The literacy tests were only given to "specific kinds" of people.
And the same will be true for ID verification.
If you look "trustworthy" they won't ask for your ID.

while i get the joke, i just want to make sure it's clear to anyone coming across this understnds that women who elect to change their name in the merital tradition of erasure are more likely to be conservative, and the women who have the documents to prove their identity (like a passport) are more likely to be progressive.

all that said, the focus on how this will impact women, specifically, is frustrating because it's ignoring the biggest groups of people who will be impacted: immigrants and working poor people. we shouldn't tolerate the disenfranchisement of ~30% of women, so we are clear, but we are positioned to disenfranchise ~80% of immigrants and working poor and no one is talking about it. these are people who are less likely to have ANY of the acceptable documents proposed in the SAVE act.

for context, people experiencing poverty are far less likely to be born in a hospital and have a birth certificate, usually depending on a baptism certificate to establish their government name. meanwhile, immigrants may have a passport, but if it's expired that's unacceptable, and a lot of the nations around the world that issued the birth certificates being required by this law in place of a passport can no longer certify birth certificates simply because they aren't existing anymore. i have multiple friends who can't get their birth certificates right now because that would put them at risk of government retribution because they are asylum seekers. for example, my siberian neighbor isn't going to be getting in touch with the Russian government any time soon.

so in conclusion. the aim is to disenfranchise women and minorities. the majority of the women disenfranchised will be conservative. however, the majority of people disenfranchised will be progressive.

and that's no accident.

Or it will disqualify a lot of married women who took their partner's name

Unmarried women and women who keep their last name will have less trouble voting... and people whose names differ and are aware of the change, are more likely to go through the bullshit to make sure they're registered. Maybe it'll prevent a bunch of Magats from being able to vote

It's utterly disgusting either way. Hope it backfires, they lose, and they're persecuted. A kid can dream

They want all conservative women to change back to their maiden name apparently lol.

It doesn't even matter. If only men vote then Republicans win. Women add more votes to Democrats. Removing them from the picture for voting simply helps Republicans.

Checkout https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws I think that might help you see where the Trump admin is cribbing notes from.

This is the intent of the bill as it is written. These bigots were so excited about denying rights to trans people that they didn’t even consider that it might disenfranchise cis women.

Though for these crusty old cunts, that’s just a bonus!

But isn't that something liberals do?

So the fact that you have nothing to say about the second scenario I laid out is not because you didn't read it, but because you, what? Didn't understand? Couldn't come up with a useful reply?

None of these options leave you in a good light.

Yes but who is going to be enforcing this? Where specifically are they going to be enforcing this?

Because it ain't gonna be Bumfuck, Alabama who has gone red since the Civil War.

Rich Hollywood stars have passports???

Calling it now.

Vote-by-mail ballots disregarded.

And ICE at every poll in every blue city around the country.

Yep, and I think that anti-trans rights people would be more than happy to throw other people under the bus to assure that trans people lose their rights.

Why on earth is a birth certificate used at all for identification?

That’s true. Odds are if implemented they’ll harass people in Minneapolis before they do Ft. Smith, AR.

It's proof of citizenship. But also, here it's a convenient and plausibly deniable way to disenfranchise people who vote differently than them.

Its tied to education, which has a lot of correlation to political leaning. Professional women often keep their maiden name because they have published under it already.

Women aren't the only people who change their names. I'm a straight white guy and I took my wife's last name when we got married. So I'm affected by this dumbass shit too.

Yeah I'm guessing even most MAGA voters don't have a birth certificate handy, and certainly don't have passports. This just disenfranchises MOST Americans.

MAGA women usually are still using their first husbands last name so it’ll suck for them too

Don't worry. They'll have clear instructions on how to vote posted on the wall of the voting precinct on Tuesdays between 12 and 12:30 starting 15 days before the election.

Yeah, but that seems like a really dumb and not-all-encompassing proof of citizenship. That's why I asked. The 2nd part of your reaction makes sense and very likely accurate, but probably not the official reason right? Like, what is their public excuse for using it as proof of citizenship?

Kind of?

What makes you think Republican women would have an easier time getting that paperwork?

money and privilege?

What do you use?

A passport or national ID

The enforcement will be extremely selective. We’re talking about Republicans here. They’re not subtle about ignoring the constitution.

Americans doesn’t necessarily have those.

Like if you don’t leave the US (like a lot of Americans don’t) you don’t have a incentive to keep your passport up to date.

Everyone in Europe has Passports, because you need it so much more.

Everyone in America have a birth certificate

the west is supposed to be more progressive in most areas

All scepticism of that claim aside, I'm not sure it has something to do with progressiveness, strictly speaking. It's a historical artifact, to be sure, but as far as I know, the laws and expectations on this have softened somewhat. My wife and I each kept ours, for instance, and nobody bats an eye.

It's a thing many people do anyway, because sharing a family name makes it more obvious that, well, you're a family, but even for that, there are alternatives that (in my social environment at least) are just as acceptable. My boss took his wife's, for instance. Double-names have been common for a long time now (several of my older teachers had them) and German law also allows you to come up with a new family name (even later on, doesn't have to be right when you get married).

The fact that it tends to be the man's name in hetero marriages is a relic of a society that thought of marriages as the women coming into the men's household, long before family names became a thing (as the other reply mentions). Whatever the origin of it, that patriarchal model no longer has any grounding in modern family patterns and no reason to keep existing.

However, a habit doesn't strictly have to be good or bad. In the case of names, their value depends in what they symbolise. In this case, it used to (and unfortunately in many places still does) represent that power dynamic of the man as head of the household. And it's that dynamic that would be the target of progressive efforts to break it up.

I won't say it's gone entirely, because it isn't, and there are plenty of places where it hasn't diminished much, if at all. But in some places, it has softened, and that is reflected in the way we treat family names: You're no longer required nor strongly expected to use the man's, and even if you do, that doesn't mean the woman has to be subordinate.

As a historical relic, the habit isn't progressive by definition, but if there is neither obligation nor implication of male dominant, it also isn't anti-progressive. It just is a thing people commonly do (but don't have to).

Of course, if it were used to selectively disenfranchise some voter demographics, that would give it a new and very much regressive meaning. In that case, the habit would be a bad thing again. I hope it doesn't come to that.

Reminds me of:
Florida to experiment with new 600-lever voting machine - The Onion (YouTube video)

"My husband votes conservative for the both of us. A woman's place is serving God and her husband, not having a right to an opinion."

-Conservative women, probably

To further your point, this is about registering to vote, not voting. People already registered grandfather in. Just like the literacy treats that white folks also wouldn't pass, but it was only about the newly allowed black voters.

Here is a list of allowed document for a similar problem, for employment. Note that it categorizes the possibilities as ID, citizenship, and work authorization, and you may need one each from multiple groups. For example you might use a drivers license as ID and a certified birth certificate as proof of citizenship

• https://www.uscis.gov/i-9-central/form-i-9-acceptable-documents

It’s not quite the same since this allows identifying as from another country and with a valid work authorization, which do not apply to voting, but very similar

Obviously I’m not saying this is appropriate to mandate for voting but if we were, this is a well thought out answer to that sort of question.

It doesn’t address the voter suppression concern though

Does SAVE require documentary proof of citizenship to vote, or just to register? As I understand it, documentary proof of citizenship is the specific requirement that's hard for anyone who has had a change of name to meet short of a passport or an EDL in the 5 states that offer one.

You can change your name with the IRS SSA. That should be more than sufficient proof.

But women who vote Democrat are more likely to keep their maiden name compared to Republican women.

A lot of Republican men won't be able to vote then.

"Ignoring the constitution" is the bedrock of our political parties.

For example the "powers not enumerated in the constitution rest with the people" bits. There's no limit to powers today, they do what they want.

The logic in my joke is severely flawed, and intentionally so, for comedic effect. Contrary to popular belief, it's actually quite difficult to marry a close blood relative, even south of the Mason-Dixon line, which is why most conservatives prefer cohabitation.

What does the IRS have to do with anything? Read the actual bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/22/text

Section 2(b) is the relevant bit regarding what counts as documentary proof of US citizenship.

You don't know if you won't have issues or not. Their whole goal is to create issues.

Live in a black area of a county in GA? Close down the polling station.

Look Hispanic near a polling station? Maybe ICE tackles you and arrests you for no reason.

Woman and your name doesn't match? No vote.

It's really not hard to understand what they're trying to do. Whites don't have more rights than you on paper. They would love to change that, and they start by bending and then breaking the law.

The IRS SSA is a federal agency that you provide documentation to for a name change. Most places won't hire you without doing this.

The fact that you've changed your name and the corroborating documentation is already in the federal government's possession.

It’s actually pretty common for one person to take on the other’s last name.

My partner started out keeping hers, then took my last name after getting hassled over her name not matching our son’s in various situations.

This would make voting difficult for her.

Won’t matter when he cancels elections cause we are in multiple wars.

Proof of citizenship is already required to register, bringing proof to the voting booth is the extra hurdle this act brings.

Less than half of Americans have a passport, and that's the only form of national ID we have. We have 50 different state IDs, but iirc only 3 of them show proof of citizenship.

Does that mean Alabama women are safe?

But that's not proof of citizenship, which is what the bill requires.

The Handmaiden's Tale has this subplot of a woman regretting of proverbially blowing the misogynists.

And also the source of the term "grandfathered in".

The law was typically along the lines of "literacy test or your grandfather could vote".