When Chuck Schumer wants to shut down a debate about election law, he doesn’t reach for facts. He reaches for history. Specifically, he reaches for Jim Crow. He says it loudly and often, as if repetition alone will turn a slogan into an explanation.
Lately, Schumer has been calling the SAVE Act and voter ID requirements “Jim Crow.” Not because the comparison holds, but because saying it loudly is easier than explaining it. Question the policy and you are questioning civil rights. Push back and you are standing on the wrong side of history.
No matter what question you pose to Chuck about voter ID his automatic reaction and answer will be simply “Jim Crow!”
The problem with that calling something Jim Crow requires more than volume. It requires resemblance. And that is where the argument collapse.
Jim Crow laws were explicit systems of racial exclusion. They were designed to keep black Americans from voting through poll taxes, literacy tests, grandfather clauses, intimidation, and violence. Race was the point. Suppression was the goal. The law said exactly what it meant. Yes, it was part of our history.
Someone needs to remind Chuck Schumer that Jim Crow was dismantled between 1954 and 1965 by Supreme Court rulings and federal law. And, I’d like just one reporter to ask ole Chuckie, how is something that was dismantled decades ago applied to the current voter ID discussion?
Oh wait…..
Schumer just got owned and went totally speechless!
Is requiring a license to drive Jim Crow?
A reporter nailed him: “Can you explain how it’s Jim Crow to require an ID to vote in elections, to drive a car, to purchase alcohol, go to the DMV? Any comment on that?”
Chuck froze,… pic.twitter.com/rz2oDVJTCN
— Bill Mitchell (@mitchellvii) February 6, 2026
Modern voter ID laws are not Jim Crow. They apply to all voters. They do not mention race. They do not charge a fee to vote. They do not impose impossible tests. Many states offer IDs for free. Yet Schumer keeps using the term anyway, because the word itself does the work he refuses to do.
When pressed on specifics, other Democrats follow the same script. Senator Adam Schiff was asked directly why he opposes voter ID even though a large majority of Americans support it, including most Democrats. His answer was vague. it might disenfranchise people. It could discourage voting. It is another way to suppress the vote.
Sen Adam Schiff Is Against ANY Kind of ID for Voting
“It’s still going to be something that disenfranchises people, that don’t have the proper real I.D., driver’s license I.D., that don’t have the I.D. necessary to vote, even though they are citizens. This is another way to… pic.twitter.com/0xlCEGdM10
— Mr Producer (@RichSementa) February 8, 2026
None of that explains who is being stopped, how they are being stopped, or why ID suddenly becomes oppressive only in this one context. Unless, of course, Schiff is talking about the millions of illegal aliens brought in under Joe Biden, a group Democrats increasingly seem eager to fold into the electorate.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries did the same thing. Faced with polling showing more than 80 percent support for voter ID, he did. not dispute the numbers. He did not argue the merits. He simply labeled the policy “clear and blatant voter suppression” and moved on. Again, I wish a reporter would ask him, Well where and how did you get your ID?
Americans need an ID to do a lot of things. Obviously, to drive a car, board a plane, open a bank account, apply for benefits, enter federal buildings, and conduct most adult life without incident. No one claims these requirements are racist.
If the Democrats say showing ID to vote is racist, how so? Are they implying that blacks and hispanics do not know how to get an ID? This is so dumb and no one falls for this nonsense.
Democrats insist that ID is an unbearable burden. Suddenly, certain voters are presumed unable to manage what everyone else handles daily. That assumption is not compassionate. It is the soft bigotry of low expectations.
Schumer’s Jim Crow routine depends on that assumption. To make his claim work, minority voters must be viewed as uniquely incapable of obtaining identification in a modern society that requires it everywhere.
Then along comes the real world to ruin the narrative. Enter Jon Ossoff.
Georgia Senator Jon Ossoff, who opposes voter ID requirements for federal elections, recently required attendees at one of his campaign rallies to present a government-issued photo ID that matched their name on an RSVP list. No really. He did. What a racist!
Schumer treats Jim Crow like a verbal air horn. He says it loudly, everything stops, and no one is expected to ask for details. The accusation does the work so he doesn’t have to.
If voter ID or the SAVE Act truly mirrored Jim Crow, someone should be able to explain how. Line by line. Clause by clause. Without shouting.
Until then, Jim Crow is not an argument. It is a lazy accusation used to avoid one.
Feature Image: Created in Canva Pro
BlackwingOne says: Let us not forget who initiated and fully supported the Jim Crow laws. Democrats.
Let us not forget who fully supported civil rights for blacks and other minorities. No, it wasn’t the Dem-wing of the UniParty. As a child I watched footage of Charlton Heston marching in the streets in support of equal rights for all. You can’t get much more “right-wing” than that.
The Dem-wing has been resentful ever since their original batch of slaves were freed by the Republicans at the end of the first Civil War, and are now resentful that their current batch of slaves are being freed by Republicans. And so the Dem-wing is instructing their action-arms and propaganda wing to apparently push for Civil War II.
1 Comment