Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If women have a passport, SAVE will not apply, correct?

Are passports free and easy?

Voting is a right.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If women have a passport, SAVE will not apply, correct?

Are passports free and easy?

Voting is a right.

Passports are $165 dollars and it costs another $15 to take a passport photo at the passport facility. If you need expedited processing, to ensure you hopefully get your passport before the 2026 midterms, that is $60 for expedited processing and $22 for expedited delivery. With the extreme influx of passport applications from this law people will be forced to pay $265 if they want to ensure they are able to vote in the 2026 midterms.

This morning, in a reply to some points I made about the SAVE Act, someone I know said, "Why don’t people have a birth certificate? You can order a copy of yours pretty easily. I am sure the government will figure out how to get US citizens a passport".

Right. I'm sure we can all count on the government issuing a passport for everyone.

Anonymous wrote:Senator Thune suggested that this will require 60 votes.

IOW, it is DOA.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If women have a passport, SAVE will not apply, correct?

Are passports free and easy?

Voting is a right.

Passports are $165 dollars and it costs another $15 to take a passport photo at the passport facility. If you need expedited processing, to ensure you hopefully get your passport before the 2026 midterms, that is $60 for expedited processing and $22 for expedited delivery. With the extreme influx of passport applications from this law people will be forced to pay $265 if they want to ensure they are able to vote in the 2026 midterms.

This morning, in a reply to some points I made about the SAVE Act, someone I know said, "Why don’t people have a birth certificate? You can order a copy of yours pretty easily. I am sure the government will figure out how to get US citizens a passport".

Right. I'm sure we can all count on the government issuing a passport for everyone.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If women have a passport, SAVE will not apply, correct?

Are passports free and easy?

Voting is a right.

Passports are $165 dollars and it costs another $15 to take a passport photo at the passport facility. If you need expedited processing, to ensure you hopefully get your passport before the 2026 midterms, that is $60 for expedited processing and $22 for expedited delivery. With the extreme influx of passport applications from this law people will be forced to pay $265 if they want to ensure they are able to vote in the 2026 midterms.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If women have a passport, SAVE will not apply, correct?

Are passports free and easy?

Voting is a right.

Anonymous wrote:If women have a passport, SAVE will not apply, correct?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And so how does the SAVE act protect us from the proven cases of fraud like the one posted above? He would still have had his IDs when he voted illegally.

That is why you need to prove citizenship to register. That is what the SAVE Act is about.

You’re not answering the question. How does SAVE protect us from proven voter fraud like the below:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/georgia-republican-party-official-voted-illegally-nine-judge-rules-rcna145563

If you are saying this is your answer to voter fraud…why doesn’t it address voter fraud?

This is already a law.

BS
It’s also already a law that only U.S. citizens can vote.

But not enforced in many places.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And so how does the SAVE act protect us from the proven cases of fraud like the one posted above? He would still have had his IDs when he voted illegally.

That is why you need to prove citizenship to register. That is what the SAVE Act is about.

You’re not answering the question. How does SAVE protect us from proven voter fraud like the below:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/georgia-republican-party-official-voted-illegally-nine-judge-rules-rcna145563

If you are saying this is your answer to voter fraud…why doesn’t it address voter fraud?

This is already a law.

BS
It’s also already a law that only U.S. citizens can vote.

But not enforced in many places.

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.

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.