Partially true, but sensationalized and misleading in its framing.
The article from WLTR (a conservative-leaning site) reports on a real Senate vote from June 5, 2026, during a late-night "vote-a-rama" on budget reconciliation. However, it overstates the significance as a major "roar back" or breakthrough for the bill.
What actually happened:
Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) offered an amendment mirroring key parts of the SAVE America Act (proof of U.S. citizenship for federal voter registration + photo ID requirement).
The specific vote was on a motion to waive budgetary discipline (a procedural step needed for reconciliation). It required 60 votes but only got 50 YEAs to 49 NAYs.
Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) did switch to Yes on Lee's version (unlike an earlier Graham amendment that failed 48-50, where she voted No along with McConnell, Murkowski, and Tillis).
Official roll call confirms 50 Republicans (including Collins) supported it; it fell short due to the 60-vote threshold, not a lack of simple majority.
Context on the SAVE America Act:
This is a Republican priority (backed by President Trump) requiring documentary proof of citizenship for federal voter registration and voter ID. The House has passed versions of it.
It has repeatedly failed in the Senate due to the filibuster (needing 60 votes to advance) and opposition from all Democrats + a few Republicans (typically Collins, Murkowski, McConnell, Tillis on key procedural votes).
This amendment also failed. It demonstrated majority Republican support on the policy but no path forward without changing Senate rules or getting Democratic buy-in (unlikely).
The article is factually grounded in the vote tally and Collins' switch but spins it as the bill "roaring back" with momentum toward passage. In reality, it's another procedural failure in a series of stalled attempts. Mainstream sources (NPR, Fox, The Hill, etc.) reported it as yet another rejection of the SAVE Act.
Bottom line: Collins flipped on this specific amendment, and it hit 50 votes — that's accurate. But the bill remains blocked and did not meaningfully advance.
Ah I see, but Fetterman I can see being convinced to vote yes in private. Out of all the votes, I believe he's one of the only Senate members who would vote for it.
It’s important because originally Thune said that there weren’t enough votes to pass the SAVE act using the speaking filibuster. Now there is because Vance would break the tie.
Yet another example of being able to say "I voted for the SAVE America Act" come election season, but leaving out important details that makes what they said meaningless. It's no wonder faith in GOP leaders (and our government) is so low.
I imagine you're talking about Susan Collins (the RINO). She can say whatever she wants-I think the people who vote for her know her and what she is-so if she goes back to the Senate, then we will see how the people like, or dislike, her. Maine may send her back-and, I for one, hope not. And if you are talking about Fetterman. It doesn't often happen that a Dem will change their vote and go along with the Republicans-when most Republicans won't even vote for a bill that is introduced by the Republicans.
Collins does this again and again. It's her way of getting attention and maybe a few extra carve-outs use as thank you's for her biggest donors. I hope she gets primaried and voted out ASAP. We need straight MAGA Republicans representing We The People.
I am surprised Fetterman voted against it, then again out of all the Democrats. I think he can be convinced without much issue to vote yes on the SAVE Act by President Trump, especially given the rest of his party would rather drop dead than to vote for it.
WLTREPORT is not a credible source, imo.
Partially true, but sensationalized and misleading in its framing.
The article from WLTR (a conservative-leaning site) reports on a real Senate vote from June 5, 2026, during a late-night "vote-a-rama" on budget reconciliation. However, it overstates the significance as a major "roar back" or breakthrough for the bill.
What actually happened:
Context on the SAVE America Act:
The article is factually grounded in the vote tally and Collins' switch but spins it as the bill "roaring back" with momentum toward passage. In reality, it's another procedural failure in a series of stalled attempts. Mainstream sources (NPR, Fox, The Hill, etc.) reported it as yet another rejection of the SAVE Act.
Bottom line: Collins flipped on this specific amendment, and it hit 50 votes — that's accurate. But the bill remains blocked and did not meaningfully advance.
Ah I see, but Fetterman I can see being convinced to vote yes in private. Out of all the votes, I believe he's one of the only Senate members who would vote for it.
It’s important because originally Thune said that there weren’t enough votes to pass the SAVE act using the speaking filibuster. Now there is because Vance would break the tie.
Thanks for the detail and clarification. Headlines are often misleading.
Yet another example of being able to say "I voted for the SAVE America Act" come election season, but leaving out important details that makes what they said meaningless. It's no wonder faith in GOP leaders (and our government) is so low.
Exactly!! We know how they operate don't we.
I imagine you're talking about Susan Collins (the RINO). She can say whatever she wants-I think the people who vote for her know her and what she is-so if she goes back to the Senate, then we will see how the people like, or dislike, her. Maine may send her back-and, I for one, hope not. And if you are talking about Fetterman. It doesn't often happen that a Dem will change their vote and go along with the Republicans-when most Republicans won't even vote for a bill that is introduced by the Republicans.
For clarity: 60 required for cloture ( to end debate) 51 required v to pasd.
RuPaul is in on own for voting to pass cloture but against the bill if he thinks he will get his earmarks.. His dad did the same thing..
Collins does this again and again. It's her way of getting attention and maybe a few extra carve-outs use as thank you's for her biggest donors. I hope she gets primaried and voted out ASAP. We need straight MAGA Republicans representing We The People.
Lindsey Graham too--he had the nerve to run an ad that said, "Lindsey shows up when it counts." WTH is that supposed to mean?
Murkowski needs to go too.
Susan wants to get reelected.
Exactly
I am surprised Fetterman voted against it, then again out of all the Democrats. I think he can be convinced without much issue to vote yes on the SAVE Act by President Trump, especially given the rest of his party would rather drop dead than to vote for it.
What is so terrible about requiring an I.D to vote?
What's the first thing a police officer asks you for when pulling you over?
He asks you for your driver's license, registration, and proof of insurance!