Unbiased: Is it true that the SAVE Act will take away the right to vote for married women who have changed their last name?
Disclaimer: I am neither Republican nor Democrat. Everything is purely unbiased and factual.
This is false, but we need some context here:
The SAVE Act, officially known as the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, was first introduced last year. Its main goal is to require documentary proof of U.S. citizenship for individuals registering to vote in federal elections.
Currently, while only U.S. citizens are allowed to vote in federal elections, the Supreme Court precedent states that documentary proof is not requiredāit is sufficient to simply attest to citizenship under penalty of perjury. As a result, not all states require proof of citizenship when registering voters. However, if the SAVE Act is passed, this would change.
Under this proposed law, voters would need to provide proof of citizenship with a document that meets REAL ID requirements in order to have their voter registration application accepted for federal elections. This could include a passport or another government-issued ID, but if using a non-passport ID, the applicant would also need to present a birth certificate or a similar document, such as a naturalization certificate. It is important to note that this requirement applies only to federal electionsāstate election requirements may differ.
Concerns About Married Women and Name Changes
Since the billās introduction, concerns have been raised about how it might impact married women who have changed their last names. Some claim that the SAVE Act could effectively prevent married women from voting. However, the bill does not explicitly bar married women from voting.
The concern arises from the billās requirement that a birth certificate must include the applicantās full name, date of birth, and place of birth. For a married woman who has legally changed her last name, her birth certificate will not reflect her new surname, which may create an issue when presenting a government-issued photo ID.
However, the bill does not explicitly state that the name on the birth certificate and the name on the government-issued ID must match exactly in order to be accepted. If discrepancies arise, applicants may need to provide additional documentation, such as a marriage certificate, to verify their name change. This aligns with existing government processes where name discrepancies can be resolved by presenting legal documentation.
Since the bill has not yet been passed, the exact implementation of these requirements remains unclear. However, it is important to emphasize that claims suggesting the bill outright bans married women from voting are false. Furthermore, a womanās right to vote is protected by the U.S. Constitution under the 19th Amendment. For this right to be revoked, a new constitutional amendment would need to be passed, which is highly unlikely.
The bill previously passed the House of Representatives in the last congressional session, with support from five Democrats and 216 Republicans. However, since that session has ended, it must pass the House again before moving to the Senate, where it would need to overcome the filibuster before a final vote.
