Sabitlenmiş Tweet
MN06Watch
827 posts
MN06Watch
@MN6Watch
Watching the Whip 👀 Daily accountability on Rep. Tom Emmer (MN-06) Votes • Tweets • Money 📬 https://t.co/STjVBSyRKV
Minnesota's 6th District Katılım Ocak 2026
78 Takip Edilen56 Takipçiler
Today Tom Emmer hosted the House Transportation Committee chairman in Monticello to lobby for federal highway funding. “The Surface Transportation Reauthorization is vital to helping Minnesota communities thrive,” he posted.
This is the same Tom Emmer who voted against the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law in 2021 — calling it “President Biden’s multi-trillion dollar socialist wish list” — then requested Highway 65 funding from the very law he opposed, writing to Secretary Buttigieg that the grant would serve as “a social justice measure” for “ethnically underserved communities.”
Since that vote, Emmer has claimed credit for over $100 million in MN-06 infrastructure projects. Not one press release mentions he voted against the law that made them possible.
Today he’s asking for more.
I wrote about this pattern for the Minnesota Reformer this morning: minnesotareformer.com/2026/03/20/tom…
Tom Emmer@GOPMajorityWhip
Great to have @TransportGOP Chairman @RepSamGraves and my fellow Minnesotan @RepPeteStauber in Monticello today for a conversation with local leaders on the importance of getting this year’s highway bill done and on time. The Surface Transportation Reauthorization is vital to helping Minnesota communities thrive. Let’s get it done!
English
Today Tom Emmer hosted the House Transportation Committee chairman in Monticello to lobby for federal highway funding. “The Surface Transportation Reauthorization is vital to helping Minnesota communities thrive,” he posted.
This is the same Tom Emmer who voted against the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law in 2021 — calling it “President Biden’s multi-trillion dollar socialist wish list” — then requested Highway 65 funding from the very law he opposed, writing to Secretary Buttigieg that the grant would serve as “a social justice measure” for “ethnically underserved communities.”
Since that vote, Emmer has claimed credit for over $100 million in MN-06 infrastructure projects. Not one press release mentions he voted against the law that made them possible.
Today he’s asking for more.
I wrote about this pattern for the Minnesota Reformer this morning: minnesotareformer.com/2026/03/20/tom…
English
Great to have @TransportGOP Chairman @RepSamGraves and my fellow Minnesotan @RepPeteStauber in Monticello today for a conversation with local leaders on the importance of getting this year’s highway bill done and on time.
The Surface Transportation Reauthorization is vital to helping Minnesota communities thrive. Let’s get it done!
English
“No safeguards” — HAVA Section 303 requires every state to verify voter registration against state motor vehicle databases for driver’s license numbers or the Social Security Administration for SSNs. This has been federal law for over 20 years. If the information doesn’t match, the state must notify the applicant. Every state must comply. This isn’t optional.
On top of that: false attestation of citizenship is a federal crime — five years and deportation. States cross-reference registrations against DHS databases. Voter rolls are audited post-election. I’ve now listed these four times.
“How do you catch something with no precautions?” — Utah audited every single record. Over 2 million. One non-citizen registration. Zero votes. That’s not a detection gap. That’s a complete audit.
“We’ve caught people, so the problem is vastly bigger” — catching people is evidence the system works, not evidence it doesn’t. You can’t point to successful enforcement and call it proof that enforcement doesn’t exist. And just because the number is smaller than what would confirm your assumption doesn’t mean the number is wrong. Sometimes the evidence says the problem is small. That’s not a flaw in the evidence — that’s the answer.
“Driver’s licenses are invalid because Minnesota gives them to illegals” — driver’s licenses have never proved citizenship. Non-citizens on visas, work permits, and green cards have had them in every state for as long as licenses have existed. That’s what a license is — a driving credential, not a citizenship document. Which is exactly why the SAVE Act doesn’t accept one for registration.
You’re not arguing against me. You’re arguing against federal law you didn’t know existed.
English
@MN6Watch @JeffNedley @WesPA_C @EricLDaugh In fact this actively goes AGAINST your argument, because we have caught people that have fraudulently enrolled, and fraudulently voted. And that is DESPITE there being no active protections against such things. So this indicates the problem is likely vastly bigger than you think
English
🚨 HOLY CRAP! Senate Democrats were just asked to pass ONLY the voter ID part of the SAVE America Act...
...and they BLOCKED it.
Democrats said "we support voter ID, not all the other stuff"
So Sen. Jon Husted filed to do exactly that. THEY JUST WANT FRAUD!
SEN. MIKE LEE: "Chuck Schumer and other Democrats have insisted that they actually support Voter ID—they just object to other parts of the SAVE America Act."
"Well, Sen Jon Husted just asked unanimous consent to pass ONLY the Voter ID portion of the bill. Democrats blocked it."
English
English
My piece is out today in the @MNReformer.
In 2022, Tom Emmer wrote to Pete Buttigieg calling a Highway 65 project "a social justice measure" providing opportunity for "ethnically underserved communities."
In 2025, he called those same communities "Somali fraudsters" and said "send them home."
Same man. Same district. Same highway.
The only thing that changed was what he needed from them.
minnesotareformer.com/2026/03/20/tom…
English
Those who have been suggesting 20 million Americans will be disenfranchised by the SAVE America Act becoming law have been lying. Senator Mike Lee reminds people to read the.
Our elections must belong to American citizens. We must defend the exclusive right of AMERICANS to vote in OUR country.
English
Here’s what actually happened on the Senate floor, per the Congressional Record:
Husted proposed S. 4155 — a standalone photo ID bill. Five accepted forms of ID. No citizenship requirement. Genuinely narrower than the full SAVE Act.
Merkley raised concerns — the bill would require mail-in voters to include a copy of their ID with their ballot, which he argued compromises ballot secrecy for 48 million Americans who vote by mail. Student IDs were not included in the five accepted forms.
Merkley then offered to modify Husted’s bill. Husted rejected the modification.
Then Merkley objected to the original.
That’s not “called their bluff.” That’s one side proposed, the other side tried to negotiate, and the first side said no. Both blocked the other’s version.
“Democrats.
English
Translating what happened on Senate floor tonight: @JonHusted called the @SenateDems bluff. @chuckschumer said yesterday that Democrats aren’t opposed to Voter ID. Just the “other” parts of the SAVE America Act. So @JonHusted introduced a stand-alone bill with JUST the voter ID. asked for unanimous consent to advance the bill and…@SenateDems objected. Killed it. Of course they did… Democrats. Are. Liars. (And they cheat in elections) @EIwatchdogs @BasedMikeLee @chiproytx @gc22gc
English
Update: the full Congressional Record transcript for March 19 is now available. Here’s what actually happened with Husted’s unanimous consent request.
Husted proposed S. 4155 — a standalone photo ID requirement. Five accepted forms: state driver’s license, state ID, passport, military ID, or Tribal ID — all requiring a photo and expiration date. He explicitly said it had nothing to do with citizenship. This was genuinely narrower than the full SAVE Act.
Merkley raised several concerns: the bill would require mail-in voters to include a copy of their ID with their ballot, which he argued compromises ballot secrecy for 48 million Americans. Student IDs were not included. He also cited Utah’s audit — zero fraudulent votes out of 2 million.
Merkley then offered a modification — adding mail voting protections. Husted rejected the modification because it included unsolicited mail-in ballots. Merkley then objected to the original.
So both sides blocked the other’s version. Husted wouldn’t accept Merkley’s modification. Merkley wouldn’t accept Husted’s original.
The framing that “Democrats blocked a clean voter ID bill” leaves out that a Democrat offered to negotiate and the Republican rejected the modification. The framing that “Republicans refused to compromise” leaves out that Merkley’s modification included a major expansion of mail voting that went well beyond voter ID.
The full bill text for S. 4155 isn’t published yet, but the transcript of the exchange is in the Congressional Record. Read it and decide for yourself.
English
Here’s what actually happened with Husted’s unanimous consent request tonight.
Husted proposed his UC request. Sen. Merkley asked Husted to modify it. Husted refused to modify it. Then Merkley objected.
That’s not “Democrats blocked a clean voter ID bill.” That’s a Democrat tried to negotiate and the Republican said no.
The full text of what Husted proposed hasn’t been published yet. “Only the voter ID portion” could mean just photo ID at the polls — which Democrats have said they support. Or it could include proof of citizenship to register — which is the provision that blocked 30,000+ citizens in Kansas.
Until we see the actual text, anyone telling you this was a clean voter ID bill that Democrats killed is asking you to take their word for it. The bill text matters. It’s mattered all day.
MN06Watch@MN6Watch
What exactly was in Husted’s unanimous consent request? “Only the voter ID portion” is doing a lot of work in that sentence. If it was strictly photo ID at the polls — Democrats have said they don’t oppose that. Schumer said it on the floor this week. If it included proof of citizenship to register — that’s not “only voter ID.” That’s the provision Kansas tried that blocked 30,000+ eligible citizens. Republicans have been conflating photo ID to vote with proof of citizenship to register all day. The text of what Husted actually proposed matters. Has anyone published it?
English
@fschnereger @PatriotDirty Both. The Congressional Record for March 19 should have the full transcript of the exchange, but it typically takes a day to publish. Once it’s up, we’ll be able to see exactly what Husted proposed and exactly what Merkley asked him to modify.
I’ll follow up when it’s available.
English
“There are no safeguards” — I listed them in the post you’re replying to. Driver’s license or SSN verified against state and federal databases under HAVA. False attestation is a federal crime. States cross-reference registrations against DHS databases. Those are safeguards.
“It’s only rare that they get caught because we have no methods to catch them” — Utah didn’t sample. They audited every single record. Over 2 million. One non-citizen registration. Zero votes. That’s not a detection failure. That’s a complete audit finding almost nothing.
If a full audit of an entire state’s voter roll isn’t an effective method to catch non-citizen voting, what would be?
English
@MN6Watch @JeffNedley @WesPA_C @EricLDaugh And just claiming “voter fraud is rare” doesn’t cut it, it’s only rare that they get caught, because we have no current methods to effectively catch them currently.
English
Since you brought up behavior and incentives, here’s what the research actually says:
A study published in Cognition found that penalties cause universal avoidance behavior — people don’t calibrate based on severity, they avoid the penalized action entirely. Kahneman and Tversky’s loss aversion research shows people work harder to avoid a penalty than to earn an equivalent reward.
This isn’t theory. It’s documented human behavior. When the penalty for accepting is prosecution and lawsuits, and the penalty for rejecting is nothing, officials will avoid accepting. Every time. Predictably.
Now for the false equivalence you keep making: working at a bank, being a tax specialist, being a finance manager — those are jobs. You can quit. You get paid. You have training, compliance departments, legal counsel, and institutional support.
Processing voter registrations is administering a constitutional right. Many election officials are part-time or volunteers. They don’t have legal teams. They don’t have compliance departments. And under this bill, any private citizen can sue them — not just prosecutors with a burden of proof, but anyone with a filing fee and a grievance.
Comparing a salaried finance professional with institutional legal backing to a volunteer election worker facing criminal prosecution and unlimited private litigation for helping citizens exercise a constitutional right isn’t the argument you think it is.
Neither is the name-calling. And this isn’t a Minnesota problem — human behavior is human behavior. These incentive structures apply to election officials in every state, red or blue.
English
So what you are saying is that lazy neuron rats in the State of Minnesota are going to just stop processing something that is afforded by law to all citizens because they want to play it safe and they just don’t wanna? How about applying that mindset to every job out there with legal responsibilities that don’t go both ways… try working at a fucking bank, try being a tax specialist, try being a finance manager in either government or private business… your penchant for avoidance of responsibility astounds me, and your incessant belief that incentives will prevent people for doing their job also astounds me. So if they added it into the bill for responsibility to also be on the state employee to process it, would you support it then?
Your arguments are going into the absurd. You’d think I was talking to a nutty economist.
English
Senate Democrats voted down a clean voter ID bill — nothing else attached.
They’ve been exposed: they won’t stand up for safe, secure elections. The sanctity of democracy demands integrity.
English
Senator Paul, you know full well this bill is not just voter ID. Include the other provisions in the polling and it’s nowhere near 80%.
You’ve built a career on opposing government overreach. This bill hands unredacted voter rolls to DHS, criminalizes election officials for paperwork errors, creates unlimited private litigation against public servants, and takes effect immediately with no funding for implementation.
Since when does a libertarian support building a federal surveillance database of every registered voter and expanding government power to criminalize local officials? The SAVE Act is the kind of federal overreach you’d be on the floor railing against if a Democrat proposed it.
Only citizens should vote. That’s already the law. The question is whether the government you don’t trust with healthcare should be trusted with a centralized database of every voter in America.
English
80% of Americans support requiring photo ID to vote. That's not a partisan issue. That's a mandate. I've been fighting to pass the SAVE Act because only American citizens should be deciding U.S. elections. It's that simple.
InteractivePolls@IAPolls2022
CBS News Poll: Do you favor or oppose requiring people to show valid photo ID before they are permitted to vote? 🟢 Favor: 80% 🟤 Oppose: 20% —— • Dem: 65-35 (+30) • GOP: 95-5 (+90) • Indie: 79-21 (+58) • White: 80-20 (+60) • Black: 80-20 (+60) • Hispanic: 77-23 (+55) YouGov | 3/16-19 | 2,496 A
English
Let’s cut through the facts.
Democrats have tried 6 times to fund TSA, Coast Guard, FEMA and CISA separately while ICE/CBP negotiations continue. Republicans blocked all 6.
Democrats’ ask: warrants, ID requirements, body cameras for ICE agents — what every local police department already does. Two U.S. citizens were killed by federal agents in Minnesota. That’s why.
The House DHS bill passed 220-207. Not bipartisan. The Senate needed 60 votes. It got 51.
You’re the Majority Whip. Moving legislation is your job. It’s Day 34.
English
This is just absurd. Let’s cut through the noise:
Democrats are holding funding for the entire Department of Homeland Security hostage (including TSA, Coast Guard, and FEMA) because they want to return to the far-left, open-borders immigration policies of the Biden era.
Rapid Response 47@RapidResponse47
Family flying out of Atlanta arrives nearly 4 hours before their flight due to the massive TSA line as a result of the shutdown of @DHSgov. "I feel bad for the workers." "They need to be paid!" Democrats must end this cruel shutdown NOW!
English
You say I’m not bringing facts. Look at the post above.
When you move from “photo ID to vote” (83%, Pew) to “proof of citizenship to register” (59%, YouGov), support drops 24 points with just one additional provision disclosed.
Add the rest — DHS voter roll sharing, criminal penalties for election officials, immediate implementation — and what do you think happens to that number? It doesn’t take a genius. Those are facts.
English
@MN6Watch @GrageDustin You go ahead and imagine all you want also. I see your not bringing any facts, just wishful thinking. Why on earth would anywhere near a majority want to open elections to fraud and illegals voting, besides maybe a few dipshits like you.
English
Clean the voter rolls.
Ensure only American citizens can vote.
Require photo ID.
These are 90–10 issues.
Just get it done.
English
@fosho_f @GrageDustin You can imagine all you want, but that’s not fact and it’s not a 90/10 issue like Grage claims. And the more restrictive provisions you disclose in the polling, the less likely it’ll be seen favorably.
English
@MN6Watch @GrageDustin I would imagine it would still poll extremely high.
English
The bill doesn’t do that. Cite the section.
The bill criminalizes registering someone without documentary proof. It creates a private right of action for registering someone without documentary proof. There is no corresponding penalty for wrongly rejecting an eligible citizen.
The accountability runs one direction. That’s the entire point I’ve been making.
English
@MN6Watch @jstark0331 @RogerMarshallMD How about building them accountable for NOT processing it (which this bill also does). Man, you really like to make excuses.
English
The bill doesn’t define negligence or distinguish intent. It criminalizes registering anyone who “fails to present documentary proof” — regardless of whether the official acted deliberately, negligently, or made an honest mistake.
That’s the problem. A law that punishes a deliberate bad actor the same as a part-time volunteer who misjudged a document discrepancy isn’t accountability — it’s a blanket threat.
And the claim that blue state officials “have incentive to allow non-citizens to register” is a conspiracy theory, not an argument. Election officials in most jurisdictions are nonpartisan public servants — many of them volunteers. They don’t have a political stake in who registers.
English
@MN6Watch @BasedMikeLee Election officials who negligently let non-citizens register to vote should fear criminal penalties.
Otherwise they have no incentive to follow the process.
And given how blue states work, they already have lots of incentive to allow non-citizens to register.
English
False
This is a lie
Read the bill—especially the text beginning at line 22 of page 12
Tammy Duckworth@SenDuckworth
Under the SAVE Act, you cannot use your driver's license to register to vote. Republicans want you to buy a passport instead. If you can afford one. This is a modern-day poll tax.
English
For anyone following along, this reply contains:
Ad hominem — attacking me personally instead of addressing the argument about incentive structures.
Straw man — I never said officials shouldn’t be held responsible. I said the bill’s penalty structure creates an incentive to reject eligible voters rather than risk prosecution.
False equivalence — comparing fiscal negligence with federal funds to a part-time election worker processing voter registrations under ambiguous documentation standards.
Begging the question — “Do you have an aversion to holding officials responsible?” assumes I oppose accountability, when my argument is that this specific mechanism produces the opposite of its stated goal.
None of this addresses the point: when the penalty for accepting is prosecution and lawsuits, and the penalty for rejecting is nothing, officials will default to rejection. That’s not an ethics problem. It’s a math problem.
English
Oh wait… so they want to legislate responsibility on the part of the government official who is reviewing the documents? We know how far that goes… how many state government officials have they prosecuted for fiscal negligence with federal funds, due to their pecuniary irresponsibility (which is active law)?
Yes, they should be held responsible as should the people who might fraudulently apply for it, if they are doing that NOW they should be held responsible.
Do you have an aversion to holding officials responsible?
What the fuck is wrong with your unethical ass?
English
@jstark0331 @sparky_vq3 @RogerMarshallMD That’s not what I said. What I said was under this proposed law, the incentive structure would switch so that it would be more likely to reject something with proper documentation to avoid legal and civil liabilities by the election official.
English
@MN6Watch @sparky_vq3 @RogerMarshallMD When did citizens provide legitimate documents of identification and then were rejected? Because what you stated above said there were things wrong with a persons documentation or they didn’t have access to do it because reasons
English
You’re missing the point. Let’s make it specific.
You turned 18 in 2000. You registered to vote, provided your documentation, proved your citizenship. You’ve voted in every election since.
It’s now 2026 and this bill passes. Your state sends your voter roll to DHS. The SAVE system — whose own documentation says it cannot make a confident determination of citizenship — flags you incorrectly. Your registration is removed. You’re not notified.
You show up on Election Day 2026 and you’re told you’re not registered. You’ve done nothing wrong. You proved your citizenship 26 years ago. But now you have to prove it again — and you need to produce a passport you don’t have or a birth certificate that’s in a box at your parents’ house three states away.
That’s not hypothetical. That’s what the bill does. The system flags people incorrectly — Travis County, Texas confirmed 25% of flagged voters had already proven their citizenship.
Are you saying every American should have to re-prove their citizenship every time a flawed database makes a mistake? That’s not election security. That’s a system designed to fail.
English
@MN6Watch @sparky_vq3 @RogerMarshallMD How would Americans be eligible to vote if they don’t have documentation to prove they are Americans? There are faults in the argument you’re making, it’s not about voter suppression it’s about proving who a person says they are which goes back to my original question.
English