Editor,
Is the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act a “blatant voter suppression bill” as Rep. Kevin Mullin asserted in his Monday guest perspective, “Save voting rights from the SAVE Act,” or is it simply meant to ensure that only U.S. citizens vote?
The legislation only affects current voters who move and reregister, as well as new voters registering for the first time. The requirements appear similar to the process of upgrading one’s driver’s license to REAL ID, which may be necessary to get through airport security on May 7 for those without passports.
Yes, locating the necessary documents, e.g., birth certificate and Social Security card, can be onerous, but so are filing taxes and appearing for jury duty.
Four Democrats supported H.R.22, so the bill is bipartisan, however, no Republicans voted against it. I don’t think that Reps. Ed Case (Hawaii), Henry Cuellar (Texas), Jared Golden (Maine) and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (Washington), all moderates, believe that the bill “undermine[s] citizens’ constitutional right to access the ballot box,” as Mullin wrote.
I was unable to find any polling information on the legislation, but I suspect that the majority of Americans support the bill based on the results of a ballot measure that appeared alongside the nation’s most expensive state supreme court race on April 1.
Wisconsin Question 1, “Require Voter Photo ID Amendment,” passed with 63% of the vote, yet, not one Democrat in the state Legislature supported placing the constitutional amendment on the ballot.
Irvin Dawid
Burlingame
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
Only subscribers can view and post comments on articles.
Already a subscriber? Login Here
Sorry, an error occurred.
Already Subscribed!
Cancel anytime
Thank you .
Your account has been registered, and you are now logged in.
Check your email for details.
Submitting this form below will send a message to your email with a link to change your password.
An email message containing instructions on how to reset your password has been sent to the email address listed on your account.
No promotional rates found.
Secure & Encrypted
Thank you.
Your gift purchase was successful! Your purchase was successful, and you are now logged in.
| Rate: | |
| Begins: | |
| Transaction ID: |
A receipt was sent to your email.
(9) comments
Thanks for your letter, Mr. Dawid, questioning why Dems would vote against the SAVE Act. Based on just about all Democrats not supporting the bill, I think the answer is clear that everyone should support the SAVE Act. As Democrat treachery in the past decade has shown, Democrats are not “for” the people. We can see Dems of today support domestic and international terrorists and support the uncontrolled and unvetted invasion of our borders. We can see Dems have more compassion and will go to the mat (or El Salvador) to support a violent gang member instead of American citizens in their community. As such, I’d say that the American people support anything Dems don’t want to support. It’s a matter of common sense vs. radical sense and America First vs. America Last. I think we’d all prefer common sense and America First. We’ve seen what Biden/autopen have done with radical sense and America Last.
Terence,
I have no problem with legislators opposing the bill. I do have problems with loaded terms like "voter suppression," which this is not. And it most certainly is not "un-American," as Mullin wrote. Talk about divisiveness!
Thanks for your response, Irvin D., but if folks such as Mr. Mullin use loaded language calling the SAVE Act a “blatant voter suppression bill” and “fundamentally un-American” then shouldn’t you have a problem with legislators opposing the bill based on these loaded and divisive terms? Otherwise, wouldn’t divisiveness continue and expand because common sense isn’t the common language everyone is using? We should expect better yet common sense is becoming less common, to everyone's detriment.
Terence,
Agreed on the language - calling it un-American is indeed divisive.Voter suppression?
I would have agreed with you, but after reading Diane Leeds' excellent LTE in response to mine, I'll refrain from "divisive."
I can tell you that there are a whole lot of women who, if they are informed, are against the SAVE Act. If you adopted your spouse's last name when you married, it's on all of your documents and does not comport with your birth certificate and you will have to go to extra, as yet unknown effort, to be able to re-register or register to vote. This is voter suppression, and for one of the most powerful misogynists, an ideal outcome.
However, my understanding is that a change in one's last name doesn't precipitate the need to re-register. Moving, i.e., change of residence, not last name, is what sets off what I call an "onerous" task of locating correct documents.
Furthermore, what you are describing is required, though likely to a lesser degree, for all other identification that requires verification - is that "suppression," or is it just what happens when someone changes their name?
Voter suppression is a loaded term.
No one is suppressing one's right to vote - only ensuring that the person who votes is a citizen entitled to vote.
BTW, this requirement also helps prevents noncitizens from registering to vote and suffering the serious consequences if they do vote, which can include deportation.
Not to mention, why would Republicans want to disenfranchise their voter base? Married women voted majority for Trump. And any woman who changes her name when she marries already has a marriage certificate, which is needed to change a multitude of documents. (Anyone who finds this onerous can certainly choose not to change their last name here in 2025.) Some of these arguments are really insulting, but can't top the racism of "black people are unable to get IDs."
Well said!
BTW, I checked the exit polls on 2024 compared to 2020 as I doubted your assertion. You were correct!
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/3222232/marriage-gap-election-not-gender-gap/
HFAB - are you suggesting that those who would not vote for Trump are somehow unable to get their records straight and correct their names? An unknown effort? That is hilarious. Most responses from the left seem convinced that they are the smart and more educated ones. You are contradicting their comfort zone and their condescending attitude toward Trump voters, perhaps inadvertently?
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.