Under the Constitution, the vice president serves as president of the Senate and can preside over the chamber. Vance suggested that this authority could potentially give him an unusual role in a procedural battle over the election legislation.
“So, we’ve actually looked into this. As the president of the Senate under the U.S. Constitution, there are things that we can do,” Vance said.
“We can take over the Senate chair. I can occupy the chair. We can overrule the parliamentarian. Those things are very possible.”
The Senate parliamentarian serves as an adviser on the chamber’s rules, precedents and parliamentary procedures. The parliamentarian does not independently possess the final authority to impose a ruling on the Senate.
Instead, the presiding officer generally relies on the parliamentarian’s guidance when procedural questions arise.
Those rulings can, in many circumstances, be challenged by senators. When a ruling from the chair is appealed, the Senate itself can vote on whether to uphold or reject the decision.
That possibility is at the center of the strategy Vance described.
The bigger hurdle, however, is not necessarily Democrats.
It is Republicans.
Vance said the administration would need virtually all of its Senate Republicans on board if it attempted to use the unusual procedural route.
“The fundamental issue with that is not the 60-vote threshold. It’s the 50-vote threshold,” Vance said. “So if, for example, I took over the Senate chair, and I overruled the parliamentarian, we would need to sustain 50 senators plus me.”
That puts the White House in a difficult position.
Republicans control the Senate, but that majority does not automatically mean the party can pass every major piece of legislation it supports.
The SAVE America Act has become a prime example.
“Obviously, most Republicans would support it,” Vance said. “But could we get 50? That’s the big question.”
The legislation has become a major priority for Republicans seeking tougher federal election safeguards.
The House approved the bill by a 218-213 vote on Feb. 11. Nearly every Republican backed the measure, while Democrats overwhelmingly opposed it.
At its core, the bill would impose new requirements on individuals registering to vote in federal elections.
Among other provisions, it would require documentary proof of U.S. citizenship for people registering to vote in federal elections.
The measure would also establish a federal photo-ID requirement and require states to take additional steps to identify and remove noncitizens from their voter-registration rolls.
Republicans argue that such measures are necessary to reinforce election security and reassure voters that federal elections are being conducted under clear and consistent standards.
Democrats and their allies have strongly resisted the legislation.
The Senate’s filibuster rules present another obstacle. Most major legislation requires 60 votes to overcome a filibuster, meaning Republicans generally cannot move the bill forward without either Democratic support or a major procedural change.
That has prompted Republican leaders to explore alternatives.
One possibility has involved attempting to attach election-related provisions to budget reconciliation legislation. Reconciliation bills can generally pass with a simple majority, although they face significant restrictions under federal budget law and the Senate’s Byrd Rule.
President Donald Trump has also repeatedly pushed Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and other Republicans to find a way through the impasse.
Trump has additionally supported changing or eliminating the legislative filibuster, which would dramatically lower the procedural barrier for Republicans attempting to pass the SAVE America Act without Democratic votes.
Vance made clear that the current challenge is not widespread Republican opposition to the legislation.
Instead, he pointed to a smaller group of senators who remain committed to preserving traditional Senate procedures.
“The problem is not the majority of GOP senators,” Vance said. “It’s that you’ve got a few holdouts who just don’t want to do that because they’re so committed to these archaic rules.”
That disagreement highlights a larger debate within the Republican Party.
Some Republicans believe the Senate’s existing rules provide an important check against sweeping changes when control of Congress changes hands.
Others argue that Democrats have repeatedly threatened to weaken those same protections and that Republicans should not voluntarily leave themselves at a disadvantage.
Vance invoked the examples of former Democratic senators Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona.
Both lawmakers resisted efforts by Democratic leaders during the Biden administration to create exceptions to the filibuster for voting legislation.
For Vance, their experience demonstrates how politically difficult major procedural changes can become, particularly when lawmakers face pressure from their own party.
The vice president also warned that Democrats could eventually move against the filibuster if they regain control of the Senate.
He pointed to potential Democratic efforts involving statehood for Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico, changes to the Supreme Court and federal election legislation as areas where Democrats could eventually seek to eliminate the procedural roadblock.
For now, though, the Trump administration does not appear to have the Republican votes necessary to execute the strategy Vance described.
That leaves the White House and congressional Republicans facing a familiar question: whether they can convince enough GOP senators that changing Senate procedure is necessary to accomplish their election agenda.
Vance believes the stakes extend beyond one piece of legislation.
“We need to end the filibuster to save American elections,” Vance told Newsmax. “It’s the smart and also the patriotic thing to do.”
The comments put renewed pressure on Republican senators who remain opposed to changing the Senate’s rules.
With the SAVE America Act stalled and Trump demanding action, the battle could ultimately become less about Democrats and more about whether Republicans themselves are willing to change the rules of the Senate to deliver on their election promises.
