LFG! Rep. Anna Paulina Luna Threatens Government Shutdown to Force Voter ID Law

Leave a CommentLFG! Rep. Anna Paulina Luna Threatens Government Shutdown to Force Voter ID LawCommentary

What Is the SAVE Act?

The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act is a bill that would require people to show documentary proof of U.S. citizenship—such as a passport, birth certificate, or REAL ID-compliant driver’s license—when registering to vote in federal elections. Supporters say it will stop noncitizens from voting, even though that is already illegal and extremely rare. Critics argue it could make it harder for millions of eligible citizens to register if they don’t have the required documents readily available.

House Passage and Key Supporters

The bill, officially H.R. 22, passed the Republican-controlled House of Representatives in April 2025 on a mostly party-line vote. Leading the charge is Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL), who has rallied a group of conservative House Republicans. Luna has publicly vowed to block procedural votes on any spending bills sent back from the Senate unless they include protections for the SAVE Act. President Donald Trump and Elon Musk have also voiced strong support for the measure and similar election-security ideas.

Why It’s Stalled in the Senate

Republicans hold the Senate majority, but the SAVE Act is stuck because of the modern filibuster—often called the “zombie” or silent filibuster.* Unlike the old-style “talking filibuster,” where senators had to speak endlessly on the floor to delay a vote, today’s version requires no actual speech. A senator can simply object or signal intent to filibuster, and the bill is effectively blocked unless 60 senators vote for cloture to end debate and proceed. Democrats have enough seats to prevent that 60-vote supermajority.

Rising Tensions Over Immigration and Funding

The standoff grew sharper after the January 24 fatal shooting of Alex Pretti, a 37-year-old U.S. citizen and ICU nurse, by a Border Patrol agent during protests over immigration enforcement in Minneapolis. Senate Democrats responded by threatening to block funding bills for the Department of Homeland Security. In turn, Luna and her allies say they will refuse to help advance any government funding bills in the House unless the final versions safeguard the SAVE Act’s goals.

How This Could Affect Government Operations

Congress funds the government through yearly spending bills that must pass both chambers and be signed by the president. When disagreements arise, lawmakers often pass short-term “continuing resolutions” to keep agencies open and avoid a shutdown. Hardline members like Luna use these must-pass moments as leverage to force their priorities, raising the risk of a government shutdown if no compromise is reached.

Quick Breakdown of How the Filibuster Works Today

  • No endless talking required: Unlike the classic “talking filibuster” seen in old movies (where a senator must physically hold the floor and speak continuously), the modern version doesn’t demand that. Since changes in the 1970s (especially a 1975 reform), senators can block or delay a bill simply by indicating opposition—often privately to leadership or through a formal objection.
  • The process in practice: If the majority leader wants to bring a bill to a vote and senses resistance, they typically file a cloture petition right away. Cloture is the motion to end debate, and under Senate Rule XXII, it requires 60 votes (a three-fifths supermajority) to pass for most legislation.
  • Effect: Without 60 votes for cloture, the bill stalls indefinitely. No floor speech marathon is needed; the mere threat or existence of a filibuster shifts the burden to the majority to find those extra votes.

This system has been in place for decades and remains unchanged—no major reforms have eliminated or forced a return to mandatory talking filibusters. Critics (from both parties at different times) argue it makes the Senate too gridlocked, while defenders say it protects minority rights.If rules were changed to require actual on-floor talking (as some reformers propose), it would be a different story, but that’s not the case now.

What Does “Nuking” the Filibuster Mean?

“Nuking” the filibuster is informal slang for the “nuclear option”—a parliamentary maneuver in the U.S. Senate that allows the majority party to change or bypass the filibuster rule with just a simple majority vote (51 senators, or 50 plus the vice president in a tie). This avoids the usual higher thresholds needed to alter Senate rules.The filibuster itself isn’t eliminated entirely in one go; the nuclear option is typically used to lower the votes required for “cloture” (ending debate) on specific types of business, like nominations or legislation.

How the Nuclear Option Works Step by Step

The Senate operates under its own standing rules, which traditionally require a supermajority (usually two-thirds, or 67 votes) to change them permanently. But the nuclear option exploits a loophole using precedents and appeals:

  1. A senator raises a point of order: During debate on a bill or nomination, a member of the majority party suggests that cloture should only require a simple majority (51 votes), not 60. For example: “I raise a point of order that the vote on cloture is by majority vote.”
  2. The presiding officer rules: The Senate’s presiding officer (usually the vice president or a senator in the chair) traditionally rules against this, upholding the 60-vote requirement (based on Rule XXII).
  3. Appeal the ruling: The majority then appeals the presiding officer’s decision. Under the Constitution and Senate precedents, appealing a ruling of the chair requires only a simple majority to overturn.
  4. Majority vote overrides: If 51 senators vote to overturn the ruling, it sets a new precedent. From that point forward, that lower threshold applies to similar situations.

This creates a binding precedent that effectively changes the rules without formally amending them (which would need 67 votes).Historical Examples

  • 2013 (Democrats): Majority Leader Harry Reid used it to eliminate the 60-vote requirement for most presidential nominations (executive branch and lower court judges), but not Supreme Court justices or legislation.
  • 2017 (Republicans): Majority Leader Mitch McConnell extended it to Supreme Court nominees.

It has not yet been used for ordinary legislation (bills), where the 60-vote cloture rule still stands as of 2026.

Could It Happen for Legislation?

Yes, in theory. A majority leader could trigger it on a specific bill facing a filibuster, setting a precedent that applies broadly afterward. This is highly controversial—it’s seen as breaking Senate traditions of minority protection—and often leads to retaliation when parties switch power. Many senators from both parties have resisted “nuking” the legislative filibuster to preserve the chamber’s deliberative nature.In short, it’s a drastic but legal tool relying on majority will, not a formal vote to rewrite all rules.