It’s probably easier just to read Margaret Atwood’s “The Handmaid’s Tale.” If you just go straight to the source material it helps you digest the Act itself.
It passed the house, but likely won’t pass the senate. Still it’s bring comprehension that SAVE Act was seriously contemplated by the house, let alone passed. For those who don’t know, it not-so-quietly aims to disenfranchise the vast majority of married women.
“disenfranchise the vast majority of married women”
BS. What is this “vast majority” doing now when required to present ID?
A formal name change is dead simple, even for an idiot, in Family Court. If by divorce, a party can easily be restored to their prior name just by asking. Or, if lazy, continue to use the name used during marriage.
>BS. What is this “vast majority” doing now when required to present ID?
They present a valid government-issued ID, which works just fine.
The SAVE Act will require the name on your ID to match the name on your birth certificate. So now, your valid government-issued ID won’t suffice if you changed your name when you got married (as the vast majority of women do).
We require IDs to do all kinds of things, shocking we don’t require it to vote. This is one issue both R’s and D’s agree with above 70% – people who disagree are in a significant minority. Truly commonsense.
84 per cent of folks are in favor of voter ID. You need ID to board a plane or cash a check or see a doctor or get admitted to the ER. Even
Democratic events for candidates required ID to attend. I went to see Biden years ago and had to show ID.
And you are dead wrong. Unless a woman asks to have her maiden name restored prior to the decree, the court will not have jurisdiction to change a name. Try again.
“(5) A valid government-issued photo identification card issued by a Federal, State or Tribal government other than an identification described in paragraphs (1) through (4), but only if presented together with one or more of the following:…”
This is from the part of the bill that states what is acceptable. “1-4” include a passport or real ID. So you only have to present further documentation if you don’t have a real ID or passport.
As to REAL IDs, didn’t DHS just this week (or perhaps last week) say that a REAL ID by itself is insufficient to prove citizenship? The REAL ID Act itself provides that a REAL ID only reflects lawful status in the United States. So it’s gaslighting to say a REAL ID will qualify because in order for a REAL ID to qualify under SAVE Act, the REAL ID must indicate United States citizenship. But no REAL ID does that. So that category is out the window.
Amends the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), to require states to obtain documentary proof of U.S. citizenship and identity – in person – when registering an individual to vote in a Federal election.
Directs states to establish an alternative process for applicants that may not have documentary proof of citizenship but are in fact U.S. citizens (due to religious reasons or otherwise), subject to minimum standards set by the Election Assistance Commission and signed attestations and affidavits by both the applicant and official making the determination.
Directs states to provide reasonable accommodations for disabled Americans, and other applicants such as divorced individuals, that have discrepancies on their documentation due to a name change.
Requires states to establish a program to remove non-citizens from their existing voter rolls and gives states no-cost access to Department of Homeland Security and Social Security Administration databases to do so.
Have any of you actually read the bill? Goodness, it only requires a secondary identification like a birth certificate if dont have a real id, passport, or a few other less common types of ID. So most people (who already had to get a real id to fly for example) are going to be just fine.
Can we stop with the hysterics? This is just about the highest polling issue out there. Even 71% of Ds think having to have an ID to vote is completely logical. And before you tell me about how voter fraud isn’t a thing (which no serious effort has really been undertaken to determine, but I digress), it isn’t about that. The most important thing about elections is that people trust them. Nearly the entire country thinks that having an ID to vote is a common sense thing. Passing this bill would greatly strengthen people’s belief in the system and blunt efforts like Trump’s to claim that some election down the line was stolen.
We don’t require security at airports because we are continuously overrun by terrorists. We do it so people feel safe and so we get the one in a million that mean us harm. Same thing here, voter fraud doesn’t have to be rampant to say, “hey, lets make sure there is no funny business here.”
The bill specifically says that an idea under the real id act of 2005 is sufficient I didn’t see any other language narrowing that. Where are you getting this from?
It says “A form of identification issued consistent with the requirements of the REAL ID Act of 2005 that indicates the applicant is a citizen of the United States.” Only a few states have REAL IDs that specify citizenship. Anybody legally in the US (visa, LPR, DACA) can get a REAL ID. It does not prove citizenship.
“A form of identification issued consistent with the requirements of the REAL ID Act of 2005 THAT INDICATES THE APPLICANT IS A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES”
They wanted a copy of birth certificate or passport, utility records or something for state residency and host of other things when I did mine. It was a pain.
Nevada’s Real ID rules don’t require citizenship, just residency, however if immigration documents are used for ID verification (in place of a US based birth certificate, US passport, consular report of birth abroad, certificate of naturalization, or certificate of citizenship) then Nevada’s DMV puts (or is supposed to put) the words “LIMITED TERM” on the ID card. In other words, the absence of ‘LIMITED TERM’ on the ID indicates that documentation proving US Citizenship was provided to get the Real ID. Theoretically that should work?
The original sin of this whole thing was continuing to base ID documentation on state driver’s licenses. If 10 years ago the federal government issued a free ID that reflected citizenship to every person in the country and wasn’t tied to driving, voter ID would not be a controversial problem.
Just because Trump says elections are not secure and full of rampant fraud doesn’t make it true. You are saying people need to feel like elections are “safe”, but the same people pushing this are the ones who put out propaganda to undermine elections. They make up a problem and create a solution that is not needed. Where is Doge when we need it.
C’mon February 16. Non citizens are permitted to vote in California in local state elections. These individuals also vote in Presidential elections. Obama encouraged illegals to vote. It was recorded on a video in the 2012 election.
Post the video. Do you dispute the Heritage Foundations findings? Voter fraud is so minuscule and the last 3 cycles has been dominated by people voting for Trump. It is funny that people want voter ID, but are fine with people attacking the capital to overturn an election.
Dispute the voter fraud. Yes. Obama posted a video in Spanish that voting in an election was a crime that was never prosecuted. Voter fraud is rampant. Elections are not won they are stolen. I come from a prominent D family. Voters before mail in voting used to be shipped in and registered at Budget Suites. They all had the same address and no one ever questioned. Then the dream of election fraudsters-mail in balloting was permitted. Jimmy Carter when he oversaw the election in Venezuela that resulted in Hugo Chavez being elected proclaimed that “mail in ballots” were per se fraudulent.
I was personally observed voter fraud. A busload of culinary workers were taken to the polls and enforcers were “assisting”
these folks with their voting. I asked the poll worker if the voters were citizens and properly registered. They were brought in droves ten minutes before the polls were to close. The election worker stated he was not allowed to ask. He just stood by while reps helped the members vote. They did not know how to vote. Outright voter fraud was documented and conceded in many jurisdictions. One of those jurisdictions was Minnesota and the other was New Jersey. Al Franken squeaked in Minnesota by the tiniest of margins. Voters are allowed to register and vote on the day of the election with no ID if they are vouched by others. That is how Franken won. In Nevada, election day is not election day. They collect ballots and correct ballots after election day. That does not sound like voter fraud?
To vote, the union members you saw needed to either have already registered the vote (so that they’re on the voter rolls) or to do same-day registration — which requires voter ID (i.e. the thing you claim will end voter fraud). People who do same-day registration only get to cast a provisional ballot so that the County can verify the registration. https://www.clarkcountynv.gov/government/departments/elections/services/voter_registration/sdr
You are living in an alternate reality that has no basis in facts. I encourage you to log off, turn off the TV and try to get your information from people who aren’t lying to you.
Long on allegation and supposition, short on real evidence.
Guest
Anonymous
February 12, 2026 12:29 pm
I wish the a Indy would get it right: it’s an astroturf anti-women’s rights group, headed in part by a man, that’s bringing the ant-trans lawsuit. It’s not a traditional women’s rights group. What’s fascinating is that republicans have conceded the importance and efficacy of traditional women’s rights groups by trying to emulate them with groups like that. Look, as a feminist I do have issues with biological men competing in women’s sports. But the answer isn’t excluding trans women from women’s sports. The answer requires a nuanced approach, but again republicans only see this issue as a way to manipulate voters. It’s a weapon of mass distraction. It’s easier to hate trans people (why anyone would care about other people’s bodies is beyond meme) than to think about the miserable state of the country and the economy of the working (blue and white collar) classes.
“The answer requires a nuanced approach”
What is that approach?
Why do we have men’s sports and women’s sports? Let me suggest that it because there is a fundamental disparity is size, weight and strength.
Not going to take the sealioning bate. You have The Google ™. Please educate yourself. Good luck and thanks.
Guest
anonymous
February 12, 2026 1:47 pm
Not to sound like a backhanded compliment or anything, but considering the track record and motivations of the folks doing the nominating, George Kelesis is a much better choice than I would have expected. He is at a stage in his career where he won’t be trying to score brownie points, or feel the need to suck up to anyone. I wish him well, and also luck. He may need it.
Only because one of our newest jurists turned it down. Huge hit to retirement to leave pers for a job you might be out of in three years if administration changes. Before you ask me who, draw the R connection.
Learn to love me
Assemble the ways
Now, today, tomorrow and always
My only weakness is a list of crimes
My only weakness is well, never mind, never mind, oh
I dont follow/watch the news, can someone give me the TLDR on the SAVE voter act that was passed by the House?
It’s probably easier just to read Margaret Atwood’s “The Handmaid’s Tale.” If you just go straight to the source material it helps you digest the Act itself.
Oh look, fearmongering. How in vogue.
It passed the house, but likely won’t pass the senate. Still it’s bring comprehension that SAVE Act was seriously contemplated by the house, let alone passed. For those who don’t know, it not-so-quietly aims to disenfranchise the vast majority of married women.
https://msmagazine.com/2025/04/28/save-act-women-vote-republicans-trump-maga/
“disenfranchise the vast majority of married women”
BS. What is this “vast majority” doing now when required to present ID?
A formal name change is dead simple, even for an idiot, in Family Court. If by divorce, a party can easily be restored to their prior name just by asking. Or, if lazy, continue to use the name used during marriage.
>BS. What is this “vast majority” doing now when required to present ID?
They present a valid government-issued ID, which works just fine.
The SAVE Act will require the name on your ID to match the name on your birth certificate. So now, your valid government-issued ID won’t suffice if you changed your name when you got married (as the vast majority of women do).
There’s no rational basis for this.
Am divorced woman with children. Kept the ex’s last name only because it is my children’s last name.
Also vote D and will continue to do so no matter how hard they try to take my voice away.
(God I hate this timeline.)
I can see why you’re divorced.
And I see why you are grumpy.
yet qnothe rrqspnfor wo RO
oops
We require IDs to do all kinds of things, shocking we don’t require it to vote. This is one issue both R’s and D’s agree with above 70% – people who disagree are in a significant minority. Truly commonsense.
@3:22: Blah blah blah to you too
84 per cent of folks are in favor of voter ID. You need ID to board a plane or cash a check or see a doctor or get admitted to the ER. Even
Democratic events for candidates required ID to attend. I went to see Biden years ago and had to show ID.
This is not a consumer transaction.
And you are dead wrong. Unless a woman asks to have her maiden name restored prior to the decree, the court will not have jurisdiction to change a name. Try again.
This is false. from the bill itself:
“(5) A valid government-issued photo identification card issued by a Federal, State or Tribal government other than an identification described in paragraphs (1) through (4), but only if presented together with one or more of the following:…”
This is from the part of the bill that states what is acceptable. “1-4” include a passport or real ID. So you only have to present further documentation if you don’t have a real ID or passport.
As to REAL IDs, didn’t DHS just this week (or perhaps last week) say that a REAL ID by itself is insufficient to prove citizenship? The REAL ID Act itself provides that a REAL ID only reflects lawful status in the United States. So it’s gaslighting to say a REAL ID will qualify because in order for a REAL ID to qualify under SAVE Act, the REAL ID must indicate United States citizenship. But no REAL ID does that. So that category is out the window.
Amends the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), to require states to obtain documentary proof of U.S. citizenship and identity – in person – when registering an individual to vote in a Federal election.
Directs states to establish an alternative process for applicants that may not have documentary proof of citizenship but are in fact U.S. citizens (due to religious reasons or otherwise), subject to minimum standards set by the Election Assistance Commission and signed attestations and affidavits by both the applicant and official making the determination.
Directs states to provide reasonable accommodations for disabled Americans, and other applicants such as divorced individuals, that have discrepancies on their documentation due to a name change.
Requires states to establish a program to remove non-citizens from their existing voter rolls and gives states no-cost access to Department of Homeland Security and Social Security Administration databases to do so.
Legitimately hope this helps 🙂
If you were a lawyer, you would understand both the law as it is written on its face (*prima facie*) and how it is applied in practice. 🙂
Have any of you actually read the bill? Goodness, it only requires a secondary identification like a birth certificate if dont have a real id, passport, or a few other less common types of ID. So most people (who already had to get a real id to fly for example) are going to be just fine.
Can we stop with the hysterics? This is just about the highest polling issue out there. Even 71% of Ds think having to have an ID to vote is completely logical. And before you tell me about how voter fraud isn’t a thing (which no serious effort has really been undertaken to determine, but I digress), it isn’t about that. The most important thing about elections is that people trust them. Nearly the entire country thinks that having an ID to vote is a common sense thing. Passing this bill would greatly strengthen people’s belief in the system and blunt efforts like Trump’s to claim that some election down the line was stolen.
We don’t require security at airports because we are continuously overrun by terrorists. We do it so people feel safe and so we get the one in a million that mean us harm. Same thing here, voter fraud doesn’t have to be rampant to say, “hey, lets make sure there is no funny business here.”
In most states, REAL IDs do not prove citizenship. So this is incorrect.
The bill specifically says that an idea under the real id act of 2005 is sufficient I didn’t see any other language narrowing that. Where are you getting this from?
It says “A form of identification issued consistent with the requirements of the REAL ID Act of 2005 that indicates the applicant is a citizen of the United States.” Only a few states have REAL IDs that specify citizenship. Anybody legally in the US (visa, LPR, DACA) can get a REAL ID. It does not prove citizenship.
“A form of identification issued consistent with the requirements of the REAL ID Act of 2005 THAT INDICATES THE APPLICANT IS A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES”
https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/22/text
Nevada Real IDs don’t indicate citizenship. I’m not aware of any state’s that does.
They wanted a copy of birth certificate or passport, utility records or something for state residency and host of other things when I did mine. It was a pain.
Nevada’s Real ID rules don’t require citizenship, just residency, however if immigration documents are used for ID verification (in place of a US based birth certificate, US passport, consular report of birth abroad, certificate of naturalization, or certificate of citizenship) then Nevada’s DMV puts (or is supposed to put) the words “LIMITED TERM” on the ID card. In other words, the absence of ‘LIMITED TERM’ on the ID indicates that documentation proving US Citizenship was provided to get the Real ID. Theoretically that should work?
If the person only has a State ID and is applying for a driver’s authorization card or a license it is obvious they are not a citizen.
That would not work. Not all non-citizens are restricted to limited term. For instance, LPR holders can get full term Real IDs.
The original sin of this whole thing was continuing to base ID documentation on state driver’s licenses. If 10 years ago the federal government issued a free ID that reflected citizenship to every person in the country and wasn’t tied to driving, voter ID would not be a controversial problem.
Just because Trump says elections are not secure and full of rampant fraud doesn’t make it true. You are saying people need to feel like elections are “safe”, but the same people pushing this are the ones who put out propaganda to undermine elections. They make up a problem and create a solution that is not needed. Where is Doge when we need it.
The heritage foundation found 99 cases of immigrants voting out of 1.5 billion votes. It is clearly a problem. A 0.00000067% problem.
C’mon February 16. Non citizens are permitted to vote in California in local state elections. These individuals also vote in Presidential elections. Obama encouraged illegals to vote. It was recorded on a video in the 2012 election.
Post the video. Do you dispute the Heritage Foundations findings? Voter fraud is so minuscule and the last 3 cycles has been dominated by people voting for Trump. It is funny that people want voter ID, but are fine with people attacking the capital to overturn an election.
Well, yeah, you don’t need an ID to engage in an insurrection.
Dispute the voter fraud. Yes. Obama posted a video in Spanish that voting in an election was a crime that was never prosecuted. Voter fraud is rampant. Elections are not won they are stolen. I come from a prominent D family. Voters before mail in voting used to be shipped in and registered at Budget Suites. They all had the same address and no one ever questioned. Then the dream of election fraudsters-mail in balloting was permitted. Jimmy Carter when he oversaw the election in Venezuela that resulted in Hugo Chavez being elected proclaimed that “mail in ballots” were per se fraudulent.
I was personally observed voter fraud. A busload of culinary workers were taken to the polls and enforcers were “assisting”
these folks with their voting. I asked the poll worker if the voters were citizens and properly registered. They were brought in droves ten minutes before the polls were to close. The election worker stated he was not allowed to ask. He just stood by while reps helped the members vote. They did not know how to vote. Outright voter fraud was documented and conceded in many jurisdictions. One of those jurisdictions was Minnesota and the other was New Jersey. Al Franken squeaked in Minnesota by the tiniest of margins. Voters are allowed to register and vote on the day of the election with no ID if they are vouched by others. That is how Franken won. In Nevada, election day is not election day. They collect ballots and correct ballots after election day. That does not sound like voter fraud?
None of this is true. For example, Obama did not post a video in Spanish encouraging people to vote illegally. He sat down for an English-language interview (with a Puerto Rican actress) and said that no one can stop CITIZENS from voting and that Latino citizens should vote to help speak for people who can’t vote. https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/obama-did-not-encourage-illegal-immigrants-vote-2016-interview-2024-06-28/
To vote, the union members you saw needed to either have already registered the vote (so that they’re on the voter rolls) or to do same-day registration — which requires voter ID (i.e. the thing you claim will end voter fraud). People who do same-day registration only get to cast a provisional ballot so that the County can verify the registration. https://www.clarkcountynv.gov/government/departments/elections/services/voter_registration/sdr
You are living in an alternate reality that has no basis in facts. I encourage you to log off, turn off the TV and try to get your information from people who aren’t lying to you.
Long on allegation and supposition, short on real evidence.
I wish the a Indy would get it right: it’s an astroturf anti-women’s rights group, headed in part by a man, that’s bringing the ant-trans lawsuit. It’s not a traditional women’s rights group. What’s fascinating is that republicans have conceded the importance and efficacy of traditional women’s rights groups by trying to emulate them with groups like that. Look, as a feminist I do have issues with biological men competing in women’s sports. But the answer isn’t excluding trans women from women’s sports. The answer requires a nuanced approach, but again republicans only see this issue as a way to manipulate voters. It’s a weapon of mass distraction. It’s easier to hate trans people (why anyone would care about other people’s bodies is beyond meme) than to think about the miserable state of the country and the economy of the working (blue and white collar) classes.
“The answer requires a nuanced approach”
What is that approach?
Why do we have men’s sports and women’s sports? Let me suggest that it because there is a fundamental disparity is size, weight and strength.
Not going to take the sealioning bate. You have The Google ™. Please educate yourself. Good luck and thanks.
Not to sound like a backhanded compliment or anything, but considering the track record and motivations of the folks doing the nominating, George Kelesis is a much better choice than I would have expected. He is at a stage in his career where he won’t be trying to score brownie points, or feel the need to suck up to anyone. I wish him well, and also luck. He may need it.
I think George is a great choice. Why he would want to stand on this ant hill at this stage of his career is beyond me.
I like George as much as I dislike Trump.
I have crossed paths with George many times over the years and he is smart, capable, charitable, practical, and measured.
Sounds the opposite of Sigal
The question is does Sigal stay.
Only because one of our newest jurists turned it down. Huge hit to retirement to leave pers for a job you might be out of in three years if administration changes. Before you ask me who, draw the R connection.
Sex workers of the world unite and take over!
Learn to love me
Assemble the ways
Now, today, tomorrow and always
My only weakness is a list of crimes
My only weakness is well, never mind, never mind, oh
You get me 4:42 pm. You really get me.
So . . . Cake reference in today’s title? Well done gents!
Cake in the title, AND Smiths in the comments.