Controversy Swirls Around SAVE Act: Critics Claim Voter Suppression Targeting Married Women
A heated exchange at a recent town hall meeting in Atlanta’s exurbs has ignited a national debate over the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act (SAVE Act), a Republican-backed bill aimed at preventing non-citizens from voting in federal elections. The bill, championed by Representative Chip Roy of Texas, has drawn sharp criticism for its potential impact on legitimate voters, particularly married women who have changed their names.
The town hall confrontation, featuring Representative Rich McCormick of Georgia and a concerned constituent, quickly went viral, highlighting accusations of voter suppression. The woman directly challenged McCormick, asserting that the legislation would create unnecessary hurdles for married women like herself to exercise their right to vote.
The SAVE Act proposes requiring individuals to present proof of citizenship, such as a birth certificate or passport, when registering to vote in federal elections. While proponents argue this measure is necessary to combat the exceedingly rare occurrence of non-citizen voting, opponents contend it will disproportionately disenfranchise specific demographics, including naturalized citizens, low-income individuals, and, most notably, married women.
A central point of contention lies in the bill’s documentation requirements. Critics argue that common forms of identification, such as driver’s licenses, would no longer suffice for voter registration because they don’t definitively prove U.S. citizenship. While Real ID licenses indicate legal status in most states, they don’t specify whether an individual is a U.S. citizen or a green card holder. The SAVE Act mandates that new voters present a valid passport or a photo ID that matches the name on their birth certificate or naturalization card.
The concern for married women arises from the common practice of adopting their husband’s last name upon marriage. According to a 2023 Pew Research study, approximately 79% of women in opposite-sex marriages choose to take their spouse’s name. This name change creates a discrepancy between their current identification and the name listed on their birth certificate, potentially creating a bureaucratic obstacle to voter registration.
Voting rights advocates argue that individuals who have changed their name and lack a passport could face significant challenges in proving their citizenship. With only about half of U.S. citizens possessing a passport, the proposed requirements could disproportionately impact a large segment of the population.
Celina Stewart, CEO of the League of Women Voters of the United States, has expressed concerns about the bill’s impact on married women and transgender individuals who have legally changed their names. She implores lawmakers to acknowledge these potential issues and adjust the legislation before it is put to a vote.
Representative Roy has dismissed accusations that the bill targets married women as "absurd armchair speculation." He maintains that the legislation provides "a myriad ways for people to prove citizenship" and explicitly directs states to establish processes for addressing discrepancies in registration. However, his office has yet to confirm any plans to amend the bill to address the concerns raised by critics.
Cleta Mitchell, founder of the conservative Only Citizens Vote Coalition, has defended the bill, asserting that married women routinely navigate name change procedures and provide necessary documentation, such as birth certificates and marriage certificates, to update their official records. She acknowledges that the process can be cumbersome but suggests it is a common practice.
While the SAVE Act includes a provision allowing registrants to submit "additional documentation" to prove citizenship in cases of discrepancy, voting rights advocates argue that the language is ambiguous and lacks specific guidance on acceptable documents. The decision of which documents to accept would ultimately rest with individual states.
Stewart of the League of Women Voters expresses concern that states might not establish clear guidelines for acceptable documentation until after critical elections this year and potentially next year. With pivotal off-year elections looming in states like Virginia and New Jersey, as well as major mayoral contests in cities like New York and Philadelphia, the timing of the SAVE Act raises concerns about potential voter suppression during these crucial races.
"States can obviously do more to make it more easily accessible, but the federal government should have to make sure that voting is still accessible," Stewart emphasizes, highlighting the importance of federal oversight in ensuring equitable access to the ballot box.
Further complicating the matter is a provision in the bill that subjects election workers to potential incarceration if they accidentally register a voter who fails to provide proper documentation of citizenship. Advocates warn that this provision could deter election workers from accepting documents that prove citizenship despite a name change, creating a chilling effect on voter registration efforts.
"These are people in our community who are running elections, often as volunteers," Stewart explains. "The idea that we would be threatening these people with jail time because the federal government failed to do what they were supposed to do, which is provide clarity in this law… it is so egregious."
The SAVE Act, initially introduced by Representative Roy last year, passed the Republican-controlled House but stalled in the Senate. Roy reintroduced the bill in January, and while it is expected to pass the House again, it faces an uphill battle in the Senate, where it would require support from a handful of Democrats.
The debate surrounding the SAVE Act underscores the ongoing tension between ensuring election integrity and protecting the voting rights of all eligible citizens. As the bill moves through the legislative process, the concerns raised by voting rights advocates and the experiences of married women and other potentially affected groups will likely play a significant role in shaping its future. The ambiguity surrounding acceptable documentation and the potential for criminalizing election workers remain key points of contention, highlighting the need for further clarification and amendment to ensure fair and accessible elections for all.
