General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMother Jones / Ari Berman: House GOP Are Set to Pass a Voter Suppression Bill That Would Disenfranchise Millions
Last edited Thu Apr 10, 2025, 12:50 PM - Edit history (1)
“It’s a five-alarm fire for American voters and for election officials”
Ari Berman
32 minutes ago
An illustration of an oval white sticker with "I Voted" in blue at the center with an American flag billowing to the left. The sticker is torn in two between the "T" and "E".
Mother Jones illustration; Getty
Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Two weeks after Donald Trump issued a sweeping anti-voting executive order, the House of Representatives is set to pass a measure, the SAVE Act, that is described by voting rights advocates as perhaps the worst voter suppression bill ever seriously considered by Congress. It could disenfranchise millions of voters and would severely limit how Americans can register to vote.
“If the SAVE Act were enacted, this would be the first federal voter suppression bill in recent memory, and possibly ever,” says Eliza Sweren-Becker, senior counsel for the Brennan Center for Justice’s voting rights and elections program. “It would be an unprecedented burden on tens of millions of Americans and would block millions of Americans from voting and participating in our democracy. It’s a five-alarm fire for American voters and for election officials.”
Under the alleged need of stopping noncitizens from voting in federal elections, which is already illegal and exceedingly rare, it would require documentary proof of citizenship, such as a passport or birth certificate, to register to vote.
Nine percent of American citizens, roughly 21 million people, don’t have ready access to citizenship documents, according to a study by the Brennan Center and other voting rights groups. Sixty percent of them voted in the 2020 election. Close to 4 million don’t have these documents at all, because they were lost, destroyed, or stolen.
But the number of impacted voters is much larger than just those who don’t possess or have easy access to citizenship documents. According to the Pew Research Center, 69 million women who have taken their spouse’s name do not have a birth certificate matching their legal name and could find it much harder to register to vote under the bill. Interestingly enough, conservative Republican women and Republican/Republican-leaning women were the two groups most likely to take their partner’s name. Greta Bedekovics, associate director for democratic policy at the Center for American Progress, calls this “a marriage penalty” that “completely ignores the implications of the 19th Amendment.”
/snip

Lovie777
(17,984 posts)kimbutgar
(24,838 posts)I kept my maiden name and hyphenated my married name on social security and my passport. So I guess I could still vote ?
allegorical oracle
(4,608 posts)or religious person, but opted to take my husband's name. Was still able to get a "real" ID here in Florida. Just presented my certified marriage certificate along with my certified birth certificate. Also added my maiden name to my driver license. (All this is stupid BS and wastes everybody's time.)
kimbutgar
(24,838 posts)It was hellish to change back to my maiden name. After I married my current husband now of 36 years I hyphenated my name when I renewed my drivers license, passport and financial documents.
What I don’t understand is that magaloon women are ok with giving up their right to vote !
PA Democrat
(13,406 posts)Real ID can be obtained by non-citizens who are in the US legally.
There are a handful of states who have some type of US citizen indication on their Real ID, but in all other states a Real ID is not proof of citizenship.
blubunyip
(100 posts)She took her husband's name at first but found that people immediately treated her like she was second fiddle to him, ie. "the wife." Even to the point of looking to him to be the decider in everything. She changed back to her maiden name solely because of the way she was being treated. She's a science researcher. He is in science also and is fine with it. But people should be allowed to have the name they want. I guess you could call it a "marriage penalty."
Whatever people decide is their legal name should not be questioned by anyone. Take spouse's name, or don't-- really nobody's biz. It's a custom, not a requirement. Other countries do it differently.
LetMyPeopleVote
(161,645 posts)Last edited Thu Apr 10, 2025, 06:38 PM - Edit history (1)
I volunteer on voting rights/voter protection efforts. Non-citizens do not vote
The House GOP majority passed a ban on noncitizen voting, which (a) almost never happens; and (b) is already illegal. It’s worth understanding why.
https://bsky.app/profile/stevebenen.com/post/3lmiblspuhc2h
- make it harder for Americans to vote
- address a problem that doesn't exist
- impose new burdens on state election administrators
House Republicans passed it anyway.
Link to tweet
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/house-republicans-pass-act-solution-search-problem-rcna200681
Soon after, House Republicans followed through, introducing the “Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act” (or “SAVE Act”). As NBC News reported, that same bill has now passed the chamber.
The measure cleared the chamber on a 220-208 vote, with four Democrats — Reps. Ed Case of Hawaii; Henry Cuellar of Texas; Jared Golden of Maine; and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington — voting with the majority. No GOP members opposed the bill.
The principal concern with the legislation is that it’s a solution in search of a problem. To hear Republicans tell it, policymakers must prevent noncitizens from voting, which probably sounds reasonable. In fact, it’s so reasonable that the SAVE Act is redundant: There are literally zero locations in the United States where noncitizens can vote in federal and/or state elections.
GOP lawmakers have also argued that legislation is needed to curtail the scourge of noncitizens who are already voting. Except, Republicans have gone searching for evidence of this problem and found effectively nothing.....
What’s more, as The Associated Press reported last month, state elections officials — from both parties — have expressed practical concerns about how these costly proposed procedures would be implemented and paid for. The same article added, “Voting rights groups have said married women who have changed their name could have trouble registering under the SAVE Act because their birth certificate lists their maiden name.”....
The bill now heads to the Senate, where Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah is championing a companion bill. The odds of the legislation overcoming a Democratic filibuster, however, are poor. Watch this space.
During the Texas voter id litigation back in 2012, Greg Abbott as AG argued that non-citizens were voting but could provide no evidence of this because non-citizens are too scared to break the law by voting
LetMyPeopleVote
(161,645 posts)valleyrogue
(1,994 posts)so this is an end run of sorts.
This is all about women and curtailing their voting rights. Women are far more likely to vote Democratic.
Furthermore, women need to stop with the idiocy of changing their names upon marriage.