How likely for save act to pass senate?

[Anonymous]

At this point, the Left should just sit down and shut up. Remember how loudly the MAGA cretins around the country screeched about REAL ID last May? Even though it had been law for 20 years? Just think of the problems this will cause for an ill-prepared MAGA base when they find out that their Texas or Alabama REAL ID doesn't constitute a citizenship document. Every single county and state will turn blue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can’t believe the number of folks I know who still don’t have a Real ID, so I’m going to guess two things will happen if it passes: a lot of men and women won’t vote, and in many red counties people will have to jump through unnecessary hoops and paperwork will get lost or backlogged or ate by a dog who someone brought to work.

Wait until you and everyone else finds out that after the hoops you jumped through to get a real ID, it isn’t sufficient for voting purposes according to the SAVE Act.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women that marry get the form to change your voters registration when you have a name change and also change your ID at the same time.

You change your drivers license and passport at the same time so all of your ID's match.

That doesn’t change the name on your birth certificate. If you do not have a passport, the SAVE Act would require you to show a drivers license and a birth certificate to register to vote. If the name on the birth certificate doesn’t match the drivers license (like because you got married), it’s a problem according to the law.

Just keep your name. You can answer to whatever name you want whenever you want, but officially just keep your own name.

Ever heard of a marriage certificate?
This is not hard.

Then make men present their marriage verification if their wives changed their names so men can vote

+1. Putting in measures that disproportionately disenfranchise only women is discriminatory.

I don’t think disparate impact is sufficient, must also show discriminatory purpose/intent. Also remember that any challenged could end up st Supreme Court and, today’s win regarding tariffs excepted, they have not been very amenable to complaints of discrimination these days!

This is one of the most ridiculous claims ever on DCUM. This is NOT going to disenfranchise women. It has been debunked countless times on this thread, but it does not fit your story board.

Women are NOT that dumb--except for the ones who want to believe this is what the SAVE act does.

Please point to exactly where it was “debunked.”

1. Birth certificate
2. Marriage Certificate

Do you think women do not work or have a Social Security card? Guess what you need to change your name?
And, if you don't change your name, there is no need for the marriage certificate.

You really think women are not smart enough to present their documents?

if men don't need these things, why should women? See the problem?

If a woman chooses to change her name, then she has documentation to prove it. This is not a problem.

People have explained multiple times over why many women in this situation do NOT have the documentation required by the SAVE Act. Your choice to ignore that does not change the truth of the matter.

You have given NO valid argument.

1. To get a Social Security card you need a birth certificate.
2. If you were never issued a birth certificate (highly unlikely if you were born in the United States in the last one hundred years) there are other ways to document your birth. If not, just maybe you were not born here.
3. When children are adopted, there is legal documentation. If a child was born in another country, there are steps to take to citizenship. People who participate in foreign adoptions are aware of this.
4. When woman legally changes her name at Social Security, a marriage certificate is required.

Now, how has this been debunked?

You need ID to get Medicare, Medicaid, purchase alcohol, obtain prescription medications--and some over the counter medicatins, enter a federal building, etc.etc. etc.

Documents get burned, stolen, lost and whatnot. Making people and particularly women, run through additional hoops in order to vote, even if they have a REAL ID, is ridiculous.

Not to mention that ICE has been detaining citizens and part of that process includes taking their IDs and not giving them back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I grew up in a rural area 100 miles from DC and personally know several older people who were born at home and do not have birth certificates. These people’s ancestors have been in the area for centuries.

I have an elderly relative that can't get a Real ID because her birth name is different than the name she's used her whole life, in the community she grew up in. Her passport is expired now, but even it had the name she used.

People assume, or disingenuously insist, that getting documentation is easy, when it's just not.

At this point, I'm being assuming they actually care about voting integrity. They want to disenfranchise people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women that marry get the form to change your voters registration when you have a name change and also change your ID at the same time.

You change your drivers license and passport at the same time so all of your ID's match.

That doesn’t change the name on your birth certificate. If you do not have a passport, the SAVE Act would require you to show a drivers license and a birth certificate to register to vote. If the name on the birth certificate doesn’t match the drivers license (like because you got married), it’s a problem according to the law.

Just keep your name. You can answer to whatever name you want whenever you want, but officially just keep your own name.

Ever heard of a marriage certificate?
This is not hard.

Then make men present their marriage verification if their wives changed their names so men can vote

+1. Putting in measures that disproportionately disenfranchise only women is discriminatory.

I don’t think disparate impact is sufficient, must also show discriminatory purpose/intent. Also remember that any challenged could end up st Supreme Court and, today’s win regarding tariffs excepted, they have not been very amenable to complaints of discrimination these days!

This is one of the most ridiculous claims ever on DCUM. This is NOT going to disenfranchise women. It has been debunked countless times on this thread, but it does not fit your story board.

Women are NOT that dumb--except for the ones who want to believe this is what the SAVE act does.

Please point to exactly where it was “debunked.”

1. Birth certificate
2. Marriage Certificate

Do you think women do not work or have a Social Security card? Guess what you need to change your name?
And, if you don't change your name, there is no need for the marriage certificate.

You really think women are not smart enough to present their documents?

if men don't need these things, why should women? See the problem?

If a woman chooses to change her name, then she has documentation to prove it. This is not a problem.

Exactly. Ladies if you took a husband’s name there’s still time to switch back. May as well loose that sperm sack while you’re at it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I grew up in a rural area 100 miles from DC and personally know several older people who were born at home and do not have birth certificates. These people’s ancestors have been in the area for centuries.

I have an elderly relative that can't get a Real ID because her birth name is different than the name she's used her whole life, in the community she grew up in. Her passport is expired now, but even it had the name she used.

People assume, or disingenuously insist, that getting documentation is easy, when it's just not.

At this point, I'm being assuming they actually care about voting integrity. They want to disenfranchise people.

Well, she must have had documentation at some point if she had a passport with that name.

My parents were both born at home. They were able to get documentation and I'm sure your people were able, as well.

Did they ever work? Social Security required documentation. Medicaid? Same.
Drive? They needed documentation.
Male? they have selective service requirements.
Register to school? they had to have documentation.

You really are reaching here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I grew up in a rural area 100 miles from DC and personally know several older people who were born at home and do not have birth certificates. These people’s ancestors have been in the area for centuries.

I have an elderly relative that can't get a Real ID because her birth name is different than the name she's used her whole life, in the community she grew up in. Her passport is expired now, but even it had the name she used.

People assume, or disingenuously insist, that getting documentation is easy, when it's just not.

At this point, I'm being assuming they actually care about voting integrity. They want to disenfranchise people.

Well, she must have had documentation at some point if she had a passport with that name.

My parents were both born at home. They were able to get documentation and I'm sure your people were able, as well.

Did they ever work? Social Security required documentation. Medicaid? Same.
Drive? They needed documentation.
Male? they have selective service requirements.
Register to school? they had to have documentation.

You really are reaching here.

none of these things are codified in the US Constitution as a right. Further, all of the documentation here require fees. Voting should not cost anything to be able to achieve. Otherwise, its a poll tax, per the Supreme Court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I grew up in a rural area 100 miles from DC and personally know several older people who were born at home and do not have birth certificates. These people’s ancestors have been in the area for centuries.

I have an elderly relative that can't get a Real ID because her birth name is different than the name she's used her whole life, in the community she grew up in. Her passport is expired now, but even it had the name she used.

People assume, or disingenuously insist, that getting documentation is easy, when it's just not.

At this point, I'm being assuming they actually care about voting integrity. They want to disenfranchise people.

Well, she must have had documentation at some point if she had a passport with that name.

My parents were both born at home. They were able to get documentation and I'm sure your people were able, as well.

Did they ever work? Social Security required documentation. Medicaid? Same.
Drive? They needed documentation.
Male? they have selective service requirements.
Register to school? they had to have documentation.

You really are reaching here.

none of these things are codified in the US Constitution as a right. Further, all of the documentation here require fees. Voting should not cost anything to be able to achieve. Otherwise, its a poll tax, per the Supreme Court.

No. It is not a poll tax. Providing documentation is not a poll tax. If you don't have the documentation, paying to get it is your problem. If you lost it, that is on you.

But, if you need it, I'm sure there will be organizations to assist you in getting your documentation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I grew up in a rural area 100 miles from DC and personally know several older people who were born at home and do not have birth certificates. These people’s ancestors have been in the area for centuries.

I have an elderly relative that can't get a Real ID because her birth name is different than the name she's used her whole life, in the community she grew up in. Her passport is expired now, but even it had the name she used.

People assume, or disingenuously insist, that getting documentation is easy, when it's just not.

At this point, I'm being assuming they actually care about voting integrity. They want to disenfranchise people.

Well, she must have had documentation at some point if she had a passport with that name.

My parents were both born at home. They were able to get documentation and I'm sure your people were able, as well.

Did they ever work? Social Security required documentation. Medicaid? Same.
Drive? They needed documentation.
Male? they have selective service requirements.
Register to school? they had to have documentation.

You really are reaching here.

none of these things are codified in the US Constitution as a right. Further, all of the documentation here require fees. Voting should not cost anything to be able to achieve. Otherwise, its a poll tax, per the Supreme Court.

No. It is not a poll tax. Providing documentation is not a poll tax. If you don't have the documentation, paying to get it is your problem. If you lost it, that is on you.

But, if you need it, I'm sure there will be organizations to assist you in getting your documentation.

If you have to get specific documentation to vote, it is a poll tax. Sorry you feel otherwise, but your feels are not the law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I grew up in a rural area 100 miles from DC and personally know several older people who were born at home and do not have birth certificates. These people’s ancestors have been in the area for centuries.

I have an elderly relative that can't get a Real ID because her birth name is different than the name she's used her whole life, in the community she grew up in. Her passport is expired now, but even it had the name she used.

People assume, or disingenuously insist, that getting documentation is easy, when it's just not.

At this point, I'm being assuming they actually care about voting integrity. They want to disenfranchise people.

Well, she must have had documentation at some point if she had a passport with that name.

My parents were both born at home. They were able to get documentation and I'm sure your people were able, as well.

Did they ever work? Social Security required documentation. Medicaid? Same.
Drive? They needed documentation.
Male? they have selective service requirements.
Register to school? they had to have documentation.

You really are reaching here.

none of these things are codified in the US Constitution as a right. Further, all of the documentation here require fees. Voting should not cost anything to be able to achieve. Otherwise, its a poll tax, per the Supreme Court.

No. It is not a poll tax. Providing documentation is not a poll tax. If you don't have the documentation, paying to get it is your problem. If you lost it, that is on you.

But, if you need it, I'm sure there will be organizations to assist you in getting your documentation.

If you have to get specific documentation to vote, it is a poll tax. Sorry you feel otherwise, but your feels are not the law.

Strongly disagree. A poll tax is a fixed amount applied to everyone regardless of wealth. Look it up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Given how frail he is, I hope he hangs in there.

For sure. But maybe he doesn’t have a lot left to lose. If only he had been tougher in 2021…

[Anonymous]

46 of 47 countries require voter identification to vote.

EVERY African nation requires ID to vote.

Here's the whole list of every country requiring it.

https://coldstreams.com/social/2026/01/30/what-countries-have-voter-identification-requirements

[Anonymous]

46 of 47 countries in Europe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I grew up in a rural area 100 miles from DC and personally know several older people who were born at home and do not have birth certificates. These people’s ancestors have been in the area for centuries.

I have an elderly relative that can't get a Real ID because her birth name is different than the name she's used her whole life, in the community she grew up in. Her passport is expired now, but even it had the name she used.

People assume, or disingenuously insist, that getting documentation is easy, when it's just not.

At this point, I'm being assuming they actually care about voting integrity. They want to disenfranchise people.

Well, she must have had documentation at some point if she had a passport with that name.

My parents were both born at home. They were able to get documentation and I'm sure your people were able, as well.

Did they ever work? Social Security required documentation. Medicaid? Same.
Drive? They needed documentation.
Male? they have selective service requirements.
Register to school? they had to have documentation.

You really are reaching here.

none of these things are codified in the US Constitution as a right. Further, all of the documentation here require fees. Voting should not cost anything to be able to achieve. Otherwise, its a poll tax, per the Supreme Court.

No. It is not a poll tax. Providing documentation is not a poll tax. If you don't have the documentation, paying to get it is your problem. If you lost it, that is on you.

But, if you need it, I'm sure there will be organizations to assist you in getting your documentation.

If you have to get specific documentation to vote, it is a poll tax. Sorry you feel otherwise, but your feels are not the law.

Strongly disagree. A poll tax is a fixed amount applied to everyone regardless of wealth. Look it up.

A poll tax is a fee levied to be able to vote. If some specific form of ID is required and it costs money, then it is a poll tax. Indiana provides voter ID cards FOR FREE, that is why it isn't illegal. If the GOP wants to provide funding for states to provide ID, then requiring ID is fine. But that isn't what the SAVE Act is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:46 of 47 countries in Europe.

and the government provides the ID FOR FREE.