How likely for save act to pass senate?

[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: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?

“Marriage certificates aren’t listed in either the original bill or the amended bill as an accepted form of additional documentation if you don’t have a passport.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/hollycorbett/2026/02/13/how-the-save-america-act-could-block-millions-of-eligible-voters/

What do you think additional documentation means? Also, some people legally change their names for other reasons--in which case, they would have legal documents.

Here is actual wording from SAVE ACT. "Additional documentation" can be accepted.

PROCESS IN CASE OF CERTAIN DISCREPANCIES IN DOCUMENTATION.—Subject to any relevant guidance adopted by the Election Assistance Commission, each State shall establish a process under which an applicant can provide such additional documentation to the appropriate election official of the State as may be necessary to establish that the applicant is a citizen of the United States in the event of a discrepancy with respect to the applicant’s documentary proof of United States citizenship.

Nothing stopped the drafters of the bill from including marriage licenses in the list of acceptable documents, explicitly proving they weren’t trying to disenfranchise 70 million women. They chose not to.

You do realize some people legally change their names for other reasons. The wording is sufficient. It is just not sufficient to justify your false claim that married women won't be able to vote if they changed their name.
That is a bogus argument and you surely must know it.

It’s the most common reason in the United States to change your name. And adding one sentence— proactively protecting marred women from discrimination— was fully within the drafters’ power and they chose not to add it. Why do you think they made the choice not to protect 70M U.S. citizens?

[Anonymous]

The Supreme Court ruled this week that the USPS can decide not to deliver mail to people without recourse. So if the leadership decide not to deliver mail in ballots because people are black or democrats, it is totally legal.

But sure, let's limit people's ability to vote because they got married and changed their name.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Supreme Court ruled this week that the USPS can decide not to deliver mail to people without recourse. So if the leadership decide not to deliver mail in ballots because people are black or democrats, it is totally legal.

But sure, let's limit people's ability to vote because they got married and changed their name.

1. Pretty sure that if they don't deliver ballots, there are other laws that would apply.
2. Quit claiming that married women will not be able to vote. That is a bogus accusation and it is getting tiresome.

For some reason, it would appear that you do not want any limits on who can vote--i.e. you do not want people to prove their citizenship.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Supreme Court ruled this week that the USPS can decide not to deliver mail to people without recourse. So if the leadership decide not to deliver mail in ballots because people are black or democrats, it is totally legal.

But sure, let's limit people's ability to vote because they got married and changed their name.

1. Pretty sure that if they don't deliver ballots, there are other laws that would apply.
2. Quit claiming that married women will not be able to vote. That is a bogus accusation and it is getting tiresome.

For some reason, it would appear that you do not want any limits on who can vote--i.e. you do not want people to prove their citizenship.

re 1...like what? If people don't receive their mail in ballots, then what?

It isn't a matter of not wanting any limits on who can vote. As it is. there are limits, and it is up to the states to enforce it. Until the 2020 election this was never an issue. It wasn't an issue in 2024 either, apparently, but it is now. Why was it an issue in 2020, but not 2024? What is the proof it is an issue at all, other than "trump says so" ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Supreme Court ruled this week that the USPS can decide not to deliver mail to people without recourse. So if the leadership decide not to deliver mail in ballots because people are black or democrats, it is totally legal.

But sure, let's limit people's ability to vote because they got married and changed their name.

1. Pretty sure that if they don't deliver ballots, there are other laws that would apply.
2. Quit claiming that married women will not be able to vote. That is a bogus accusation and it is getting tiresome.

For some reason, it would appear that you do not want any limits on who can vote--i.e. you do not want people to prove their citizenship.

re 1...like what? If people don't receive their mail in ballots, then what?

It isn't a matter of not wanting any limits on who can vote. As it is. there are limits, and it is up to the states to enforce it. Until the 2020 election this was never an issue. It wasn't an issue in 2024 either, apparently, but it is now. Why was it an issue in 2020, but not 2024? What is the proof it is an issue at all, other than "trump says so" ?

I would think there would be civil rights laws affected if the woman's accusation is true. I think the ruling was just on whether or not she could sue for monetary damages.

Thinking about this, a few years ago, DH sent a check to our cable company. We had been with them for years, but they claimed they did not receive the check. This happens. Does this mean we could sue for damages from the post office? Was it deliberate? probably not.

Another time, someone sent us a check that we did not receive--until two years later. It was very dirty and bent. It appeared to have been stuck in the mailbox somewhere. (The person had sent us a replacement check when we did not receive it.) If we had not received a replacement check, could we have sued?

Again, if this has a racial element in it, I would certainly hope that someone was fired and charged. But, sue the post office for money? That could really be a Pandora's box.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Supreme Court ruled this week that the USPS can decide not to deliver mail to people without recourse. So if the leadership decide not to deliver mail in ballots because people are black or democrats, it is totally legal.

But sure, let's limit people's ability to vote because they got married and changed their name.

1. Pretty sure that if they don't deliver ballots, there are other laws that would apply.
2. Quit claiming that married women will not be able to vote. That is a bogus accusation and it is getting tiresome.

For some reason, it would appear that you do not want any limits on who can vote--i.e. you do not want people to prove their citizenship.

What laws would apply? Name them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Supreme Court ruled this week that the USPS can decide not to deliver mail to people without recourse. So if the leadership decide not to deliver mail in ballots because people are black or democrats, it is totally legal.

But sure, let's limit people's ability to vote because they got married and changed their name.

1. Pretty sure that if they don't deliver ballots, there are other laws that would apply.
2. Quit claiming that married women will not be able to vote. That is a bogus accusation and it is getting tiresome.

For some reason, it would appear that you do not want any limits on who can vote--i.e. you do not want people to prove their citizenship.

What laws would apply? Name them.

Civil rights laws if racial bias is true. The issue is suing for money.

Was the racial bias proven? If so were people fired? If not, why not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Supreme Court ruled this week that the USPS can decide not to deliver mail to people without recourse. So if the leadership decide not to deliver mail in ballots because people are black or democrats, it is totally legal.

But sure, let's limit people's ability to vote because they got married and changed their name.

1. Pretty sure that if they don't deliver ballots, there are other laws that would apply.
2. Quit claiming that married women will not be able to vote. That is a bogus accusation and it is getting tiresome.

For some reason, it would appear that you do not want any limits on who can vote--i.e. you do not want people to prove their citizenship.

What laws would apply? Name them.

Civil rights laws if racial bias is true. The issue is suing for money.

Was the racial bias proven? If so were people fired? If not, why not?

Which civil rights law would apply to the post office in this case?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Supreme Court ruled this week that the USPS can decide not to deliver mail to people without recourse. So if the leadership decide not to deliver mail in ballots because people are black or democrats, it is totally legal.

But sure, let's limit people's ability to vote because they got married and changed their name.

1. Pretty sure that if they don't deliver ballots, there are other laws that would apply.
2. Quit claiming that married women will not be able to vote. That is a bogus accusation and it is getting tiresome.

For some reason, it would appear that you do not want any limits on who can vote--i.e. you do not want people to prove their citizenship.

There is not one sentence in the law affirming a marriage certificate as adequate to prove a change name of a US citizen. Not bogus.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Supreme Court ruled this week that the USPS can decide not to deliver mail to people without recourse. So if the leadership decide not to deliver mail in ballots because people are black or democrats, it is totally legal.

But sure, let's limit people's ability to vote because they got married and changed their name.

1. Pretty sure that if they don't deliver ballots, there are other laws that would apply.
2. Quit claiming that married women will not be able to vote. That is a bogus accusation and it is getting tiresome.

For some reason, it would appear that you do not want any limits on who can vote--i.e. you do not want people to prove their citizenship.

There is not one sentence in the law affirming a marriage certificate as adequate to prove a change name of a US citizen. Not bogus.

PROCESS IN CASE OF CERTAIN DISCREPANCIES IN DOCUMENTATION.—Subject to any relevant guidance adopted by the Election Assistance Commission, each State shall establish a process under which an applicant can provide such additional documentation to the appropriate election official of the State as may be necessary to establish that the applicant is a citizen of the United States in the event of a discrepancy with respect to the applicant’s documentary proof of United States citizenship

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Supreme Court ruled this week that the USPS can decide not to deliver mail to people without recourse. So if the leadership decide not to deliver mail in ballots because people are black or democrats, it is totally legal.

But sure, let's limit people's ability to vote because they got married and changed their name.

1. Pretty sure that if they don't deliver ballots, there are other laws that would apply.
2. Quit claiming that married women will not be able to vote. That is a bogus accusation and it is getting tiresome.

For some reason, it would appear that you do not want any limits on who can vote--i.e. you do not want people to prove their citizenship.

There is not one sentence in the law affirming a marriage certificate as adequate to prove a change name of a US citizen. Not bogus.

PROCESS IN CASE OF CERTAIN DISCREPANCIES IN DOCUMENTATION.—Subject to any relevant guidance adopted by the Election Assistance Commission, each State shall establish a process under which an applicant can provide such additional documentation to the appropriate election official of the State as may be necessary to establish that the applicant is a citizen of the United States in the event of a discrepancy with respect to the applicant’s documentary proof of United States citizenship

Who determines whether a marriage certificate counts as the additional documentation needed? And does it need to be the original marriage certificate, or a copy, or a certified copy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Supreme Court ruled this week that the USPS can decide not to deliver mail to people without recourse. So if the leadership decide not to deliver mail in ballots because people are black or democrats, it is totally legal.

But sure, let's limit people's ability to vote because they got married and changed their name.

1. Pretty sure that if they don't deliver ballots, there are other laws that would apply.
2. Quit claiming that married women will not be able to vote. That is a bogus accusation and it is getting tiresome.

For some reason, it would appear that you do not want any limits on who can vote--i.e. you do not want people to prove their citizenship.

There is not one sentence in the law affirming a marriage certificate as adequate to prove a change name of a US citizen. Not bogus.

PROCESS IN CASE OF CERTAIN DISCREPANCIES IN DOCUMENTATION.—Subject to any relevant guidance adopted by the Election Assistance Commission, each State shall establish a process under which an applicant can provide such additional documentation to the appropriate election official of the State as may be necessary to establish that the applicant is a citizen of the United States in the event of a discrepancy with respect to the applicant’s documentary proof of United States citizenship

You keep forgetting the "subject to" part. Thus far, there is no additional guidance so everything is up in the air and some rando election official will decide on a case-by-case basis. Convenient isn't it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Supreme Court ruled this week that the USPS can decide not to deliver mail to people without recourse. So if the leadership decide not to deliver mail in ballots because people are black or democrats, it is totally legal.

But sure, let's limit people's ability to vote because they got married and changed their name.

1. Pretty sure that if they don't deliver ballots, there are other laws that would apply.
2. Quit claiming that married women will not be able to vote. That is a bogus accusation and it is getting tiresome.

For some reason, it would appear that you do not want any limits on who can vote--i.e. you do not want people to prove their citizenship.

There is not one sentence in the law affirming a marriage certificate as adequate to prove a change name of a US citizen. Not bogus.

PROCESS IN CASE OF CERTAIN DISCREPANCIES IN DOCUMENTATION.—Subject to any relevant guidance adopted by the Election Assistance Commission, each State shall establish a process under which an applicant can provide such additional documentation to the appropriate election official of the State as may be necessary to establish that the applicant is a citizen of the United States in the event of a discrepancy with respect to the applicant’s documentary proof of United States citizenship

You keep forgetting the "subject to" part. Thus far, there is no additional guidance so everything is up in the air and some rando election official will decide on a case-by-case basis. Convenient isn't it?

You are really, really stretching this. Do you really think Democrats cannot win without illegal voting?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Supreme Court ruled this week that the USPS can decide not to deliver mail to people without recourse. So if the leadership decide not to deliver mail in ballots because people are black or democrats, it is totally legal.

But sure, let's limit people's ability to vote because they got married and changed their name.

1. Pretty sure that if they don't deliver ballots, there are other laws that would apply.
2. Quit claiming that married women will not be able to vote. That is a bogus accusation and it is getting tiresome.

For some reason, it would appear that you do not want any limits on who can vote--i.e. you do not want people to prove their citizenship.

There is not one sentence in the law affirming a marriage certificate as adequate to prove a change name of a US citizen. Not bogus.

PROCESS IN CASE OF CERTAIN DISCREPANCIES IN DOCUMENTATION.—Subject to any relevant guidance adopted by the Election Assistance Commission, each State shall establish a process under which an applicant can provide such additional documentation to the appropriate election official of the State as may be necessary to establish that the applicant is a citizen of the United States in the event of a discrepancy with respect to the applicant’s documentary proof of United States citizenship

You keep forgetting the "subject to" part. Thus far, there is no additional guidance so everything is up in the air and some rando election official will decide on a case-by-case basis. Convenient isn't it?

You are really, really stretching this. Do you really think Democrats cannot win without illegal voting?

Please show us evidence of an election where Democrats used illegal voting to win.