This one weird trick could stop US women from voting

[cbabe]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jan/31/save-act-voting-arwa-mahdawi

This one weird trick could stop US women from voting

Arwa Mahdawi

The Save Act – which would do the opposite of its title – could have a huge impact on the midterm elections
Sat 31 Jan 2026 09.00 EST

Beware the Save Act
If you are anything like me, then you are currently pickling in your own cortisol. As the US grows increasingly violent, increasingly cruel, every day brings a legion of new horrors. So I’m very sorry to say that I’m here to ruin your weekend by giving you yet another thing to worry about. That thing is called the Save Act and, if the Trump administration gets its way, it could have an oversized impact on the November midterms, particularly when it comes to minorities and married women being able to vote.

A good rule of thumb when looking at a Republican-drafted bill or campaign is that its name is directly the opposite of whatever it is meant to achieve. If there is something about ‘protecting women’ in the title, for example, then it’s probably actually about controlling women or bullying transgender people. The same is true of the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (Save) Act, which would change the way US citizens register to vote. The purpose of the bill doesn’t seem to be to safeguard democracy but to help destroy it through stealth disenfranchisement.

If it became law, the Save Act would require Americans to provide a birth certificate, passport, or other citizenship document to register or re-register to vote. Per one Brennan Center Study, more that 21 million American citizens, many of whom are engaged voters, do not have easy access to these documents. While just over 8% of self-identified white American citizens don’t have these documents readily available, the Brennan Center found the number is nearly 11% among Americans of color.

Women who changed their name when they got married may also face a logistical nightmare: reports show that as many as 69 million women who have taken their spouse’s name don’t have a birth certificate that matches their legal name. “The legislation does not mention the potential option for these Americans to present change-of-name documentation or a marriage certificate in combination with a birth certificate to prove their citizenship,” the liberal thinktank the Center for American Progress noted.

To make things even more complicated for everyone, the Save Act would also disrupt online voter registration. Americans would have to appear in person, with their original documents, simply to update their voter registration information.

A proof-of-citizenship law similar to the Save Act has been tried before, by the way, including between 2013 and 2017 in Kansas. And guess what? It was an expensive disaster that prevented more than 30,000 Kansans from voting. It’s well-established that these sorts of laws disproportionately harm low-income, disabled, married women, and marginalized voters. Why are the Republicans so keen on making it harder for these groups to vote? I’m sure I don’t need to spell it out for you.

… more …

(Boys change their names also. Like jd vance.)

[SheltieLover]

1. Women tend to want to see their families eat and be healthy, so of course, they are a threat to repukes.

Women: get your birth certificates and marriage licenses NOW! I already have mine ready to roll.

[no_hypocrisy]

2. Interestingly, married women could legally return to their maiden surnames and

then "be allowed to" vote.

Sure, some of their husbands may not like it, but they could use two names to navigate, but her maiden name would be her legal name, returning her right to women's suffrage.

Plus, I don't believe this proposed statute would stand up to the SCOTUS b/c it would violate the 19th Amendment granting women the right to vote.

And who in the Hell goes to court to change their maiden name to their married name on their friggin' birth certificate?

[cbabe]

3. Monkey wrenching the vote. Until the midterms. By any means. SCOTUS appeal would

likely be to little, to late.