Will the SAVE Act make it harder for married women to vote? We ask legal experts : NPR
By: Juliana Kim (NPR)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
April 13, 2025
Juliana Kim
A woman votes at a polling location at The Chapel, an Evangelical church in St. Joseph, Mich., on Election Day, Nov. 5, 2024.
As the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act heads to the Senate, there has been growing debate on how the bill may affect voting for millions of married women, particularly those who have changed their last names, if it becomes law.
The legislation, known as the SAVE Act, looks to make sweeping reforms on voter registration. It was introduced in response to fears about voter fraud, though research has consistently showed that such incidents are exceedingly rare and not a significant factor in American elections.
Among the most notable changes outlined in the bill is the requirement to prove U.S. citizenship before registering to vote. Acceptable documents will include a birth certificate, U.S. passport, naturalization paperwork and certain versions of the Real ID that indicate citizenship.
Elections
The House has passed the Trump-backed SAVE Act. Here are 8 things to know
But for as many as 69 million American women who have taken on their spouse's name, their birth certificates no longer match the names they use today, according to an analysis by the progressive Center for American Progress . Meanwhile, more than half of all Americans do not have a passport, according to a 2023 YouGov survey.
Some lawmakers who oppose the SAVE Act argue that the bill could make it harder for married women to vote. "This voter suppression bill will disenfranchise millions of voters, especially married women," Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota said on social media.
Meanwhile, supporters of the SAVE Act assert that the legislation orders states to determine what additional documents should be required when local voters have a discrepancy on their proof of citizenship document.
"The Democrats have been fearmongering about this bill, have been saying if married women change their name, they would not be able to vote. That is complete fallacy," White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said at a press conference on Friday.
Untangling Disinformation
6 facts about false noncitizen voting claims and the election
Getting legal documents could be a challenge for some women
Legal experts told NPR that states can ease this potential hurdle by accepting secondary documents like a legal decree of a name change or a marriage certificate, but it might not fix the issue for all married people.
Tracy Thomas, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Akron, said the issue is that court decrees are uncommon since they are generally not required for married individuals who want to change their name.
While marriage certificates are more commonly issued, Thomas said obtaining one may be especially challenging for women who have been married for a long time and may no longer have their marriage certificate readily available.
"Obtaining that marriage certificate is an additional cost, administrative burden, and extra penalty that other voters do not have to do," said Thomas, who teaches voting rights and general equality.
She added, "These might all seem like trivial costs, but they all add up. There is also time delays and administrative inconvenience and burden at each step that creates more obstacles and discouragement to voting."
Politics
Susan B. Anthony broke the law by voting in 1872. In 2024, women honor her courage
Experts say the bill could lead to varying policies across states
Legal experts also worry that the ambiguity in the bill will lead to uneven policies across the country, meaning some states and municipalities will enforce stricter document requirements than others.
" Will marriage certificates be accepted equally across all jurisdictions? We don't know because some marriage certificates have different types of information on them, depending on the jurisdiction," said Keesha Middlemass, a professor in the department of political science at Howard University.
Middlemass, who is also a fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution, added that if the bill passes, it will take some time to identify where and how married women are being affected.
" The disenfranchisement — we won't know about it until after the fact," she said.
It's not unusual for voting laws to take time to iron out issues and identify those affected. But the prospect of sweeping changes to voter registration also comes at a time when elections have been competitive, Middlemass notes.
"That happens with every policy, there's always hiccups," she said. " The challenge with ... changing voting laws is we've had very close elections in the last three cycles, and so if you reduce the potential voters by 1 or 2% that could change the outcome of the election."
Trolling, taunting, spamming, and off topic comments may be removed at the discretion of group mods. NT members that vote up their own comments, repeat comments, or continue to disrupt the conversation risk having all of their comments deleted. Please remember to quote the person(s) to whom you are replying to preserve continuity of this seed. Any use of the phrase "Trump Derangement Syndrome" or the TDS acronym in a comment will be deleted. Any use of the term "Brandon", "Traitor Joe", or any variations thereof, when referring to President Biden, will be deleted. Right wing trolls can expect to have their irrelevant questions and comments deleted. Posting debunked lies will be subject to deletion
I have to ask, how much of this fear is being pushed by the Democratic party in order to prevent a 'win' by Republicans? Will women give up the ability to fly also? Starting May 7th, you will need to present a Real ID in order to board an aircraft and the SAVE Act states that a Real ID will work to provide voter ID. (Bolding is mine)
I believe that the same documentation would be required by a woman who marries and changes her last name in order to get the Real ID, the same documentation would also then work for proving citizenship to register to vote. It's also my understanding that this bill would not disenfranchise existing voters and prevent them from voting, but only if one changes their name or is registering for the first time or moves to a new state and registers in the new state for the first time.
It wasn't all that long ago that Georgia changed their voting requirements and Democrats decried the changes, calling it among other things 'Jim Crow 2.0'. Business pulled out of Georgia, even the All Star game was pulled. And yet the next election Georgia had record numbers voting. I do agree that the privilege of voting should be given to citizens only. And the impact to me on this bill is minimal as I'm already registered to vote, not planning on changing my name and have to plans to move out of state. But it seems that once again a political party is pushing fear to stir up the population.
I seem to recall my wife being able to use mail to the home address as acceptable for her Real ID. I did not see that mentioned in the article above.[✘]
Yes, the mail is used to verify proof of address. You also have to prove of birth. In Arizona, the requirements are :
Should those who never plan to fly be prevented from voting because they don't bother getting a REAL ID? I didn't bother getting one until my driver's license expired, because I haven't been on an airplane since 2019 and haven't needed one. I know many people who have done the same - they got their REAL ID only when their old license expired, because what was the point of renewing their license early if they never board an airplane?
Well, as long as it doesn't affect you personally, it shouldn't be a problem for anyone, I suppose.
This is an extra hoop to jump through in order to vote that overwhelmingly affects women rather than men. That's discriminatory.
maga republicans need to hinder the election process for the largest voting block in america ...
Then you must consider the Real ID Act discriminatory also. I still think this fear is more being pushed by the Democratic party as they have no power other than to stir up the population to make noise against the current administration.
To my knowledge there has been little to no screaming about real id requirements
Voting is a right. Flying on an airplane is a privilege. False equivalence.
I avoided all this by retaining my maiden name.
The fearmongering is in the origin of this act. Voter fraud to a degree that affects election outcomes is not an issue. There was that guy who used his dead wife's ballot to vote for Trump, though...
Nope, I was not equating the two. That fallacy is yours. The equivalence here is the Real ID act and the SAVE act. Both are laws. One was passed into law many years ago with little pushback and the other has recently passed the House. The flying part was an example but by no means was it an attempt to equate the two.
I disagree with this part. The fearmongering is being done by the Democrats because they have no power except to agitate the populace. It still remains to be seen if this can pass in the Senate. In order for it to pass, 7 Democrats will need to vote in favor of the bill. I have doubts that the bill will pass in the Senate.
The Second Amendment is a right as well, are you willing to look at gun ownership and voting as the same? Some states are willing to put restrictions around gun ownership that impact someone who has not violated the law yet can be treated as a criminal. Please don't reply with the tired argument that voting doesn't kill but gun's do because that's a bullshit argument. How many Democrats have loudly proclaimed that the current cutting of funding for research will kill people?
I followed your comparison to its logical conclusion. I need a REAL ID to board a commercial airplane. Boarding a plane is not a civil right, or is it a civic duty. Voting is a civil right, and a civic duty. The REAL ID act has very little interference in my life. The SAVE act potentially does.
I'm sure you do. But the fact remains that this act is a solution looking for a problem, and fixating on one that only exists in the minds of 2020 election deniers.
Nice insult. You have no idea how any of this may impact me and my family, you just toss out insults because I don't agree with you.
As for extra hoops, it's the same that anybody who changed their name would have to go through. I've known men who married and both partners changed their last name to a hyphenated name to include both sides last name. And what about the trans population who transition and have their names changed? They also have to go through that process. You said in anther post that you kept your maiden name to avoid having to go thru this process. So this doesn't affect you personally either.
I did the same. Arizona changed their process years back and your drivers license doesn't expire until you reach 65. Once I hit that age I had to go in to renew so I took in the additional paperwork to get the Real ID at that time. But as the deadline for the Real ID act is finally here (flying, entering certain federal buildings and installations) there is more urgency for people to get their Real ID.
Yet there's not been the pushback against the Real ID as there is for the SAVE act, probably because the Real ID act was passed back in 2005 and didn't seem to be an onerous undertaking at the time by the Democrats. Similar to today, the 2005 Congress had Republicans in the majority in both the House and the Senate and George W Bush was President.
Seems you're the one fixating on it, this is after all your seed. I'm not fixated on it, I just think the fear being pushed by the left is overblown. And I explained why I think it's overblown.
So you help to push an imagined fear. You have not shown where this definitely will interfere with your life, it's all about the fear. Where the Real id is listed as an acceptable document in the SAVE act and you already have the Real ID, how exactly will this bill (if it passes and becomes law) impact your life in a negative manner?
[✘]
Something doesn't have to affect me personally for me to see that it can be a problem for those it does affect.
Explaining the nonexistent reason for the act is not fixating on it. Pointing out the real fearmongering in the face of your partisan accusations is not fixating.
[✘]
The current administration is stirring up quite enough to make noise about.
the erosion of american equality is well underway. christo-fascists don't want women to vote ...
[✘]
[✘]
Think about this. Conservative women change their names after marriage more than liberal women do.
I didn't change my name and neither did my daughter. Her father in law had a big problem with that
[✘]
While I agree with the act in general now that a possible issue has been brought up maybe they should address it before the bill is passed.
I had one friend who lost all his vital papers in a fire and another whose ex wife vindictively destroyed his. These were men but it was exceptionally and unnecessarily difficult getting new ones starting from nothing. Floods, fires, storms, deaths, incarcerations, divorces and any number of other things can result in being paperless. You do not want to try it...
I think it all depends on which state you are trying to get documents from and what documents you need to get. I was born in Wisconsin and needed a certified copy of my birth certificate for a security clearance. I was able to easily get it online by filling out a short questionnaire and submitting payment (I think it was about $19) and the state mailed the copy to me in about a week. This was not difficult at all but for all I know Wisconsin is ahead of the times when it comes to managing their official papers.
I had to get the same thing for my 99 year old father in ct. 30 dollars and a couple weeks later he had a stamped birth certificate
Oklahoma required applications in person at one of two locations. The guys I was helping had nothing, so that made it harder...
Getting their birth certificates was first, but only the beginning. There were run arounds especially with the DMV and car titles...
But they did what they had to do.
When I applied for a passport years ago, the county clerk employee refused to believe that my birth certificate was a valid birth certificate because it looked different from my ex's. We were born in the same state, but in different counties, and each county's vital statistics were done a bit differently, so our birth certificates just... looked different. They were equally valid, but she didn't want to accept mine as part of my passport application. Mine had the county seal of my place of birth, the signature of the county clerk, a reference to the page of the county records where my birth was recorded, etc. I'm not sure what else she wanted, other than for it to match my ex's in appearance. If they'd looked the same, it would have been false, and therefore not valid.
The State Department agreed with me, and I got my passport, but that illustrated to me what a PITA it can be when some petty government employee decides that documentation from a government office other than their own isn't quite good enough to suit them.
Imagine being poor and black and in rural Mississippi and not having any help...
[✘]
[✘]
Ami Horowitz is James O'Keefe trying to be funny.
[✘]
President Obama had a birth certificate and it wasn’t good enough for Trump. I would expect the same treatment for millions of citizens who happen to vote Democrat.
This wasn't long after the birther conspiracy was all over the news, and I thought at the time that if I, a white woman, with white parents, whose family had been here for generations, couldn't have my birth certificate recognized as valid, then no birth certificate Obama produced would ever be accepted by some people.
That was Trump. As the 14th Amendment has been used, the precedent has been to grant citizenship to all born within the US. Unless SCOTUS jumps in and claims otherwise, I believe that all lower courts will still continue to view a birth certificate as sufficient proof. There's a lot of laws that would need to be changed if that was overturned by SCOTUS. Even the REAL ID act cites a birth certificate as proof.
Now of course some idget in Congress could always submit a bill to modify the 14th Amendment. That would have as much chance of getting passed and approved by the states as the previous idget bill to give Trump a 3rd term. ie, no chance of passage.
Right. But Trump thinks his EO settles the matter. I think it puts this new law in direct conflict with his EO.
I don't think so. As I understand it, a law can override an EO. The EO is how the President manages the federal government but as we've seen many times an EO can be challenged and overturned by the courts. Trump's EO on birthright citizenship has already been halted by the courts and I believe is waiting it's turn with SCOTUS. If this new law passes, the EO will need to change to match with the law unless SCOTUS declares the EO to be invalid.
Normally I’d agree with you, but we’re living in a new paradigm. Laws don’t matter anymore.
Unfortunately you may be closer to the truth than is comfortable.
One would think that a 250 year old nation that is constantly voting about something or another would have figured out an equitable process by now. Exceptionalism appears to be faultful.
it seems maga has their own definition of except-ionalism ...
[✘]
Crazy is the refuge of the sane.
[✘]
[✘]
Do State laws (all of which could be different) apply to federal election, i.e. ones for PotUS? If so, I pity that quagmire.
Well, it varies. Some states, for example, do not allow convicted felons to vote, even after their sentences have been served, while others have no such restrictions. Some states have closed primaries, in which voters can only vote in the primary elections of the party of which they are a member, while others have open primaries, which allow voters of any party to vote in all parties' primary elections. Some states have voting almost entirely by mail-in ballot, while in others, in-person voting is the primary method allowed. Some states allow absentee ballots to be counted before Election Day, while others prohibit early counting. States are free to decide their own early voting schedules.
I believe there are minimum federal standards which all states must meet - basically, the right to vote can't be denied based on race, sex, marital status, etc.
So, yeah, it's a quagmire.
Actually one would think that any legal citizen of a 250 year old nation would have no problem jumping through a few very easy “hoops” to perform such an essential civic duty.
I’ve never understood the liberal mindset that is against insuring accurate voter bona fides. We always hear how it’s not a significant problem. Neither are a few hoop jumps for the true patriot.
There comes a time in everyone's life when what was once easy becomes a chore and in some cases an insurmountable one.
As to mindsets:
When I was young I had a heart and became a liberal.
When I was middle aged I had a mind and became a conservative
When I was old I chose to have both and became both.
[✘]
The same people that are saying this will never be an issue are also the people that said RvW would never be overturned.
I remember it well.
If an American passport indicates voter eligibility, would not any American citizen be able to obtain one even if they were foreigners who obtained citizenship? Surely proof of where one is a resident, if that is a further requirement, is easy enough to prove. Why does everything have to be so complicated?
A passport costs $165, if one has never had one before, and can take over a month from the time of application. Paying $165 to vote, especially if one is not planning international travel, is financially inefficient and possibly cost-prohibitive for some folks.
If a woman finds out that she can't vote due to this act, she may not be able to obtain a passport by the next election.
the more hoops to jump thru the better for the republican party, to exercise the most basic fundamental right of being an american citizen ...
I am able to get a 10 year passport. Are Americans able to do so, because that would give them acceptable voter qualification for 10 federal elections, costing $16.50 per year.
Yes, passports for adults are valid for 10 years.
However, $165 might be too much for a family to pay for the right for the married women (and pretty much only the married women) in that family to vote. If a family is living paycheck to paycheck, that $165 might make the difference between buying groceries and going hungry. Nobody should have to make that choice, but it especially shouldn't be applied only to women.
If a passport is too expensive for a family, just wait to see what Trump's tariffs are going to do.
I agree, but that's a different problem entirely. Women are being asked to jump through hoops that men are not, in order to vote. Hoops that they may not be able to jump through in time to vote, depending on the efficiency of the offices involved.
All to prevent voter fraud that wasn't happening, anyway.
And probably one of the reasons why Harris lost. I had been saying all along that I was sure she lost because the women of America ignored the opportunity to stand up for women's rights, but I was never aware of the impediments that they had in order to cast a vote.
This particular impediment is not law yet.
I already showed above that a Real ID is accepted in the SAVE Act to prove voter eligibility. Starting May 7th you will need to show a Real ID or a valid passport to board an aircraft. The Real ID act was passed into law in 2005.
States issue driver's licenses or ID Cards (for non-drivers) that meet the requirement for voter registration and voting. Any old enough to vote should be able to figure out how to get one since they will need it to get medical care or anything else that might come their way from the government.
I am not sure this legislation is the answer to voter fraud (if there is a problem at all), but I think people are looking for problems that should not exist.
It seems that an ID would be required to get a marriage license etc
Hold on. Why would a birth certificate be enough? The president has already decreed that it’s not enough to prove citizenship.
I must also prove that I was subject to the jurisdiction of the United States by virtue of my parents being citizens or legal permanent residents. How do I prove that my parents were citizens or LPRs when I was born? Do I need their birth certificate, as well? And what about their parents? My birth certificate - by presidential order - does not, on its own, prove my citizenship.
Who is going to enforce this federal law? The states? Do you really expect Mississippi to enforce this law the same way Oregon does? If at all? Or will there be a special federal bureaucracy set up to register voters?
[ ✘ ] Only 35 states require ID to vote. 15 don’t. Of the 35, 12 don’t specifically require “photo” ID.
Many married women don’t take their husbands name. See it all the time. So no problem there. It appears this isn’t as big of problem as some are trying to make it.
Surprise, surprise!
... kind of like election integrity, no matter what the useless bag of shit sitting in the oval office claims.
[✘]
Let's remember why this real ID stuff started, because a bunch of evil terrorists attacked our country and better ID was something that was thought to help protect us.
I guess I will have to get the fancy one when I have to renew my drivers license
Personally I think it’s just a scam so our secretary of states can make more money.
That said, the only reason to not take all necessary steps to prove voter bona fides is if you want to cheat. No other good reason I’ve seen.
People get married and take someone else’s name, they need to pick the name they want to vote with so they can’t possibly vote with both. Whatever steps that requires, are not unreasonable requests. Not if you want election integrity.
Easy peasy