of our members,” Mr. Aguilar told The Times.
“Our members have overwhelmingly rejected this. The members who have supported it can tell their communities that they supported it on a stand-alone piece of legislation, but when it’s wrapped up into all of this chaos with cuts to veterans, with cuts to important programs, it just doesn’t make sense,” he said.
• Alex Miller can be reached at amiller@washingtontimes.com.
• Kerry Picket can be reached at kpicket@washingtontimes.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.