New Democratic Argument Against SAVE Act Insults Women

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Opponents of the SAVE Act have settled on a new talking point: requiring proof of citizenship during voter registration will somehow “disenfranchise women,” particularly those who changed their names after marriage.  According to this argument, women will be unable to obtain the documents necessary to prove they are citizens.

It is a remarkable claim, not because it is persuasive, but because of what it reveals.  Once again, the progressive Democrats who insist they are defending people are actually talking down to them.

Most Americans, including married women, already navigate name changes with competence and regularity.  They update their Social Security records, their driver’s licenses, their bank accounts, their insurance, their employment documents, and their tax filings.  They manage passports, REAL IDs, and every other form of identification required in modern life.  The idea that these same women are suddenly incapable of presenting documentation that reflects a legal name change is not a defense of women.  It is an insult to them.

We saw this same rhetorical move during the debates over voter ID laws.  Critics claimed that minority voters, particularly Black Americans, would be unable to obtain a basic photo ID.  Yet, the overwhelming majority already had one.  The argument wasn’t just wrong; it was patronizing.  It assumed entire groups of people lacked the intelligence or ability to complete the same simple tasks everyone else completes daily.

Now the same logic is being recycled, only with a different target.  This time, it’s married women who are supposedly incapable of managing their own paperwork.

The irony is that many of the very documents critics claim women “can’t get” are already in their wallets.  REAL ID, which requires proof of identity, lawful status, and name changes, has been rolled out nationwide.  Millions of women have already gone through the process of presenting their birth certificates, marriage certificates, or passports to obtain it.

If a woman can obtain a REAL ID, and millions have, she can certainly provide documentation for voter registration.  The claim that she cannot is not a defense of voting rights.  It is a political narrative built on the assumption that women are helpless.

The SAVE Act does not require anyone to show a birth certificate or passport at the polling booth.  It deals exclusively with voter registration, the point at which citizenship must be verified.  That is not controversial.  It is common sense, and in line with international norms.

Most countries require proof of identity to vote, and America is unusual because our system relies on self-attestation of citizenship.  176 countries or jurisdictions require photo ID for voting – a nearly universal requirement.  Countries that do not allow non-citizens to vote confirm citizenship through their registration systems with national population registries, enrollment to vote tied to citizenship records, national ID cards, or other ways to prove citizenship by the individual.  While a few countries allow non-citizens to vote in certain local or regional elections, like New Zealand and Sweden, they require citizenship to vote in national elections.  Canada and many European countries use voter registration cards, signature verification and National ID systems to implicitly verify citizenship because the underlying registry is already tied to citizenship status.

When it comes to requiring citizenship to vote in national elections, the United States is no exception. The only question is whether we enforce it.

The SAVE Act is designed to enforce it. 

Democrats have finally realized they lost on the “Blacks can’t get ID” argument, so they have shifted to their largest voting-block: women.  The argument that women will be disenfranchised is not about women at all.  It is about avoiding the core issue: whether the federal government should ensure that only citizens are added to federal voter rolls.

Rather than address that question directly, critics of the SAVE Act have shifted their conversation to hypothetical hardships that do not reflect the lived reality of American women.  They assume incompetence where competence is the norm.  They assume helplessness where independence is the rule.

Women deserve better than to be considered helpless by a bunch of power-seeking politicians who are perched in high offices far from the public square.

American women are fully capable of managing their own legal documents.  They run businesses, raise families, earn degrees, serve in the military, and navigate every bureaucratic system this country has created.  To suggest they cannot handle a name change on a citizenship document is not advocacy.  It is condescension.

The SAVE Act does not disenfranchise women.  It does not burden them.  It does not treat them as anything less than the capable citizens they are.

The only people treating women as incapable are the critics who claim to be defending them.

— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary