How likely for save act to pass senate?

[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?

You are calling voting with you married name illegal.

Thanks to Kansas for showing us what this is really about and how it will actually go down on election day.

[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?

Who won the 2024 election?

Was there fraud in the 2024 election?

[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?

You can stop caping for this POS legislation since it’s never getting passed.

[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

The first bolded makes the second irrelevant. Marriage certificate does bupkis unless a board that doesn’t currently exist eventually says it does. Zero protection for married women who changed their names.

[Anonymous]

I hope there is a cadre of Democrats gearing up to apply legal pressure the reddest of red areas to enforce the SAVE act on them in the strictest way possible.

I think it would be absolutely hilarious if it completely backfires on them.

[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

The first bolded makes the second irrelevant. Marriage certificate does bupkis unless a board that doesn’t currently exist eventually says it does. Zero protection for married women who changed their names.

LOL! You really think they are going to disenfranchise married women? Why would they want to do that?

[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

The first bolded makes the second irrelevant. Marriage certificate does bupkis unless a board that doesn’t currently exist eventually says it does. Zero protection for married women who changed their names.

LOL! You really think they are going to disenfranchise married women? Why would they want to do that?

Because MAGA believes the 19th Amendment was a mistake.

[Anonymous]

[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

The first bolded makes the second irrelevant. Marriage certificate does bupkis unless a board that doesn’t currently exist eventually says it does. Zero protection for married women who changed their names.

LOL! You really think they are going to disenfranchise married women? Why would they want to do that?

I know right!??!? Republicans absolutely respect and see women as equal and no Republican currently in the cabinet has ever amplified suggestions women should
Not be allowed to vote.

https://apnews.com/article/women-hegseth-defense-secretary-religion-d962f472910fb47a0c66cd37b01f550d

[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

The first bolded makes the second irrelevant. Marriage certificate does bupkis unless a board that doesn’t currently exist eventually says it does. Zero protection for married women who changed their names.

LOL! You really think they are going to disenfranchise married women? Why would they want to do that?

Because women skew left.

And LOL! You really think anything is off the table? We are about to send teenagers to die in the Middle East for Israel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

The first bolded makes the second irrelevant. Marriage certificate does bupkis unless a board that doesn’t currently exist eventually says it does. Zero protection for married women who changed their names.

LOL! You really think they are going to disenfranchise married women? Why would they want to do that?

Because women skew left.

And LOL! You really think anything is off the table? We are about to send teenagers to die in the Middle East for Israel.

This is a bogus argument. In fact, it appears to be the only argument. Even Harris said that women would not be allowed to vote--which is an indicator of her cluelessness.
But, since she did not change her name, she would not know that it is easy to do --but it does require documentation.
If you can change it at Social Security, you can be assured you can vote (if you are a citizen.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

The first bolded makes the second irrelevant. Marriage certificate does bupkis unless a board that doesn’t currently exist eventually says it does. Zero protection for married women who changed their names.

LOL! You really think they are going to disenfranchise married women? Why would they want to do that?

Because MAGA believes the 19th Amendment was a mistake.

What good came out of letting uppity women vote? No more credit cards or bank accounts either.whuke we are at it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

The first bolded makes the second irrelevant. Marriage certificate does bupkis unless a board that doesn’t currently exist eventually says it does. Zero protection for married women who changed their names.

LOL! You really think they are going to disenfranchise married women? Why would they want to do that?

Because women skew left.

And LOL! You really think anything is off the table? We are about to send teenagers to die in the Middle East for Israel.

This is a bogus argument. In fact, it appears to be the only argument. Even Harris said that women would not be allowed to vote--which is an indicator of her cluelessness.
But, since she did not change her name, she would not know that it is easy to do --but it does require documentation.
If you can change it at Social Security, you can be assured you can vote (if you are a citizen.)

The irony of some mediocre nobody talking about Harris being clueless is delicious. If you worked for the rest of your life at it you wouldn’t be qualified to be her assistant’s assistant dog groomer lmao

[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

The first bolded makes the second irrelevant. Marriage certificate does bupkis unless a board that doesn’t currently exist eventually says it does. Zero protection for married women who changed their names.

LOL! You really think they are going to disenfranchise married women? Why would they want to do that?

For votes. The save act would disenfranchise ~20-40 million more registered Democrat women than registered Republican women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hope there is a cadre of Democrats gearing up to apply legal pressure the reddest of red areas to enforce the SAVE act on them in the strictest way possible.

I think it would be absolutely hilarious if it completely backfires on them.

Florida is in the process of passing their own version of the SAVE Act.