Republicans attempt to functionally disenfranchise trans voters via 'preventing voter fraud', and in their incompetence, potentially disenfranchise a sizeable proportion of their married female voter base. Which is part of Project 2025 anyway, so perhaps it's just thinking ahead and laying the groundwork?
https://www.newsweek.com/married-women- ... ct-2029325
All citizens, with the exception of children and some felons, have the right to vote in the United States. The SAVE Act could make it significantly harder for married women, as well as others in the population, to exercise their right to vote.
If a voter does not have a passport, which nearly 146 million people in the U.S. don't, it could be much more difficult for those who have changed their name to register to vote under the SAVE Act.
It is already illegal to vote as a noncitizen, and several measures, including providing a social security number to register, matching voter rolls to federal data, and, in many places, bringing voter ID to the polls, are in place across the country to ensure only citizens can cast a ballot.
The SAVE Act lists several types of documentation that would be accepted, including a form of identification issued consistent with the requirements of the REAL ID Act of 2005, a valid United States passport, valid military ID, forms of Tribal identification and proof of naturalization. Many of these forms of ID, other than a passport, either include a birth certificate or must be presented alongside a birth certificate.
The SAVE Act does not include proof of name change or a marriage certificate as acceptable proof of identity. This could be vital for married women with a birth certificate that does not match their current legal name.
Jonathan Diaz, director of voting advocacy and partnerships at Campaign Legal Center, told Newsweek: "All of these unintended or unforeseen kind of hurdles are really significant for people who are just trying to register and vote and participate in the democratic process.
"And when you see all of these different hurdles lined up in a row. It makes it pretty clear that the purpose of this bill is to make it harder for people to register and vote."
Roy told Newsweek on Tuesday: "The legislation provides myriad ways for people to prove citizenship and explicitly directs states to establish a process for individuals to register to vote if there are discrepancies in their proof of citizenship documents due to something like a name change."
He pointed to a clause in the SAVE Act that leaves it up to each state to establish a process for applicants to "provide 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."
However, Diaz said: "I think that [Roy is] trying to have it both ways here, by mandating this proof of citizenship requirement at the federal level and then saying, 'Oh, but actually, it's up to the states.' That's really not how it works, the way that the legislation is crafted.
"If you have a government-issued photo ID that does not indicate U.S. citizenship, which is what most IDs are...you can only register if you have some other document, like a certified birth certificate or a hospital record or something else that shows that you were born in the United States, or a naturalization certificate.
"Most [married women who have changed their name] do not have a birth certificate or other kind of citizenship document with their current legal name on it." He added that even if states "create [a] filing process to satisfy the bill, you would have to go to your elections office with your original birth certificate and your current ID, and maybe your marriage license and then some other form...from when you changed your name...and then all of a sudden you've got, like, four or five difficult to obtain and expensive to reproduce government documents that you have to provide in person just to register to vote."
Ironically, the sort of married women who don't take their husbands names tend to be better educated, better paid, more left leaning and more likely to own a passport than your typical Trump voter, and so would have more voting power under this because the chances of a poor, low information Trump voting housewife having the funds and wherewithal to get the documentation together to get a passport so they can cast their vote in PopStar: Election Edition are probably quite low.
Now, this is clearly an attempt to disenfranchise anyone who is trans and has changed their name legally, but with the collateral damage applied to married woman, republicans could well be taking the legs out from under the voter base of their next election, assuming that, you know, they intend to have one.
Republican lawmakers are thick as mince, and as a result that'll be me adding Women for Trump to the list of tokens being spent, along with Cubans for Trump, Venezualans for Trump, Gays for Trump, Farmers for Trump and Arabs Americans for Trump - who got fucked so hard and so predictably over Gaza they
literally changed their name - they're now Arab Americans for
Peace...
- maga-fell-for-it-again-award-1.jpg (19.62 KiB) Viewed 3237 times
