The Save Act: A Threat to Women’s Voting Rights and Democratic Participation

Posted on by MzJulesNYC Posted in Life Journey

The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, currently advancing through Congress, has ignited fierce debate over its potential to disenfranchise millions of American voters particularly women. Framed by supporters as a measure to prevent noncitizen voting, critics argue it imposes unnecessary barriers that disproportionately harm married women, rural communities, and marginalized groups. Here’s how the SAVE Act threatens voting rights and why its impact on women demands urgent attention.

1. The Burden on Married Women: Name Changes and Bureaucratic Hurdles

Approximately 69 million married women in the U.S. have changed their surnames, often adopting their spouse’s last name. Under the SAVE Act, these women would face significant challenges proving citizenship because their birth certificates (required for registration) no longer match their current legal names.[^1] To register, they must provide additional documents like marriage certificates or court-ordered name-change papers, a process the bill vaguely outlines, leaving election officials and voters confused.[^2]

For example, a woman in New Hampshire attempting to register under similar state-level requirements had to make three trips to submit documents, highlighting the bureaucratic nightmare.[^3] The SAVE Act risks replicating this chaos nationwide, forcing women to navigate complex paperwork simply to exercise their right to vote.

2. Lack of Access to Required Documents

The SAVE Act mandates proof of citizenship through documents like passports, birth certificates, or REAL IDs indicating citizenship. However:

  • Passport ownership is low: Only 20% of citizens in states like West Virginia have passports, compared to 80% in New Jersey.[^4]
  • REAL IDs rarely indicate citizenship: Most states do not include citizenship status on these IDs, rendering them insufficient under the bill.[^5]
  • Socioeconomic disparities: Lower-income individuals, who are disproportionately women and people of color, often lack access to these documents due to cost or bureaucratic barriers.[^6]

For rural women, traveling hours to obtain or submit documents adds another layer of difficulty, especially in areas with limited public transportation.[^7]

3. Targeting Vulnerable Communities

The SAVE Act’s requirements intersect with systemic inequities:

  • Transgender voters: Those who’ve changed their names to align with their gender identity face similar hurdles as married women, risking disenfranchisement if forced to use outdated IDs.[^8]
  • Low-income women: With higher poverty rates (11% for women vs. 8.8% for men), many struggle to afford passport fees ($130+) or certified copies of vital records.[^9]
  • Women of color: Black, Latina, and Native American women experience poverty at twice the rate of white men, compounding barriers to document access.[^10]

4. Solving a Nonexistent Problem

Noncitizen voting in federal elections is already illegal and exceedingly rare. Studies in Michigan and Georgia found fewer than 30 suspected cases out of millions of votes cast.[^11] The SAVE Act’s supporters, however, continue pushing a debunked narrative of widespread fraud to justify restrictive measures.[^12]

As the League of Women Voters argues, this bill is a “Trojan horse attack on democracy,” weaponizing fear to suppress turnout among groups less likely to support its proponents.[^13]

5. Legal and Logistical Chaos Ahead

If enacted, the SAVE Act would:

  • Eliminate online/mail registration: Forcing in-person visits to election offices, which are already understaffed.[^14]
  • Threaten election workers: Imposing criminal penalties for errors, exacerbating the harassment and attrition of this predominantly female workforce.[^15]
  • Invite lawsuits: Similar laws in Kansas and Arizona were struck down for violating federal protections, signaling a rocky legal path.[^16]

Conclusion: A Call to Protect Voting Rights

The SAVE Act is not about election integrity it’s about exclusion. By erecting barriers for women, rural voters, and marginalized communities, it undermines the democratic principle of equal access. As advocates mobilize against this bill, the fight echoes the suffragists who secured women’s voting rights a century ago. Their legacy reminds us: democracy thrives only when every voice is heard.

Take Action: Contact your Senators to oppose the SAVE Act and support legislation like the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which seeks to expand—not restrict—access to the ballot box.[^17]

Footnotes

[^1]: Brennan Center for Justice, The Impact of Voter Suppression on Women (2023).
[^2]: National Women’s Law Center, Barriers to Voting for Women (2022).
[^3]: American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Case Study: New Hampshire Voter Registration Challenges (2021).
[^4]: U.S. Department of State, Passport Statistics by State (2023).
[^5]: National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), REAL ID and Citizenship Documentation (2023).
[^6]: Center for American Progress, The Cost of Voting: Document Barriers for Low-Income Americans (2022).
[^7]: Rural Democracy Initiative, Access to Voting in Rural America (2023).
[^8]: Human Rights Campaign, Transgender Voters and ID Laws (2023).
[^9]: U.S. Census Bureau, Poverty Rates by Gender (2022).
[^10]: National Partnership for Women & Families, Poverty and Women of Color (2023).
[^11]: MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Noncitizen Voting: A Review of Evidence (2020).
[^12]: Washington Post, Debunking the Myth of Voter Fraud (2023).
[^13]: League of Women Voters, Statement on the SAVE Act (2024).
[^14]: U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Election Administration Workforce Survey (2023).
[^15]: Bipartisan Policy Center, Threats to Election Workers (2023).
[^16]: U.S. Courts, Kobach v. U.S. Election Assistance Commission (2018).
[^17]: Brennan Center for Justice, The John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act (2023).