How likely for save act to pass senate?

[Anonymous]

All available data, investigations and studies show that we DO NOT have any kind of serious or meaningful non-citizen voting fraud.

So why then is passing a bill to "fix" a non-issue the top GOP priority rather than affordability or other things that are actually hurting Americans?

[Anonymous]

"How many women have none of these things? How do they live and exist with none of these things? Where have you met these women?"

DP but I spent a career as a police officer. Plenty of people have no I.D. All it takes is to get your wallet stolen, work a 9-5 p.m. job where you can't personally go to DMV to get replacements, have such a strict budget that you can't afford the $30 for a new license or $130 for a passport. People go to hospitals or jail and have all their personal items misplaced by authorities. Until a few years ago, you had to go to a state office in Richmond to get an official birth certificate. Can you take a day off work to travel? I had to do that to get my first passport. The VA birth certificate that was good enough for school and my job wasn't good enough for a passport. Can you easily put your hands on your marriage certificate? Is it in wallet form so it's easy to carry? These laws will shut out the poor and unmotivated, and I know it's the point.

It was a PITA to get one of my sons a Real I.D. driver's license. He is a full-time student with no lease, no utility payments, and even his phone bill is in my name. It was easier getting his passport, so that was one of the documents DMV accepted. Again, I doubt most people have $130 lying around for a passport these days. Last spring I forced him to get all his documents in order and paid all the fees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
"How many women have none of these things? How do they live and exist with none of these things? Where have you met these women?"

DP but I spent a career as a police officer. Plenty of people have no I.D. All it takes is to get your wallet stolen, work a 9-5 p.m. job where you can't personally go to DMV to get replacements, have such a strict budget that you can't afford the $30 for a new license or $130 for a passport. People go to hospitals or jail and have all their personal items misplaced by authorities. Until a few years ago, you had to go to a state office in Richmond to get an official birth certificate. Can you take a day off work to travel? I had to do that to get my first passport. The VA birth certificate that was good enough for school and my job wasn't good enough for a passport. Can you easily put your hands on your marriage certificate? Is it in wallet form so it's easy to carry? These laws will shut out the poor and unmotivated, and I know it's the point.

It was a PITA to get one of my sons a Real I.D. driver's license. He is a full-time student with no lease, no utility payments, and even his phone bill is in my name. It was easier getting his passport, so that was one of the documents DMV accepted. Again, I doubt most people have $130 lying around for a passport these days. Last spring I forced him to get all his documents in order and paid all the fees.

The right wing keeps trying to frame it as "dems are saying women and poor people are too stupid/dysfunctional to get ID and that's insulting" but that's not even the right argument, it''s a right wing deflection from the real issue:

If it costs even $0.01 to get documentation needed to vote it's a de-facto poll tax and poll taxes are unconstitutional.

Plus, it's clear that it's not about "voting fraud" - that's a false fearmongering tactic that the right wing is using. There's absolutely no credible evidence that illegals are "stealing elections." In the hundreds of millions of ballots cast over the last 10 years there are barely a few dozen proven cases of illegal votes. Not even remotely enough to swing any elections to steal them from Republicans. But when hundreds of thousands of LEGAL voters start getting disenfranchised, that WILL swing elections. Republicans aren't stopping steals. They are committing steals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All available data, investigations and studies show that we DO NOT have any kind of serious or meaningful non-citizen voting fraud.

So why then is passing a bill to "fix" a non-issue the top GOP priority rather than affordability or other things that are actually hurting Americans?

Well? Come on, speak up for yourselves, Republicans.

[Anonymous]

Ok, so most people register to vote at age 18. I guess they’ll need a passport or certified birth certificate. People aren’t married at age 18, mostly (I do know exceptions).

To vote during election, this person would then need to show a drivers permit, or license, or a passport/card. If they married after registering to vote, they’d need to show updated photo id or the marriage record.

If they divorce, they’d need to show updated photo id or court order showing name change.

What’s the issue?

[Anonymous]

If I were getting married now, I would stick to my maiden name and give my kids my name. I may try to change us all now. Good bye patriarchy!

[Anonymous]

https://whyy.org/articles/state-department-orders-nonprofit-libraries-stop-passport-applications/

State Department orders nonprofit libraries to stop processing passport applications




But its so easy to get a passport, just go to the local library
-GOP bleaters on this thread

[Anonymous]

This seems like a massive own goal by the GOP. Think about it: which demographics are more likely to have passports/other forms of proof valid under this act?

- Naturalized citizens: more likely to vote Democratic
- Wealthy people who travel frequently: more likely to vote Democratic
- Young, unmarried women: one of the most Democratic-leaning demographics
- Married women who kept their maiden name: Very Democratic leaning.

On the other hand, let's think about the type of people who may not have the required ID:

- People from rural areas who rarely, if ever, leave the USA: likely a heavily Republican-leaning demographic
- Married women who change their last name: probably more Republican-leaning than their counterparts who kept their maiden names (think "tradwives")

The Democrats should still oppose this act on principle, but it would be really funny if it passes and immediately boosts Democratic chances immensely

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If I were getting married now, I would stick to my maiden name and give my kids my name. I may try to change us all now. Good bye patriarchy!

It is still a patriarchy no matter how you slice it. Your maiden name is your dad's name. If you take your mom's name, you are taking her dad's name. Anyway, I do agree with you that no woman should take her husband's name. it was always a dumb tradition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This seems like a massive own goal by the GOP. Think about it: which demographics are more likely to have passports/other forms of proof valid under this act?

- Naturalized citizens: more likely to vote Democratic
- Wealthy people who travel frequently: more likely to vote Democratic
- Young, unmarried women: one of the most Democratic-leaning demographics
- Married women who kept their maiden name: Very Democratic leaning.

On the other hand, let's think about the type of people who may not have the required ID:

- People from rural areas who rarely, if ever, leave the USA: likely a heavily Republican-leaning demographic
- Married women who change their last name: probably more Republican-leaning than their counterparts who kept their maiden names (think "tradwives")

The Democrats should still oppose this act on principle, but it would be really funny if it passes and immediately boosts Democratic chances immensely

Many people think that long term it will hurt Republicans but shrot-term it will help them. Another group that leans left are college students and they will be totally disenfranchised because their addresses won't match.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok, so most people register to vote at age 18. I guess they’ll need a passport or certified birth certificate. People aren’t married at age 18, mostly (I do know exceptions).

To vote during election, this person would then need to show a drivers permit, or license, or a passport/card. If they married after registering to vote, they’d need to show updated photo id or the marriage record.

If they divorce, they’d need to show updated photo id or court order showing name change.

What’s the issue?

The issue is that the United States does not have a voter fraud problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This seems like a massive own goal by the GOP. Think about it: which demographics are more likely to have passports/other forms of proof valid under this act?

- Naturalized citizens: more likely to vote Democratic
- Wealthy people who travel frequently: more likely to vote Democratic
- Young, unmarried women: one of the most Democratic-leaning demographics
- Married women who kept their maiden name: Very Democratic leaning.

On the other hand, let's think about the type of people who may not have the required ID:

- People from rural areas who rarely, if ever, leave the USA: likely a heavily Republican-leaning demographic
- Married women who change their last name: probably more Republican-leaning than their counterparts who kept their maiden names (think "tradwives")

The Democrats should still oppose this act on principle, but it would be really funny if it passes and immediately boosts Democratic chances immensely

Many people think that long term it will hurt Republicans but shrot-term it will help them. Another group that leans left are college students and they will be totally disenfranchised because their addresses won't match.

Most college students vote in their home district, where they grew up. That’s their address.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This seems like a massive own goal by the GOP. Think about it: which demographics are more likely to have passports/other forms of proof valid under this act?

- Naturalized citizens: more likely to vote Democratic
- Wealthy people who travel frequently: more likely to vote Democratic
- Young, unmarried women: one of the most Democratic-leaning demographics
- Married women who kept their maiden name: Very Democratic leaning.

On the other hand, let's think about the type of people who may not have the required ID:

- People from rural areas who rarely, if ever, leave the USA: likely a heavily Republican-leaning demographic
- Married women who change their last name: probably more Republican-leaning than their counterparts who kept their maiden names (think "tradwives")

The Democrats should still oppose this act on principle, but it would be really funny if it passes and immediately boosts Democratic chances immensely

Many people think that long term it will hurt Republicans but shrot-term it will help them. Another group that leans left are college students and they will be totally disenfranchised because their addresses won't match.

Most college students vote in their home district, where they grew up. That’s their address.

This is debatable. Many, many vote at their campus..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok, so most people register to vote at age 18. I guess they’ll need a passport or certified birth certificate. People aren’t married at age 18, mostly (I do know exceptions).

To vote during election, this person would then need to show a drivers permit, or license, or a passport/card. If they married after registering to vote, they’d need to show updated photo id or the marriage record.

If they divorce, they’d need to show updated photo id or court order showing name change.

What’s the issue?

Where’s the evidence of voter fraud?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If I were getting married now, I would stick to my maiden name and give my kids my name. I may try to change us all now. Good bye patriarchy!

Yep, and I would give the kids only my name too, keep things simple.