Our editorial against the SAVE Act made three major points. First, we shouldn’t inject the federal government further into state administration of elections. That’s been a long-standing National Review commitment, whether in 2013 when our editorials defended state-level voter ID laws against federal interference, or in 2021–22 when Joe Biden and the Democrats were trying to enact H.R. 1 to federalize elections (including banning state voter ID laws) and demanding that the filibuster be removed as an obstacle to doing that. Second, while the SAVE Act reflects generally good policy that ought to be adopted at the state level, the practical benefits are limited, and this matters in deciding what costs are worth accepting to accomplish it. Third, the legislative filibuster, which has been the great friend of conservatives for a long time in holding back mischievous legislation, should not be demolished or altered in order to get this fairly modest legislation passed.
Allow me to add a few points in defense of those positions and responding to some of the proponents of changing how the filibuster operates in order to get the SAVE Act passed.
Comments