Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Karl Rove must not understand that there are lots of Americans out there who are not jet-setting hotel-dwellers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Karl Rove must not understand that there are lots of Americans out there who are not jet-setting hotel-dwellers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Again, since we have gone over and over this in 60 pages you have not read, the legislation in question does not specifically designate a marriage license as a way to solve the problem of the difference between your birth certificate name and your drivers license name. Why do you suppose they would leave that out?

Because there is a provision in there for additional documentation for name discrepancies. You do know that people sometimes legally change their names for reasons other than marriage?
Some people change their names simply because they do not like them.

Again, since we have gone over and over this in 60 pages you have not read, the legislation in question does not specifically designate a marriage license as a way to solve the problem of the difference between your birth certificate name and your drivers license name. Why do you suppose they would leave that out?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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.

Why can't you vote with your married name? OP says she has a passport. This is an ID that proves your citizenship and eligibility to vote. Your ballot is also under you rmarried name, I assume?

Because if you took your husband's name you are no longer voting under your birth name, they will flag the inconsistency, purge you from the voter rolls and deny you your vote.

Oh, please.

If you changed your name and you work, you changed your Social Security card. And, how does one do that? You take your marriage certificate to the Social Security office. How do I know? I did it.

Same with drivers license.

YOU DO NOT NEED A PASSPORT TO VOTE. But, if you have your passport, you likely used your marriage license to change your name on it. I had a passport before I married and it had my maiden name. After I got married, I applied for a new passport and name change. What did I need? A marriage certificate.

So, all you need to prove ID is birth certificate and marriage license.

Quit fear mongering.

Anonymous wrote:

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

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.

Why can't you vote with your married name? OP says she has a passport. This is an ID that proves your citizenship and eligibility to vote. Your ballot is also under you rmarried name, I assume?

Because if you took your husband's name you are no longer voting under your birth name, they will flag the inconsistency, purge you from the voter rolls and deny you your vote.

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

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.

Why can't you vote with your married name? OP says she has a passport. This is an ID that proves your citizenship and eligibility to vote. Your ballot is also under you rmarried name, I assume?

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

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.

Why can't you vote with your married name? OP says she has a passport. This is an ID that proves your citizenship and eligibility to vote. Your ballot is also under you rmarried name, I assume?

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

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 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?

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