Stephen Richer

I don't think that's an unduly onerous burden.

But the way in which they've drafted it is problematic.

The way in which they're trying to impose it is problematic.

And there's also a lot of states' rights people who say, well, I actually think that this should be best left to the states.

So I should first say that this is predicated oftentimes on a false notion that there are large numbers of non-citizens who are participating in American elections.

And that's simply not true.

It's not true by the number of people who have been prosecuted for this, but it's also not true because a number of states, even in recent weeks, have...

I affirmatively investigated the number of non-citizens on their rolls.

I wrote about this in the New York Times and just simply the numbers aren't there.

And then secondly, yes, I'm not even sure that the political calculus is right.

As you've noted before, the demographics of the Republican Party have materially changed even from where they were in 2016.

Republicans are no longer the disproportionately educated, disproportionately affluent country club party that maybe we once envisioned them.

And they are actually potentially less likely to have passports because they're not living in coastal cities and taking those international trips.

And so I do think that that's another curious wrinkle to the SAVE Act.

Now, maybe Republicans would say, well, that's not

goal here.

And our goal is just to further secure elections.

I would say we need to clean up how it's being done technically.

And I still don't think that there's a great justification for it.

And a lot of people say, well, Stephen, voter ID polls really well.