this post was submitted on 12 Feb 2025
283 points (99.0% liked)

politics

19956 readers
5042 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
outrageousmatter
aidan
jordanlund
HLMenckenFan
little_cow
283
Married women could be stopped from voting under SAVE Act (www.newsweek.com)
submitted 21 hours ago by MicroWave to c/politics
31 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Summary

The SAVE Act, reintroduced by Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX), would require proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote, relying on documents like birth certificates and passports.

Critics argue it could disenfranchise millions, particularly married women whose names no longer match their birth certificates. The bill does not recognize marriage certificates as valid proof of identity.

Supporters say it protects election integrity, while opponents highlight the minimal occurrence of noncitizen voting.

With Republican control of Congress and the White House, the bill is likely to pass.

top 31 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] GoofSchmoofer 10 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

So if this passes then the next bill will be to force all women that marry to change their last name to reflect their husbands last name. This, of course will be part of a larger bill to outlaw gay marriage.

And then when women decide to protest this by not getting married there will be an economic bill that will be passed that states unmarried women will be taxed at a higher rate - and they will use the excuse that we need to shore up the "traditional family" to fight against all this "God-less liberal brainwashing".

[–] P1nkman 3 points 18 minutes ago

This is the dream

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 hours ago

This would also disenfranchise basically every trans person in the country, which isn't a bug, it's a feature. Last I heard, trans people were having trouble getting any passport under the new administration.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (1 children)

While you're being blatant about the hate, how about we give married men 3/5ths an extra vote at the same time?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 7 hours ago

It's actually worse than the 3/5 as I understand, since that was about slaveholder states getting 3/5 of their slave population count towards the census.

Disenfranchised women will count towards the census completely.

[–] [email protected] 92 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

So they do want to end womens suffrage..I'm shocked y'all haven't physically removed him from his position yet..

[–] [email protected] 28 points 18 hours ago

It's a focal problem.

This is something he could do, and people are convinced he won't do it, until he does and then they're pissed that he did.

[–] [email protected] 44 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

A confrontation is coming, but the problem is it isn't just one person but an entire party in power. If it's as bad I think it will be—and we make it out of this as a single country—we're going to need de-Nazification laws, but with the Republican party. "De-Republicanification"...

[–] [email protected] 26 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Don't Stop Reconstruction This Time

[–] [email protected] 3 points 16 hours ago

Also embrace deconstruction for some states namely Florida rip up the roots of civilization and give it back to the swamps. The Seminole can have the entire region once its all done.

[–] homesweethomeMrL 20 points 17 hours ago

republiQan women are okie-dokie with this.

It's what tiny baby Jesus would want.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 20 hours ago (4 children)

Changing your last name when getting married is dumb and we finally have the proof of it.

[–] Bytemeister 2 points 29 minutes ago

I'm surprised at how controversial this is. My partner is not my property. I don't need to slap my name over theirs like some body of water, to make myself feel strong, masculine and secure.

[–] BradleyUffner 11 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

When my wife and I were married, we wanted to create a brand new last name that both of us changed to. The legal requirements to make that happen were just crazy.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

If US, what state?

[–] BradleyUffner 14 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (1 children)

North Carolina. There was a requirement to post notices in 3 major newspapers running for 4 weeks. And something about appearing before a judge who could reject the change for any reason they wanted, including reasons like "I don't like what color shirt you are wearing today". There were a lot of other requirements too, like background checks, fingerprints, character witnesses, etc.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 17 hours ago

You should have gotten married in Michigan. My spouse and I could both change are names to whatever we wanted to.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 20 hours ago (2 children)

Not changing your last name when getting married can be annoying too (ie. USPS forwarding mail to new address for people with the same surname as you, and the spouse with a different name has to file more paperwork to get their mail forwarded). There are a lot of things predicated on same surname in the US. It sucks.

[–] Bytemeister 3 points 27 minutes ago

What? Spouse and I have different last names. Mail forwarding wasn't an issue. Blended and multi-generation households are not uncommon these days.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

People can't change their last name when getting married here (they need to go through the whole process like anyone else wanting to change their name if they want to do it) and it's such a non issue. Your ID has your address, show your ID proving you live at the same address and they hand you the package.

It's just a bunch of problems the US created for itself by not having any actual ID.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Not exclusive to the US. Japan also has problems with it. When both spouses are Japanese citizens, they MUST choose one of their names to use by law.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 13 hours ago

Yep but the US never adopted a national ID that makes sense and that's where it becomes an issue

[–] [email protected] -2 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

I claim we can change our entire name.

Finally, those kids whose parents named them the dumbest names ever will have a way to easily fix it.

"No, now it's just Jennifer, spelled the normal way, and my mom is still ghetto but she isn't ruining my identity any more."

[–] [email protected] 2 points 19 hours ago

You can, at least in my state. Most people just change their last name. It’s not limited to gender, either. I could have changed my name to Hahaha FuckYou. My wife insisted I didn’t.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 19 hours ago

If my voting rights were stripped by this law, I would know what to do, and who to do it to. I wouldn't become a secondary citizen (at best), or nothing but a (wage/birthing) slave.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

As a Mother I AGREE with all this! Why should me AND MY DAUGHTERS get a say in our Healthcare, Economy, National Security, or Opportunities? And WHY don't my Adult Kids TALK to me anymore? It's JOE BIDENS FAULT!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 hours ago

Not enough typos.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 20 hours ago

I sure hope Obama does a good job explaining the "unintended" consequences of this so the Republicans who vote for it won't blame him for letting them pass it.

[–] werefreeatlast 1 points 6 minutes ago

I'm totally fine with my family having a random composition of names. It would be awesome to come up with a new last name for the kids for example. If we need me, just let me know...