This one weird trick could stop US women from voting

[Lonestarblue]

I'm sure we all read about this hateful law when the House passed it last year. The Senate hasn't voted on it yet, but we need a campaign against it because it's definitely aimed at preventing women, and black women especially, from voting in the midterms.

"Women who changed their name when they got married may also face a logistical nightmare: reports show that as many as 69 million women who have taken their spouse’s name don’t have a birth certificate that matches their legal name. “The legislation does not mention the potential option for these Americans to present change-of-name documentation or a marriage certificate in combination with a birth certificate to prove their citizenship,” the liberal thinktank the Center for American Progress noted.

To make things even more complicated for everyone, the Save Act would also disrupt online voter registration. Americans would have to appear in person, with their original documents, simply to update their voter registration information.

A proof-of-citizenship law similar to the Save Act has been tried before, by the way, including between 2013 and 2017 in Kansas. And guess what? It was an expensive disaster that prevented more than 30,000 Kansans from voting. It’s well-established that these sorts of laws disproportionately harm low-income, disabled, married women, and marginalized voters. Why are the Republicans so keen on making it harder for these groups to vote? I’m sure I don’t need to spell it out for you."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jan/31/save-act-voting-arwa-mahdawi

[FakeNoose]

1. The Repukes would never do this, because they would lose more voters than the Dems would

[Lonestarblue]

3. Not necessarily. It's for new registrations and re-registrations.

So a week before the election in Fulton County, Republicans kick lots of black voters, especially women, off the voting rolls for suspected fraud or lack of citizenship. It's all fake evidence of course, but people have to re-register and women who can't produce a birth certificate or legal change of name from marriage that marches their registered name will not be allowed to vote. White women in heavily Republican precincts will not be kicked off voter rolls.

The other thing I think Republicans will do is use the private voter data they have collected from red states to identify voters who vote by mail. They can then use the voter information to create fake mail ballots voting for Republicans, complete with forged or copied signatures. When the real mailed ballot is received, the elections office will claim fraud because a person seemingly voted twice. It will take months to sort out and the votes will not be counted.

I can think of many other ways for Republicans to cheat. Democratic leaders need to assume that this election will not be fair because Trump and Republicans will do everything possible to retain control of Congress.

[RandomNumbers]

6. Not for in-person voting in districts rule by Rs

where the election board - those folks behind the table checking the pollbook when you go to vote - is all Republican, they would merely have to let the known R women slide by, and challenge the D women.

It is very important for D's to sit on election boards, particularly in areas where we are outnumbered. When Rs know they are watched, they are less likely to play games.

[FakeNoose]

7. This is a good point - a lot of the Dem election board officials have been chased away

The MAGAs have worn down the resolve of many long-suffering Democratic election board officials. Too many unpleasant confrontations, nasty (untrue) complaints filed, credentials challenged, etc. It's been going on since the Chump's first election and it has only gotten worse in the last 9.5 years. A lot of Democrats gave up and quit, and many have been replaced by Rs because they saw the openings and grabbed them.

It just so happens that I live in a very blue city (Pittsburgh) and a mostly blue county (Allegheny County PA) so I think we're still OK here. But your point is that not all areas are OK, and Dems need to step up wherever possible. Become election board volunteers, if it comes to that, just to be in on the decision-making process during election times. It's important!

[viva la]

2. So do they mean we all have to carry our birth certificates and our marriage licenses with us?

Or re-register to vote in our birth names? Wouldn't we also have to change our other ID then?

In my birth state, it costs $60 to get a copy of the birth certificate.

[FakeNoose]

4. The name you were born with might have changed, and that's what they're looking at

This is especially true for women who marry and take their husband's name. But there are American men who change their birthnames sometimes too. Your birth certificate says one name, your driver's license says something different. That's what the Repukes want to challenge.

My point is that there are probably more R women who have changed their name to their husband's, and D women are more likely to have kept their birth name even after marriage. Also D women who become divorced are more likely to resume using their birthname. I don't have anything to base that on, except that's what I did, and I personally know several other women who have done the same.

I believe this is going to bite them in the butt, so to speak. That's why I don't believe the Rs will ever actually do it.

[Talitha]

5. I got married in 1973, in Chicago.

Can't recall the exact steps but am pretty sure that before the church wedding, we needed to get the blood test and then the civil license, probably in downtown Chicago?

If I signed anything back then that changed my legal name, I certainly don't remember it. Maybe it was part of the civil license procedure.

Does anyone know how things worked back then?