Senate Republicans have struggled to move the ball on President Donald Trump’s voter ID and citizenship verification bill, but a late-night vote in the upper chamber breathed some life into an issue once thought dead. 

During the Senate’s marathon “vote-a-rama” to advance the GOP’s $70 billion immigration enforcement package, Republicans tried twice to attach the Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) America Act to the massive bill. 

They failed both times, with a cohort of Republicans joining Senate Democrats to stymie the effort, which was destined to fail either way given that the amendments from Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Mike Lee, R-Utah, had to break through the filibuster. 

REPUBLICANS FAIL TO ATTACH SAVE AMERICA ACT TO PARTY-LINE FUNDING PACKAGE

Graham’s attempt was to attach the modified version of the SAVE America Act, which included several policy additions, like barring men in women’s sports, that Trump demanded months ago.

Four Republicans, Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Thom Tillis, R-N.C., voted against it. Their defections prevented the bill from even getting 50 votes, a prerequisite for success if Republicans were to launch a talking filibuster. 

But Lee’s attempt did hit 50 votes, with Collins flipping her vote to support the original version of the SAVE America Act. 

Lee cheered the moment on X shortly after as the vote-a-rama still raged and noted that, with Vice President JD Vance serving as a possible 51st vote, the SAVE America Act could pass.

WATCH: HAWLEY FUMES AFTER 4 GOP SENATORS HELP SINK TRUMP-BACKED VOTER ID LAW

“That means that but for the Zombie Filibuster, the House-passed SAVE America Act would now be on its way to the White House for President Trump’s signature,” Lee said. 

The moment was a big victory for the legislation, which thus far has wallowed in the Senate for months.

Conservatives like Lee have pushed Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., to launch a talking filibuster to grind down Senate Democrats and pass the legislation at a simple majority threshold.

SEN LEE DARES DEMOCRATS TO REVIVE TALKING FILIBUSTER OVER SAVE ACT, SLAMMING CRITICISM AS ‘PARANOID FANTASY’

But Thune hasn’t pulled the trigger out of concern that Republicans wouldn’t stay together to bat down a deluge of Democratic amendments that could substantially change the legislation or target other elements of Trump’s agenda. 

Senate Republicans did launch a quasi-floor takeover to debate the SAVE America Act in March, but the steam behind that push has since fallen off substantially. 

The other option for Republicans would be to nuke the filibuster, something Trump has demanded they do sporadically throughout his second term.

Again, it’s an issue that Republicans aren’t unified on, and one that several fear could haunt them if and when Democrats regain control of the upper chamber. 

Trump has also shifted his ire to the Senate rules referee, Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth Macdonough, who ruled that the SAVE America Act didn’t pass muster to be a part of the immigration package at a 50-vote threshold. He’s called on Thune to fire her a handful of times in recent months. 

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“We have every right to change her, and should do so, IMMEDIATELY,” Trump said on Truth Social. “As long as she’s there, we will never get our desperately needed, SAVE AMERICA ACT, approved, and put into full force and effect!”

But, like the talking filibuster or outright nuking of the filibuster, it’s a move Thune isn’t in a hurry to make. 

“That’s not a new request, as you all know, and as is typically the case, the parliamentarian, the rulings break both ways,” Thune said. “And, you know, we lose a few, we win a few, but that’s been true when Democrats have been in the majority, too.”

The Massachusetts legislature passed a bill that would remove “outdated and offensive language” used to describe people with disabilities in the state’s General Laws.

The measure would eliminate various terms, including “handicapped,” “disabled,” and the “r-word” in favor of language such as “persons with a disability” and “person with an intellectual or developmental disability.”

The bill, which was introduced by Democratic state Sen. Pat Jehlen and listed with 17 petitioners, now heads to Democrat Gov. Maura Healey’s desk.

The 61-page bill updates 346 sections of Massachusetts law.

CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER ‘PERSONALLY OFFENDED’ WHEN SPEAKER SAYS ‘HOMELESS’ INSTEAD OF ‘UNHOUSED’

“Language is constantly changing. And it’s changing because of the activism of people who were ignored and demeaned for too long,” Democrat state Sen. Pat Jehlen, the Senate’s primary sponsor of the legislation, said in a statement. “When people tell us they feel insulted and offended by the use of outdated words, we worked to change the legal language.  It took a long time, because we kept finding more examples of offensive language. Language and activism will continue to evolve, and there’ll always be more work to do, but this is a gigantic step forward in respect.”

Some of the updated language featured in the bill includes replacing “disabled person” with “person with a disability,” “handicapped” with “disability” and “retarded” with phrases such as “person with an intellectual or developmental disability.”

The legislation also scraps terms such as “crippled” and “deformed” when referring to people with disabilities.

The term “hearing-impaired” was revised to “deaf or hard of hearing” and the “chronically ill” was changed to “persons who are chronically ill.”

Additionally, the bill amends specific legal definitions, including changing the current definition of “caretaker” — which describes an individual or entity responsible for a “disabled person” — to instead use the phrase “a person with a disability.”

 “When dusty and dangerous relics of a bygone era darken our laws, it creates the potential for real harm to residents today,” Senate President Karen Spilka, a Democrat, said in a statement. “Thanks to the voices of advocates like former Senate staff member Melissa Reilly and the leadership of Senator Jehlen and Senator Kennedy, the Legislature has acted to make our laws better represent who we are in 21st-century Massachusetts.”

MASSACHUSETTS DROPS CONTROVERSIAL GENDER IDEOLOGY MANDATE FOR LICENSING FOSTER CARE PARENTS

“With a White House that glorifies, and seemingly longs for, the days when many Americans were discriminated against because of who they are, now is the time to make sure our state laws respect and support the rights and dignity of our residents,” she added.

The passage of this measure comes after a 2024 law that renamed the Massachusetts Rehabilitation Commission to MassAbility, which state officials argued was a display of a broader effort to modernize disability services and promote inclusion. That law also reflected a broader move away from terms state officials described as outdated or offensive.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“As lawmakers, we know that words matter,” said state Speaker of the House Ronald J. Mariano, a Democrat. “This legislation is our latest effort to ensure that our state laws do not use antiquated words that carry negative connotations, words that also serve as a reminder of past injustices.”

The bill passed with broad legislative support, including unanimous recorded votes in both chambers.

Fox News Digital reached out to the Massachusetts GOP for comment.

SACRAMENTO — Disability rights advocates on Monday gathered outside the state Capitol to push back on Gov. Gavin Newsom’s proposed cuts to in-home supportive services.

“These aren’t just numbers in a budget; these are real people,” said Assemblymember Jeff Gonzalez (R-Indio). “These are children, seniors, veterans and individuals with disabilities whose independence and quality of life depend on these services every single day.”

The In-Home Supportive Services program helps disabled and elderly people remain in their houses by providing in-home care. It pays assistants to help with tasks such as showering, cooking or attending doctor appointments. Newsom’s revised budget proposal, which was unveiled last month, would cut $367.7 million from the program and shift some of that financial burden onto counties.

Gonzalez explained that the issue hits close to home for his family. He said his son has cerebral palsy and a seizure disorder, and relies on assistance to live with dignity.

“Families should not have to wonder every budget season whether the support they rely on will be taken away,” Gonzalez said. “These services should not be treated as bargaining chips in budget negotiations.”

Assemblymember Laurie Davies (R-Laguna Niguel) questioned why a successful state like California would need to enact such cuts.

“It’s hard to go a day without hearing the governor or the administration brag about how we are the fourth-largest economy in the world and yet we can’t fully fund [this program for] the most vulnerable?” Davies said.

The governor has previously explained that difficult decisions must be made as the state could soon face an economic downturn. The budget proposal relies on a tax windfall, largely attributed to the stock market success of artificial intelligence companies, to erase California’s deficit — but some analysts have warned that the AI bubble could burst.

H.D. Palmer, deputy director for external affairs for the California Department of Finance, on Monday said some of the proposed cuts are a byproduct of the federal government’s changes in funding and eligibility for health and human services programs.

The so-called “Big, Beautiful Bill” signed by President Trump last year shifted federal funding away from safety-net programs, he said.

Palmer stressed that state budget negotiations are ongoing.

“Until we land on an agreement, speculation regarding the resolution of any specific differences between the Governor’s budget plan or the Legislature’s respective budget proposals would be premature,” he stated by email.

Monday’s event drew some bipartisan support. Brody Fernandez, communications director for Assemblymember Esmeralda Z. Soria (D-Fresno), said the legislator had been fighting for In-Home Supportive Services funding since she was elected.

Fernandez said his daughter has special needs and her mother had to give up her career to become a full-time caregiver. “This is personal for us and for many of the incredible individuals standing behind me,” he said.

Graham Knaus, chief executive of the California State Assn. of Counties, told The Times that he appreciated efforts to raise awareness about the burden these changes would place on counties.

“We applaud the Senate and Assembly for recognizing counties’ concerns and rejecting this proposal,” he said. “We ask them to hold the line in final negotiations.”

Elizabette Guecamburu, a bookkeeper who has a rare neuromuscular disorder, spoke at Monday’s rally and implored the governor to remember the teachings of their shared alma mater Santa Clara University, a Jesuit-led private school.

“I want him to remember where he came from,” she said, adding that students were taught to value compassion and community. “Don’t forget your Jesuit roots.”