The effort to portray the SAVE Act as “Jim Crow 2.0” has backfired spectacularly. By implying that black Americans are incapable of registering to vote or obtaining valid identification, Democrats condescended to a community they claim to protect. The new angle is that millions of women will be disenfranchised because they changed their last names upon marriage and would face burdensome processes to vote. This is false.
In the United States, marriage and taking a husband’s last name do not affect US citizenship. Citizenship remains unchanged regardless of whether the spouse is a US citizen. No declarations, filings, or special permissions are required to maintain citizenship status. A woman who adopts her husband’s surname automatically remains a full US citizen with all associated voting rights.
Democrats have also falsely asserted that the SAVE Act requires a passport to vote, noting that millions of Americans lack one and would therefore be barred from participating. In reality, the Act does not mandate a passport for voter registration. It permits other forms of identification and documentation to verify identity and eligibility, ensuring the process remains accessible.
The SAVE Act balances voter accessibility with election integrity. It would be illogical for Republicans to enact a law that disenfranchises millions of their own voters.
Democrats’ bold misrepresentations reveal their true opposition to election integrity measures—as detailed in my recent essay on Freedom and Reason. Such blatant falsehoods expose their motives and their apparent belief that the public can be easily swayed by propaganda. (See Democrats Gaslight Americans Over Election Integrity, as well as the comments sections.)
The SAVE Act passed the House yesterday on a near-party-line vote, with only one Democrat—Rep. Henry Cuellar of Texas—voting in favor. The Senate remains the primary obstacle. Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska has publicly stated her opposition to the bill (now often referred to as the SAVE America Act in its updated form). All Senate Democrats have also indicated they will oppose it.
With the Senate requiring 60 votes to overcome a filibuster on most legislation—and Republicans lacking that threshold—the bill cannot realistically advance without bipartisan support, unless the filibuster rule is set aside.
freedom and reason 