You may soon need a passport to vote. Trump is making it harder to get one.

[B.See]

You may soon need a passport to vote. Trump is making it harder to get one. - Dailykos

Have you been feeling like you need to rush to get a passport in case the SAVE Act voter suppression jamboree becomes law? What if, somehow, Donald Trump signing a piece of paper means that the provisions of the SAVE Act go into effect even without legislation? 

Well, good luck scoring that passport in time. 

In what is a nakedly transparent move, even for this administration, the State Department announced that it is just straight-up making it harder to get a passport. Nonprofit libraries were just informed that they can no longer process passport applications.

Though the administration teed this up last November when it began sending cease-and-desist letters to nonprofit libraries, it didn’t bring the hammer down nationwide until last week.

And BTW, it’s already in effect.

FILE UNDER: "Gross usurpation of power" sumptin sumptin, formerly known as, sht that can't POSSIBLY happen.

[sop]

1. Cost of a new U.S. passport is $130 (plus a $35 fee). Renewals are $130.

Requiring citizens to buy a passport before they are allowed to vote amounts to a poll tax. The 24th Amendment prohibits both Congress and the states from requiring the payment of a poll tax or any other tax to vote in federal elections.

[B.See]

4. And heaven knows Trump and his

MAGA judges like those of the SCrOTUS and the KKangaroo Kourt of the 5th have the UTMOST respect for the Constitution and its Amendments.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

2. "Have you been feeling you need to rush to get a passport in case the SAVE Act voter suppression jamboree becomes law?"

No, I haven't. Is there any reason why I should?

[PeaceWave]

3. I would like to see one source that says you're going to need a PASSPORT (and no other document will do)...

The sources I've read suggest that any document that proves citizenship (i.e., passport, birth certificate or naturalization certificate) would suffice.

[B.See]

5. I think what I see happening is

Republicans taking a lot of seemingly innocuous (yet unnecessary) steps to undermine voter participation/ access/ rights,... steps based upon the LIE of massive voter fraud,

while others are looking at it and saying, that's not all that bad. A kind of thought that, imo (and that of some others) tends to belie the true intentions/ purposes/ goals of such actions on the part of Republicans: voter disenfranchisement.

But maybe this article (below) better explains the causes for concern.

New SAVE Act Bills Would Still Block Millions of Americans From Voting - Brennan Center

In every form, the SAVE Act would require American citizens to show documents like a passport or birth certificate to register to vote. Our research shows that more than 21 million Americans lack ready access to those documents. Roughly half of Americans don’t even have a passport. Millions lack access to a paper copy of their birth certificate. The SAVE Act would disenfranchise Americans of all ages and races, but younger voters and voters of color would suffer disproportionately. Likewise, millions of women whose married names aren’t on their birth certificates or passports would face extra steps just to make their voices heard.

Just like the SAVE Act of 2025, the new SAVE Act proposals would inject chaos into election administration. They would place a massive unfunded burden on state and local election officials. And they would expose those officials to significant legal risk. The bills would leave it up to local officials to decide whether a voter who lacks one of the specified documents has done enough to prove citizenship. Officials who make an honest mistake could face civil and criminal penalties. An election official could even be punished for registering an eligible American citizen, just for failing to collect all the right paperwork at the right time.

[PeaceWave]

6. This explanation is better. But, the headline of your thread is inaccurate.

[B.See]

7. It's the headline of the article. Though

granted, inaccurate... for NOW.

"May soon need a passport" might not mean, on hand at the time of voting, but to register. And the second article explains why and under what circumstances the other documents MIGHT SOON be determined, 'insufficient.'

A journalistic 'falling sky' sensationalism on the part of the author? A forecast of unlikely developments? Perhaps.

But in a world of daily 'unlikely developments' and things that 'can't possibly happen' I'm no longer inclined to be as trusting as some.