Voter ID Passes House But There’s A Catch, Say Critics
A majority of House and Senate Republicans have been trying to pass legislation that 75-80 percent of the American people on both sides of the aisle want, but a year later, it still hasn’t reached President Trump’s desk.
Of course, we’re talking about the SAVE America Act, with its provisions for federal voter ID and proof-of-citizenship requirements as election-integrity upgrades.
On Wednesday, the House passed legislation to implement voter identification requirements ahead of the midterm elections by attaching the measure to a separate bill that would also restrict members of Congress from trading individual stocks.
But here’s the catch: The Voter ID Act, included as part of the Stop Insider Trading Act, faces long odds in the Senate, where it would require 60 votes to advance.
Advertisement
Nevertheless, the House approved the package largely along party lines on Wednesday, July 22, by a vote of 232-198.
The legislation, introduced in part in response to President Donald Trump’s call for Congress to adopt key provisions of the controversial SAVE America Act, may not become law.
Even so, it is expected to shape the midterm election debate by highlighting issues such as congressional ethics, stock trading, election integrity, and voter identification.
Again, according to recent polling, the vast majority of Americans want voter ID, making it extremely frustrating for them and the president over Congress’s inability to get it done.
Republicans have accused Democrats of opposing what they describe as common-sense election reforms that enjoy broad public support. Thirteen Democrats joined Republicans in voting for the bill.
Most Democrats, however, opposed the legislation. Critics, including Rep. Joe Morelle, D-N.Y., argued that Republicans used a legislative “trick” to advance provisions they said would significantly undermine mail-in voting, USA Today reported.
“Make no mistake; this is a trap,” Rep. Seth Magaziner, D-Rhode Island, said on the House floor.
“This bill is to make it harder for eligible Americans to vote, and the Republican leadership is trying to trick us into supporting it by calling it a congressional stock trading ban,” he falsely claimed.
It is insanely easy to obtain an ID from any number of government entities, and in most cases, the ID is cost-free.
Republicans argued that a controversy that emerged this week in New Jersey underscored the need to pass the legislation.
Advertisement
The state’s governor attributed the mistaken addition of approximately 6,600 non-U.S. citizens to the voter rolls to a programming error at the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission.
USA Today claimed that about 400 of those non-citizens voted, but it’s not clear where the outlet came up with that number.
USA Today also claimed that the addition of the 6,600 non-citizens was due to a “software error,” but the software company, France-based IDEMIA, has since denied those claims and laid the blame squarely on New Jersey officials.
“Voter ID ensures the sanctity of our elections and ensures confidence by the American people in our elections,” said Rep. Mike Lawler, R-New York.
“The American people should watch how every single member votes on this bill.”
The Stop Insider Trading Act, which was combined with the voter ID legislation, would prohibit members of Congress, their spouses, and their dependent children from purchasing individual stocks while in office.
However, the bill would not require lawmakers to divest any stocks they already own. A separate bipartisan proposal, the Restore Trust in Congress Act, would go further by requiring members of Congress to sell their existing individual stock holdings.
Rep. Bryan Steil, a Republican from Wisconsin who introduced the recently passed bill, stated that opponents of the legislation presented conflicting arguments.
“Some the arguments made today are what I call the Goldilocks argument: The bill doesn’t do enough, or the bill does too much,” he said on the House floor.
JUST IN - MISSOURI REDISTRICTING BATTLE
KAVANAUGH REJECTS MISSOURI GOP STAY REQUEST - BUT FEDERAL JUDGE TEMPORARILY REVIVES TRUMP-BACKED MAP
The U.S. Supreme Court action was real, and Missouri's high court said a citizen referendum suspended the new districts. But a federal judge issued a conflicting 14-day order minutes later, so the claim that Missouri will definitely use its old map in November is no longer settled.
STATUS UPDATE - September 8, 2026: Justice Brett Kavanaugh denied Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins' emergency stay application. Later the same evening, U.S. District Judge Stephen R. Clark temporarily ordered the state to use the newer map. Further appeals were expected.
WASHINGTON / JEFFERSON CITY, MO. - A fast-moving legal fight over Missouri's congressional districts produced two sharply different court orders on September 8, leaving the map for the November 2026 midterm election uncertain even after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to grant Republican state officials emergency relief.
The first part of the viral claim is accurate: Justice Brett Kavanaugh denied an emergency application filed by Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins seeking to pause a Missouri Supreme Court decision that had blocked the state's Trump-backed 2025 congressional map. The U.S. Supreme Court docket, No. 26A304, records the application as denied by Kavanaugh on September 8. The order did not include an explanation and was not a merits ruling on the underlying redistricting dispute.
However, the statement that Missouri therefore "will now use its previous congressional districts in November" became outdated almost immediately. Minutes after Kavanaugh acted, U.S. District Judge Stephen R. Clark issued a temporary restraining order requiring Missouri officials to use the newer map for the time being. His order is set to last 14 days while the federal case proceeds, creating a direct practical conflict with the Missouri Supreme Court's earlier command.
What Kavanaugh Actually Denied
Missouri Republicans did not ask the U.S. Supreme Court for a final ruling on the legality of the map. They asked for emergency relief - a stay of the Missouri Supreme Court's judgment - so the state could continue using the districts enacted in 2025 while litigation continued. Under the Supreme Court's circuit-assignment system, the application was submitted to Kavanaugh, who handles emergency matters from the Eighth Circuit.
The official docket says simply that the application was denied. That is enough to say the Supreme Court did not give Missouri officials the emergency relief they requested. But it is more precise to write that Kavanaugh denied the emergency stay application than to imply that the full Court issued a detailed final judgment against the map.
Supreme Court docket 26A304: "Sep 08 2026 - Application (26A304) denied by Justice Kavanaugh."
Missouri Supreme Court: The Referendum Suspended the New Map
The state-court ruling that triggered the emergency application was sweeping. The Missouri Supreme Court concluded that the referendum petition challenging House Bill 1 was legal, sufficient and timely. Because the petition was filed before the law's effective date, the court held that HB 1 never took effect and could not take effect unless Missouri voters approved it in the November 2026 general election.
The state high court ordered Secretary Hoskins to certify the referendum petition and put it on the November ballot. It also said the congressional districts enacted in 2022 remained in force for the general election. That decision reversed a lower state court and rejected the secretary's earlier conclusion that the referendum could not be used to challenge congressional redistricting legislation.
More Than 300,000 Signatures - With an Important Qualification
Opponents of the 2025 map, led by People Not Politicians Missouri, submitted more than 300,000 signatures in December 2025 to force a statewide referendum on House Bill 1. The number refers to signatures submitted by the campaign, not a claim that every signature was individually valid. The legal question was whether the petition contained enough valid signatures and complied with state law.
By September 2026, the Missouri Supreme Court had resolved that issue in the petitioners' favor, declaring the referendum petition sufficient and timely. The state's official petition system identifies 2026-R004 as the referendum challenging House Bill 1, and the court directed that the measure be placed before voters in November.
Why the New Map Matters Politically
Missouri currently sends six Republicans and two Democrats to the U.S. House. The 2025 map was drawn during a special legislative session after President Donald Trump urged Republican-led states to pursue mid-decade redistricting ahead of the 2026 elections. The most consequential changes target the Kansas City-area 5th Congressional District represented by Democrat Emanuel Cleaver II.
By splitting portions of Kansas City among neighboring Republican-held districts and extending the remainder of the 5th District farther into more Republican territory, the new configuration was designed to improve Republican chances of winning an additional House seat. That is why the map is often described as potentially producing a 7-1 Republican delegation. The phrase "could give Republicans seven of eight seats" is reasonable as a description of the map's partisan objective, but it should not be presented as a guaranteed election result.
The Twist: A Federal Judge Reinstated the New Map - For Now
The most important correction to the original account came later on September 8. U.S. District Judge Stephen R. Clark issued a temporary restraining order requiring Missouri to use the 2025 map despite the Missouri Supreme Court ruling. Clark emphasized that Missouri had already conducted its August congressional primaries under the newer districts and warned that switching maps between the primary and general election could create candidate, voter and administrative confusion.
Clark wrote that using a different map for the general election would "wreak havoc on the fairness and orderliness of Missouri's congressional elections."
The federal order is temporary. It lasts 14 days pending further proceedings and does not erase the state Supreme Court's interpretation of Missouri's referendum law. The competing orders instead created a new layer of litigation over federal election administration, state constitutional authority and the consequences of changing district boundaries after a primary has already taken place.
As a result, the most accurate status is not that the old map has definitively won or that the new map has definitively survived. The map for November remains contested, with additional litigation and appellate review capable of changing the answer again before ballots are finalized.
A Setback for Trump's Redistricting Push - But Not Yet a Final Defeat
Kavanaugh's denial was a setback for Missouri officials and Republican organizations that had asked the Supreme Court to preserve the Trump-backed map. It also reinforced, at least temporarily, the Missouri Supreme Court's conclusion that citizens could use the referendum process to suspend the redistricting law pending a statewide vote.
But the later federal restraining order means it is premature to describe the episode as a final defeat for Trump's broader mid-decade redistricting strategy. The Missouri dispute is one part of a national fight in which both parties have pursued new congressional maps in multiple states, often with control of a narrowly divided U.S. House in mind.
Conclusion
The core breaking-news claim was substantially correct at the moment Kavanaugh acted: Missouri Republicans failed to obtain the emergency Supreme Court stay they requested, and the state Supreme Court had ruled that a valid citizen referendum prevented the 2025 map from taking effect without voter approval. Organizers had submitted more than 300,000 signatures, and the new map was designed to give Republicans a better chance of expanding their six-seat share of Missouri's eight-member House delegation.
The final sentence of the original version, however, is no longer reliable. Missouri cannot yet be described as certain to use the previous congressional districts in November. A federal judge temporarily ordered use of the new map minutes after Kavanaugh's denial, and the legal battle is continuing. For publication, the safest headline is therefore one that reports the Supreme Court denial while making clear that the November map remains unsettled.
