No, the SAVE Act is not designed to disenfranchise women
Congressional Republicans recently reintroduced the “Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act” (SAVE Act) for the 119th Congress. Brought forward by Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) in the House and Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) in the Senate, the SAVE Act establishes new citizenship verification requirements for Americans registering to vote. Although data shows that noncitizen voting is quite rare, more robust citizenship verification is a wildly popular reform that may help increase trust in elections if implemented well.
With Republicans preparing to move the bill out of the House in the near future, opponents allege that the bill will disenfranchise millions of married women and others whose names on their birth certificates no longer match their current legal names. While the bill does need refining to address implementation concerns and would benefit from placing more administrative burdens on state agencies rather than voters, this particular attack is a red herring.
As introduced, the SAVE Act requires Americans to prove citizenship through a variety of possible documents, such as a state ID that shows citizenship or a passport. Birth certificates may be the most accessible option for many Americans; however, millions of voter applicants have changed their names since birth—whether by marriage or personal choice—leading to a mismatch between their birth certificate and the current photo ID required alongside it. The bill does not provide a specific process for those whose current legal name does not match their birth name, though it does contemplate such a scenario and mandates the creation of a process to prevent affected citizens from disenfranchisement.
In Sec. 2(f) of the bill, under “Process in case of certain discrepancies in documentation,” the SAVE Act tasks the Election Assistance Commission with creating guidance and the states with creating a process “under which an applicant can provide such additional documentation […] in the event of a discrepancy with respect to the applicant’s documentary proof of United States citizenship.” In plain language, the SAVE Act expects states to ask for supplementary documents, such as a marriage certificate, when a birth certificate shows a different name than a person’s photo ID card. As has become common for federal legislation, the SAVE Act sets high-level goals and standards and leaves it to federal agencies and states to figure out the specifics.
For an example of how this might play out in practice, look no further than Arizona—the only state that requires a citizenship check for participation in state and local elections. Under Arizona law, a voting applicant may prove citizenship by providing “a legible photocopy of the applicant’s birth certificate that verifies citizenship to the satisfaction of the county recorder.” Applicants with a name mismatch must provide supplementary documentation, such as a marriage certificate, to resolve the discrepancy. Though specific requirements contained in the SAVE Act and Arizona law differ (including the acceptability of a photocopy), both envision a process in which applicants provide supplementary documentation to support a mismatched birth certificate, and both grant election administrators discretion to figure out the specifics.
Like many pieces of legislation introduced in the run-up to an election, the SAVE Act may have been more of a messaging tool than a robust election reform. As a result, the bill contains some meaningful implementation hurdles that would have to be addressed before enactment. While the SAVE Act could be clearer about the process for resolving documentation discrepancies, it is not designed to disenfranchise women or any other Americans who have legally changed their names. The bill addresses this common scenario and provides a pathway forward. Opponents should focus their fire elsewhere.