Save Act Passes!

[Always in His Presence]

House passes bill to require proof of citizenship to register to vote, drawing ire of voting rights groups​

In a vote on Thursday, the House of Representatives passed the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, a bill Republicans have celebrated but that has drawn the ire of voting rights groups and most congressional Democrats.


Greater job! Their why the Republicans are polling almost 100% higher than Democrats. Will there be Democratic Senators who are brave enough to?

The Senate Democrats Who Could Cross the Aisle on the SAVE Act​

Senator John Fetterman, a Pennsylvania Democrat who has been willing to break ranks on some issues, hasn't said how he plans to vote on the bill.

Democratic Senators Ruben Gallego and Mark Kelly of Arizona, Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire and Jacky Rosen of Nevada have also not said where they stand on the bill.

 

[Fantine]

A lot of the onerous requirements are designed to keep women from voting. They'll show up at the polls. There name will be different from their BC. They'll need their marriage certificate.
Women vote more reliably--and Democratic.
Republicans want to turn them away.
SMH.

 

[Always in His Presence]

A lot of the onerous requirements are designed to keep women from voting. They'll show up at the polls. There name will be different from their BC. They'll need their marriage certificate.
Women vote more reliably--and Democratic.
Republicans want to turn them away.
SMH.

Great propaganda line - but not even close to accurate, at least not in the filing of the bill.

 

[Fantine]

Great propaganda line - but not even close to accurate, at least not in the filing of the bill.

Women's groups are up in arms. Handmaid's Tale protesters on steroids.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Women's groups are up in arms. Handmaid's Tale protesters on steroids.

None of that is proof - Histrionics are not facts -

 

[DaisyDay]

None of that is proof - Histrionics are not facts -

Proof of what? That women are more likely to be adversely affected than men by this federal interference into states' rights? It's already been said why: women are more likely to have changed their names upon marriage.

 

[durangodawood]

In the resurgent traditionalist view, its men who are supposed to make the voting decisions for the household. So who cares if married women have diminished access to the polls.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

Proof of what? That women are more likely to be adversely affected than men by this federal interference into states' rights? It's already been said why: women are more likely to have changed their names upon marriage.

My wife and I had the same last name. When we got our marrage certificate no one really reacted until I said "You ready for this sis?" Everyone's jaw dropped and she said "Shut up!" and turned to everyone and said "It’s ok, we're cousins."
It took days of practice to get it right.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

In the resurgent traditionalist view, its men who are supposed to make the voting decisions for the household. So who cares if married women have diminished access to the polls.

The bigger battle will be the 3/5th thing.

 

[dogs4thewin]

A lot of the onerous requirements are designed to keep women from voting. They'll show up at the polls. There name will be different from their BC. They'll need their marriage certificate.
Women vote more reliably--and Democratic.
Republicans want to turn them away.
SMH.

Change your name it is a pain in the rear end, but it can be done without taking months or years on end, nor does it have to be done right after you can married and I know because my sister almost two years ago. She had to wait about a month or so before her honeymoon and opted to wait until they returned to get her name changed as they were going on a cruise and wanted to ensure there would not be passport issues. If you get married close to voting time that is an option.

 

[Fantine]

This explains why voting registration for women is under attack in the SAFE Act (women---who vote in greater numbers and who are much more likely to vote Democratic.)

It also explains the many other problems. For example, if you change your address, you have to go through this whole burdensome process again (younger people and poorer people, both more likely to vote Democratic, , are also more likely to be tenants and frequent movers.) There is no reason, if you are registered in your state with your BC, MC, naturalization papers, passport, name change papers and whatever else they require, you should have to go in person and stand in line somewhere to repeat the whole process because you moved a mile away.

MSN

Democratic Congresswoman Maxine Dexter brought forward an amendment to the bill which would put a pause on the SAVE Act until they could study and conclusively say that it would not impede married women's ability to register to vote. This amendment was blocked by Republicans.

However, it will make it harder for the 69 million married women whose names do not match their birth certificates to register to vote in the first place.

Married women can bring their passports instead, but more than 146 million Americans do not have a passport, and may not have $130 spare to purchase one. Passports also take time to be delivered, which many people may not have if they are registering to vote close to their state's deadline.

 

[Say it aint so]

What this is all about is the same as it has been for almost five decades:

"I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of people. They never have been from the beginning of our country, and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down." --GOP political strategist, and co-founder of the Heritage Foundation.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

This explains why voting registration for women is under attack in the SAFE Act (women---who vote in greater numbers and who are much more likely to vote Democratic.)

It also explains the many other problems. For example, if you change your address, you have to go through this whole burdensome process again (younger people and poorer people, both more likely to vote Democratic, , are also more likely to be tenants and frequent movers.) There is no reason, if you are registered in your state with your BC, MC, naturalization papers, passport, name change papers and whatever else they require, you should have to go in person and stand in line somewhere to repeat the whole process because you moved a mile away.

MSN

I guess if women wanted to really be able to vote they should have transitioned to men when they had the chance.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Proof of what?

and then you answered your own question

That women are more likely to be adversely affected than men by this federal interference into states' rights? It's already been said why: women are more likely to have changed their names upon marriage.

and then debunked when you look at the myriad of ID's Accepted along with the States right to add further forms of ID's -

 

[Aryeh Jay]

and then you answered your own question

and then debunked when you look at the myriad of ID's Accepted along with the States right to add further forms of ID's -

Yes, because everyone has a TWIC card.

 

[Always in His Presence]

A lot of the onerous requirements are designed to keep women from voting.

since you have not offered anything to support your statement, it is little more than a biased opinion and regurgitated talking points. They'll show up at the polls. There name will be different from their BC. They'll need their marriage certificate.
Or any of the other forms of ID already in the bill - since you have not offered anything to support your statement, it is little more than a biased opinion and regurgitated talking points

Women vote more reliably--and Democratic.

Perhaps - but more women voted for Trump than ever in the history of the Republican party.

Republicans want to turn them away.

since you have not offered anything to support your statement, it is little more than a biased opinion and regurgitated talking points.

SMH.

Same here

In the resurgent traditionalist view, its men who are supposed to make the voting decisions for the household.

Citation showing proof requested.

So who cares if married women have diminished access to the polls.

Since when? The Trump has more woman in positions of power than Joe did - why is that?

 

[Fantine]

since you have not offered anything to support your statement, it is little more than a biased opinion and regurgitated talking points. They'll show up at the polls. There name will be different from their BC. They'll need their marriage certificate.

Or any of the other forms of ID already in the bill - since you have not offered anything to support your statement, it is little more than a biased opinion and regurgitated talking points

Perhaps - but more women voted for Trump than ever in the history of the Republican party.

since you have not offered anything to support your statement, it is little more than a biased opinion and regurgitated talking points.

Same here

Citation showing proof requested.

Since when? The Trump has more woman in positions of power than Joe did - why is that?

Doesn't matter because you don't have 60 votes in the Senate.
Democracy saved from treachery again.

 

[DaisyDay]

and then you answered your own question

The question is unanswered. Proof of what?

and then debunked when you look at the myriad of ID's Accepted along with the States right to add further forms of ID's -

You need to look again. Federal law supersedes state law.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Yes, because everyone has a TWIC card.

Or access to a Real ID or Real ID license - something that is available and needed for

• Renting a hotel room
• Going into a Federal Building
• Getting Social Security
• Getting a job
• Purchasing cigarettes and alcohol
• Flying with an airline
• Signing a Lease
• Getting Food Stamps

Or is it just possible it being yet another "the sky is falling" pearl clutching event?

 

[BCP1928]

To get my Real ID I had to send away for a copy of my birth certificate because the State of North Carolina does not recognize a US passport as proof of citizenship. Now that I have my Real ID I find that it is not acceptable as proof of citizenship by either the state or federal governments. The whole business turned out to be nothing but another right-wing 'gotcha' game.