Senate Republicans Have The Power To Force Democrats To Filibuster Voter ID — So Why Don’t They?

Senate Republicans could force Democrats into a talking filibuster on voter identification, but it’s unclear if they will use the strategy to pass the bill.

The SAVE America Act, a Republican-backed election integrity measure, would require documentary proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote — including by mail — mandate photo ID for federal elections, direct states to verify citizenship and remove non-citizens from federal voter rolls.

Republican Texas Rep. Chip Roy in a post on X, confirmed that the bill is expected to reach the House floor in February, and if passed, move to the Senate—where questions remain about whether Republicans, despite controlling both chambers, can muster the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster. (RELATED: ‘It’s Not Insurmountable’: John Kennedy Sizes Up What’s Needed To Pass SAVE ACT)

Without the 60-vote threshold or Democratic support, GOP Senate leadership would be faced with potentially using one of the Senate’s oldest tools — the talking, or standing, filibuster — to advance the legislation.

Republican Utah Sen. Mike Lee has referred to the Senate procedure as the “zombie filibuster.”

He wrote in a post on X that it is “uncharted territory” and acknowledged that it can be “time-consuming and difficult.”

The Talking Filibuster is uncharted territory for every living senator

Using will be time-consuming & difficult

Victory isn’t even guaranteed

So it’s understandable that some senators are reluctant

‼️🚨We still have to do it🚨‼️

The cost of not doing it is unacceptable https://t.co/lPZO1BL3pj pic.twitter.com/KlqHFHAVZT

— Mike Lee (@BasedMikeLee) February 6, 2026

Lee argues that now is the time to address the legislation, adding that the talking filibuster differs from the legislative filibuster because it does not require eliminating the 60-vote threshold for legislation or nominations, and therefore does “not commit” to altering Senate rules.

“This mess has got to be dealt with,” Lee told the Daily Caller.

“We might as well deal with it in the first instance. It does not commit us, it’s not nuking, it’s not changing the rules, it’s not ignoring any rules, it doesn’t require any nefarious activity, nor does it even compel us to adopt the same approach to every piece of legislation moving forward. But this is because it’s got to be dealt with at one point or another anyway. This isn’t gonna go away,” he continued.

Under a traditional talking filibuster, opposition is worn down through continuous floor speeches or enforcement of the two-speech rule, which limits each senator to two speeches on the same legislative question per legislative day. By keeping the Senate in continuous session and refusing to adjourn, the majority can prevent the minority from resetting those speech limits.

This approach shifts the burden to the minority to maintain constant floor presence and uninterrupted debate, imposing sustained physical and mental demands to preserve the filibuster.

Once all speeches are exhausted and a quorum is present, the majority leader may put the question to the chamber and proceed to a simple-majority vote. At that point, the filibuster has ended, cloture is unnecessary, and no Senate rules have been changed or overridden.

Operating entirely within existing Senate rules, this would allow Majority Leader Sen. John Thune — with a quorum present — to bring the measure to a final vote with 51 votes, as the 60-vote cloture threshold no longer applies once the filibuster has run its course.

If the Republican Senate chooses to proceed with a talking filibuster, it would require Majority Leader Thune to take an active role in calling live quorums, compelling Democrats to speak and enforcing Senate Rule 19, the “two-speech rule.”

One of the most high-profile examples of a talking filibuster came during the debate over the Civil Rights Act of 1957, when South Carolina Democratic Sen. Strom Thurmond spoke for over 24 hours in an attempt to block the legislation. He joined the Republican Party in 1964.

Since then, modern filibusters have largely relied on the threat of extended debate rather than continuous speeches, making Thurmond’s effort a rare example of the classic talking filibuster.

A common criticism of the federal voter identification bill is that, if enacted, it could pave the way for federalizing elections and encroach on state authority.

Lee has rejected that claim, dismissing it as a “paranoid fantasy” advanced by opponents of the legislation rather than a reflection of what the bill actually does.

“I mean it, it’s just, it’s not gonna happen. I mean it. I don’t, I don’t know anybody who wants to do that supposedly,” Lee told the Caller.

Another argument raised against the bill is that the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) may constrain federal proof-of-citizenship requirements. Critics point to the Supreme Court’s 2013 ruling interpreting the NVRA to require states to accept the federal voter registration form, which relies on an attestation of citizenship rather than documentary proof.

Under that framework, opponents of the SAVE Act argue the legislation’s mandates would need to be implemented through state-level registration systems or by amending the NVRA itself, rather than imposed through standalone federal legislation.

Lee asserts that Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution gives Congress clear authority to enact the SAVE America Act, particularly because federal law — not state policy — created the current constraints.

The Constitution—through Article I, Section 4—empowers Congress to pass the SAVE America Act

The NVRA—which SCOTUS has (wrongly) interpreted to prohibit states from seeking proof of citizenship when registering voters under the NVRA (even when it believes noncitizens are… https://t.co/anQJf8CzjC

— Mike Lee (@BasedMikeLee) February 4, 2026

He contends that Supreme Court interpretations of the National Voter Registration Act have prevented states from requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration, even when there is reason to believe noncitizens may be registering.

Justice Samuel Alito dissented in the Arizona v. The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona Inc. case, arguing that the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the NVRA “brushes aside the constitutional authority of the States” by preventing Arizona from enforcing its own proof-of-citizenship requirement to ensure that only qualified voters (U.S. citizens) are registered.

Supporters of the SAVE America Act frame the legislation not as an intrusion on state authority, but as a necessary federal remedy to a problem created by existing federal law.

The original SAVE Act, which ensures only U.S. citizens are added to federal voter rolls and prevents noncitizens from voting in federal elections, has been stalled in the Senate Rules Committee, chaired by Republican Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell. (RELATED: Mitch McConnell’s Hospital Stay Is Delaying The SAVE Act)

The newest version of the legislation, sponsored by Lee and Roy, has garnered support from President Donald Trump.

He told Daily Caller White House Correspondent Reagan Reese Friday: “I would love to use [the standing filibuster]. The SAVE Act is very important. Voter ID — if you look at it, no mail-in voting, and you have to have proof of citizenship. Everybody wants it. Polls — even with Democrats — it’s polling at 82%, with Republicans at 99%. So we are going to be trying very hard.” 

The Utah Republican met with Trump in the Oval Office Thursday alongside Republican Senators Ron Johnson 0f Wisconsin and Rick Scott of Florida, telling the Caller the president “wants it done” and is “energized” and “very motivated” to see the bill passed and signed into law. (RELATED: Trump Slams Door Shut On Conservatives’ Effort To Attach Election Integrity Bill To Shutdown-Ending Measure)

Great meeting today with @realDonaldTrump, @SenRonJohnson, and @SenRickScott

We all agree: it’s time to turn to the SAVE America Act, and do whatever it takes to pass it in the Senate

Big plans unfolding soon! https://t.co/J40xFd9DO0 pic.twitter.com/sYDNriUpjq

— Mike Lee (@BasedMikeLee) February 6, 2026

Lee further pointed out that his legislation could be strategically leveraged by Republicans, telling the Caller he believes using a talking filibuster on the SAVE America Act would increase the party’s negotiating power.

“If we do this with SAVE America, I think it increases our negotiating power, our leverage, you might say.”

Majority Leader Thune has raised concerns that the time required for a talking filibuster could otherwise be used to advance multiple pieces of legislation.

Lee pushed back, arguing that lawmakers should be willing to devote additional time to the effort.

🚨 INFURIATING: Leader John Thune is already BACKING DOWN on the SAVE Act, saying there are “implications” to triggering a “talking filibuster”

IF YOU CAN’T EVEN PASS A BILL THAT 80% OF AMERICANS SUPPORT, YOU NEED TO RESIGN, @LeaderJohnThune

The implications of FRAUDULENT… pic.twitter.com/gqDemChFKX

— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) February 3, 2026

“On each of those other pieces of legislation, and even if we have less full time available to do other stuff, then gosh, let’s make up for it by working longer hours, by having longer work weeks, by staying on weekends, by canceling some recesses,” Lee told the Caller.

“We are lawmakers. We were elected to make laws, and not all laws are worth enacting, but good heavens, when we’ve got this somewhat rare and extremely valuable asset and resource — if the House, the Senate majorities all unified at the same time as a Republican presidency, it is reckless not to use this, absolutely inexcusably reckless.”