1149

The SAVE Act passed the House on Feb. 11, 2026 by a vote of 218-213 and is now in the Senate awaiting a vote. Voting is expected to take place next week, according to Thune. If and when it passes the Senate, it will go to the president for a final signature.

Will SAVE Act Prevent Married Women from Registering to Vote?

By Hadleigh Zinsner

Posted on February 28, 2025

Q: Is it true that under the SAVE Act married women will not be able to register to vote if their married name doesn’t match their birth certificate?

A: The proposed SAVE Act instructs states to establish a process for people whose legal name doesn’t match their birth certificate to provide additional documents. But voting rights advocates say that married women and others who have changed their names may face difficulty when registering because of the ambiguity in the bill over what documents may be accepted.

FULL ANSWER

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] jeena@piefed.jeena.net 162 points 1 week ago

Easy solution, just don't marry anyone with a different last name.

[-] circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 236 points 1 week ago

That's how MAGA does marriage, usually

[-] X@piefed.world 29 points 1 week ago

Might go a long way in explaining those long jaws they frequently have

[-] betterdeadthanreddit@lemmy.world 30 points 1 week ago

[Sweet Home Alabama intensifies]

[-] socsa@piefed.social 19 points 1 week ago
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] leopardpuncher@feddit.dk 63 points 1 week ago

Seems to me that if your birth name and married name match, this will disproportionately favor people who marry their siblings or other relatives. I wonder what political leaning that particular segment has 🤔

[-] Quill7513@slrpnk.net 38 points 1 week ago

while i get the joke, i just want to make sure it's clear to anyone coming across this understnds that women who elect to change their name in the merital tradition of erasure are more likely to be conservative, and the women who have the documents to prove their identity (like a passport) are more likely to be progressive.

all that said, the focus on how this will impact women, specifically, is frustrating because it's ignoring the biggest groups of people who will be impacted: immigrants and working poor people. we shouldn't tolerate the disenfranchisement of ~30% of women, so we are clear, but we are positioned to disenfranchise ~80% of immigrants and working poor and no one is talking about it. these are people who are less likely to have ANY of the acceptable documents proposed in the SAVE act.

for context, people experiencing poverty are far less likely to be born in a hospital and have a birth certificate, usually depending on a baptism certificate to establish their government name. meanwhile, immigrants may have a passport, but if it's expired that's unacceptable, and a lot of the nations around the world that issued the birth certificates being required by this law in place of a passport can no longer certify birth certificates simply because they aren't existing anymore. i have multiple friends who can't get their birth certificates right now because that would put them at risk of government retribution because they are asylum seekers. for example, my siberian neighbor isn't going to be getting in touch with the Russian government any time soon.

so in conclusion. the aim is to disenfranchise women and minorities. the majority of the women disenfranchised will be conservative. however, the majority of people disenfranchised will be progressive.

and that's no accident.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] MrShankles@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Or it will disqualify a lot of married women who took their partner's name

Unmarried women and women who keep their last name will have less trouble voting... and people whose names differ and are aware of the change, are more likely to go through the bullshit to make sure they're registered. Maybe it'll prevent a bunch of Magats from being able to vote

It's utterly disgusting either way. Hope it backfires, they lose, and they're persecuted. A kid can dream

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 54 points 1 week ago

20-30% of women keep their maiden name after marriage.

Liberal women are roughly twice as likely as conservative women to keep their maiden name.

So yeah, conservative women screwing themselves and also handing a minor edge to liberal women.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] ReluctantlyZen@ani.social 50 points 1 week ago

Why on earth is a birth certificate used at all for identification?

[-] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 44 points 1 week ago

It's proof of citizenship. But also, here it's a convenient and plausibly deniable way to disenfranchise people who vote differently than them.

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 46 points 1 week ago

This is from USA Today. This is where political journalism is:

Will the SAVE America Act pass the Senate? Odds, predictions

The odds of the SAVE America Act passing the Senate and signed into law in 2026 are 12% according to the Polymarket betting odds, and the Kalshi market odds show 13.9% confidence that it will become law.

[-] sparkles@piefed.zip 71 points 1 week ago

Betting on me losing my rights is wild.

[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 31 points 1 week ago

And yet it doesn’t even make the top ten fucked up shit for today.

[-] sparkles@piefed.zip 11 points 1 week ago

Human behavior is depressing.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] fibojoly@sh.itjust.works 42 points 1 week ago

Does that mean Alabama women are safe?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] sparkles@piefed.zip 37 points 1 week ago

My circles have been discussing this one for a while. Not a coincidence that they are making it more difficult to get a passport.

[-] UnspecificGravity@piefed.social 37 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Do the Republicans really think they are going to benefit from a requirement that disenfranchises people who don't have proof of citizenship like:

-Women who got married and took their husbands last name
-People who keep getting divorced over and over again
-People who have never travelled outside the US

Bear in mind that the people who are basically guaranteed to have their documents in order are:

-Recently naturalized citizens
-People who travel a lot
-Unmarried women
-People who graduated college

So your local lesbian coven of naturalized middle aged Latinas. They are going to have zero problem voting. Joe Bob the cousin fucker from Alabama who has never gotten more than 20 miles from his trailer park and doesn't believe in "the gummet", and hasn't had a job that didn't pay cash in his whole life? Yeah, that fucker doesn't have a passport.

But hey, at least they are going to stop all the undocumented immigrants who already weren't allowed to register to vote in the first place.

This is going to be like how they attacked absentee voting without realizing that the majority of absentees were retirees and the military.

[-] LodeMike@lemmy.today 29 points 1 week ago

Do the Republicans really think

Not usually

[-] spencerwi@feddit.org 26 points 1 week ago

See, the thing Jim Crow and its "literacy tests" taught us is that you just need a rule that you can enforce on the wrong people, and then you just choose not to enforce it when it's convenient.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] magnetosphere@fedia.io 17 points 1 week ago

So your local lesbian coven of naturalized middle aged Latinas.

Just want to emphasize this hilarious line for anyone who doesn’t feel like reading the entire post. Please carry on.

[-] TemplaerDude@sh.itjust.works 29 points 1 week ago
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] ApathyTree@lemmy.dbzer0.com 29 points 1 week ago

Looking forward to being a future target for never having married and/or taken a man’s name next!

None of us are safe until all of us are safe.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Ksin@lemmy.world 27 points 1 week ago

Not having any form of national ID really does lead to some goofy shit when you need to positivly identify people.

[-] TronBronson@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago

Our elections take place inside the state where we reside. We have state ID with a picture and the voting rolls match our address. It’s a pretty simple process that has worked for the last 40 years or so. I’ve always had to provide proof ID and residence to vote

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] lonefighter@sh.itjust.works 24 points 1 week ago

If your name doesn't match what's on your birth certificate, look into whether your state allows you to change your birth certificate and do it before it's too late. My name is not my birth name or my married name, I had it legally changed. I got tired of hauling around my birth certificate, marriage certificate, divorce paperwork, and legal name change to show the paper trail that I both was who I was and was no longer legally married. Turns out in my state I just had to send in a notarized form, copies of my paperwork and pay small fee and I got my birth certificate updated to my current name. Now I can "prove" who I am by just showing my birth certificate and ignore the fact that I was married and changed my name. It also made updating my passport easier. Granted, I am not trans, but I did it last year and they had the option to change gender on the form.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] robocall@lemmy.world 22 points 1 week ago

I guess all those blue haired feminists that refused to get married or change their last names still get to vote

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] A_norny_mousse@piefed.zip 20 points 1 week ago

It's not like it's impossible for such people to vote, but getting your documents in order costs money.
Same for voting on a weekday, voting offices being only in affluent neighbourhoods, voting demanding an ID .....

No money, no democracy.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] qevlarr@lemmy.world 19 points 1 week ago

Don't worry, they'll only enforce this with Democratic voters

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] myfunnyaccountname@lemmy.zip 18 points 1 week ago

Won’t matter when he cancels elections cause we are in multiple wars.

[-] Xenny@lemmy.world 18 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

So hear me out. Conservatives are more likely to take someone's last name than a liberal couple right? Doesn't this disproportionately disenfranchise Republican women? Could this potentially actually harm the Republican vote?

[-] femtek 15 points 1 week ago

A lot of states have been banning name changes for trans people, I think this was a dumb attack on trans people.

[-] nocturne@slrpnk.net 13 points 1 week ago

When my wife and I married she only took my last name because her father abandoned her when she was 6 months old, and she wanted to erase that from her identity.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[-] M0oP0o@mander.xyz 17 points 1 week ago

Wait, this is even dumber then it looks like. Under this crap unmarried women will be unaffected but the more traditional marriage types will be hooped. So this will remove the "trad" wife votes but not touch the ladies in say the local polycule. Gee I wonder if all the single/divorced women will be more or less likely to vote for the red party?

[-] needanke@feddit.org 15 points 1 week ago

They are also going after Mail-In voting already:

A divided Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that Americans can’t sue the U.S. Postal Service, even when employees deliberately refuse to deliver mail.

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-postal-service-missing-mail-7ce97a5b7d56373cdeaa6ecc9a9132f5

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] highjayhawk@lemmy.world 15 points 1 week ago

MAGA women usually are still using their first husbands last name so it’ll suck for them too

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Cantaloupe877@lemmy.world 15 points 1 week ago

Every day that passes, I hate these people more and more.

[-] flandish@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago

why would a married name match a birth certificate name? or are they saying they only marry relatives? do women change birth certs when married? I am not a woman.

but funny story i adoped my stepson after his mom died. he was 14 or so. he was issued a new birth certificate and the “mother” area is … blank.

[-] mirshafie@europe.pub 12 points 1 week ago

When you're married, you give up your voting privileges. Your husband will vote for you. Oh, he only gets one vote of course.

Also, if you're not married, you've clearly shown that you're not mature enough to vote. A public servant will be designated to vote on your behalf.

[-] pirate2377@lemmy.zip 13 points 1 week ago

"Don't get married, women. Or you no longer have the right to vote!" -- MAGA, apparently

[-] nightlily@leminal.space 13 points 1 week ago

Cis women, trans people, and abuse victims. Their favourite targets.

[-] OddMinus1@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 week ago

I'm worried that this is a distraction to introduce a similar, but somehow less widespread bill. Like "oh boy, yeah this would disallow more women than intended to vote. Here's the new bill that only disallows people with unmatching first names to avoid voter fraud (or whatever)." ...And thus trans people can't vote.

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] Formfiller@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago

I’d be willing to bet this will disenfranchise more republican women than democrat women. Democrats are way more likely to have a passport

[-] Lucky_777@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago

It won't stop married women from voting but it just creates a huge pain in the ass plus basically a poll tax. Since you'll have to pay for copies of your birth certificate, plus getting your marriage license, and of course an ID.

Unconstitutional, but this admin wipes it's ass with that document anyways.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 10 points 1 week ago

Does SAVE require documentary proof of citizenship to vote, or just to register? As I understand it, documentary proof of citizenship is the specific requirement that's hard for anyone who has had a change of name to meet short of a passport or an EDL in the 5 states that offer one.

load more comments (20 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 24 Feb 2026
1149 points (100.0% liked)

Microblog Memes

11031 readers
2373 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

RULES:

  1. Your post must be a screen capture of a microblog-type post that includes the UI of the site it came from, preferably also including the avatar and username of the original poster. Including relevant comments made to the original post is encouraged.
  2. Your post, included comments, or your title/comment should include some kind of commentary or remark on the subject of the screen capture. Your title must include at least one word relevant to your post.
  3. You are encouraged to provide a link back to the source of your screen capture in the body of your post.
  4. Current politics and news are allowed, but discouraged. There MUST be some kind of human commentary/reaction included (either by the original poster or you). Just news articles or headlines will be deleted.
  5. Doctored posts/images and AI are allowed, but discouraged. You MUST indicate this in your post (even if you didn't originally know). If an image is found to be fabricated or edited in any way and it is not properly labeled, it will be deleted.
  6. Absolutely no NSFL content.
  7. Be nice. Don't take anything personally. Take political debates to the appropriate communities. Take personal disagreements & arguments to private messages.
  8. No advertising, brand promotion, or guerrilla marketing.

RELATED COMMUNITIES:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS