Have you heard of the SAVE Act? My introduction to it was by way of a USA Today opinion column headline that read: “Married women could face new obstacles to vote. This is what conservatives want.”
WTH does that mean? Um. Okay. Concerning. Alarm bells went off. They rang even louder as I read the author’s take on how the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act could impact married women who took their husbands’ last names.
I couldn’t help but think, “OMG. This SAVE Act sounds like phase 1 of The Handmaid’s Tale IRL!”
Which, speaking of Margaret Atwood’s book, I remember the visceral reaction I had when I read it for a women’s study class in college. While I couldn’t help being engrossed by the writing and drawn in by the storyline, I also felt it was a ridiculous premise.
“That could never happen here,” I remember challenging a fellow classmate during a discussion of the book. She argued it absolutely could happen and very easily. “No way. It’s totally unbelievable. American women would never let men get this much power over us.”
Let’s just say I’ve thought about her often during the last decade. Looks like she was more tuned in, or more prophetic, than me.
Anyway, Kristin Brey, the article’s writer, took exception with the SAVE Act’s wording.
“This legislation is intended to make it more difficult for most eligible American citizens to register and cast a ballot,” Brey said.
She then questioned who the bill would hurt most.
“The 8 in 10 married women who changed their surname after marriage,” she explained. “Because the bill fixates on birth certificates matching voter registrations but doesn’t consider marriage certificates as proof of identity.”
Married women wouldn’t be allowed to vote under the SAVE Act?
Citing statistics from the Center for American Progress, Brey posited that the SAVE Act would “exclude upwards of 69 million married American women” from voting. All because the “legal name does not match that of her birth certificate.”
Wait. Am I really going to have to show my birth certificate to vote?
I mean, I’ll be okay. Like Brey, I didn’t take my husband’s last name after we got married. (Unlike Brey, it was because I was too lazy. She did it for professional reasons.) The name on my birth certificate is the same one I have now.
But for the majority of married women, taking their husband’s last name could now cost them their right to vote? Or at least make it more difficult?
No. Surely that’s not the case.
What does the SAVE Act say?
Luckily, the article contained a link to the proposed Bill H. R. 8281. Its purpose is to amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, allegedly to make sure no non-U.S. citizens are voting. (Which the National Voter Registration Act already does. Hello, DOGE? Here’s an example of redundancy and inefficient use of time in the government. Dock sponsor Rep. Chip Roy’s pay STAT!)
There are references to birth certificates as “documentary proof of United States citizenship” when a “valid government-issued photo identification card issued by a Federal, State or Tribal government” is presented instead of other identification. This includes a REAL ID, passport, military ID card, or other “valid government-issued photo identification card issued by a Federal, State or Tribal government showing that the applicant’s place of birth was in the United States.”
Voters wouldn’t have to show a birth certificate every time they vote. Only when registering to vote or when mail-in voting.
Is the SAVE Act a first step towards The Handmaid’s Tale IRL?
I don’t know. But I am curious if most people don’t know where their birth certificates are, as Brey suggested. Or, at least, she felt it would be one more hassle in her case because she would have to hunt hers down.
Let’s just say most people don’t readily have access to their birth certificates. This wouldn’t just affect women. Even men would have to present their birth certificates when registering to vote or mail-in voting.
Yes, that would have a chilling effect on votes cast, I’m sure. Any time you make something more complicated to complete, fewer people will do it. Humans are inherently lazy.
I’m not sure how big an impact the SAVE Act would have on married women who changed their last names. If any. Some, no doubt. Not everyone has a driver’s license, passport, or military ID.
But this could have an unintended consequence of weeding out votes Republicans want, too. So, while I’m not convinced it’s the first step in a Handmaid Tale‘s trajectory, it’s definitely meant to unnecessarily make things more complicated than they already are.
What do you think about the SAVE Act? Does it concern you at all?