Quote:

---

You can get them, too, if voting matters to you.

---

How could someone possibly find the time to do this, when they're only given 4 years??!?!

I understand the urgency to do this when you want to drive around town, or travel to Cabo.

Or maybe if you need a fishing license, want to adopt a pet, get a library card or to shovel snow...but voting for the most powerful position in the country? Psshhh...it's impossible!!

chrisocker said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

No. California doesn't want illegals barred from voting, and they'll do nothing to stop it.

They're already using illegal truckers to kill as many people as possible, in violation of scores of laws.

---

Still waiting for those cited and credible sources to back these claims of fraud.

---

ballot drop boxes for starters bro its been well documented the voter fraud by Dems are you just being obtuse on purpose?

There are not scores of people walking around without IDs. Even deadbeats need IDs to get welfare.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

HoustonAggie11 said:

---

Notice how states' rights is only a thing when the GOP is in the White House.

---

Illegals don't have voting rights in any country.

---

they do in this country unfortunately

HoustonAggie11 said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

HoustonAggie11 said:

---

Notice how states' rights is only a thing when the GOP is in the White House.

---

Illegals don't have voting rights in any country.

---

they do in this country unfortunately

---

Not in federal elections, they do not.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

There are not scores of people walking around without IDs. Even deadbeats need IDs to get welfare.

---

Agreed.

And for the very small minority who don't have them, it's such a minor imposition, and easy process.

Kind of seems like the absolute lowest bar to cross, given what's at stake.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

HoustonAggie11 said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

HoustonAggie11 said:

---

Notice how states' rights is only a thing when the GOP is in the White House.

---

Illegals don't have voting rights in any country.

---

they do in this country unfortunately

---

Not in federal elections, they do not. 42 states say all you to do is declare you are a US citizen.

---

42 states say all you to do is declare you are a US citizen im sure everyone tells the truth.

txags92 said:

---

chrisocker said:

---

None of us should want a bill that takes rights away from states, especially when it comes to elections. But I further argue that this SAVE America Act is based on the false narrative of rampant voter fraud. There just isn't any credible data that voter fraud is a major issue. Heck, even the conservative think tank that is heritage.org shows a mere 1,620 instances of actual, proven fraud dating back to 1982. See for yourself here

The new version of the bill also says that states must share information with federal agencies. I don't know about you, but as a conservative I don't want my information flowing through federal agencies that have no business knowing my business.

Lastly, your TX drivers license or state issued ID is not enough to be able to vote since it does not share where you were born (and why would it!?), according to this bill. You will need a passport or some other [u]federal[/u] form of identification to be able to vote. I have to imagine the pain in the ass my wife would have to go through trying to whip up her birth certificate, which doesn't match her state ID due to taking my last name. So then she will also have to find or purchase a copy of our marriage license, then take all three of these IDs to the polling place. That's just ludicrous. You can see for yourself here

I support state rights, which is why I cannot support this bill.

---

So you and your wife have never left the country? Even for a honeymoon? Because her passport should match her married name and would be proof of citizenship. If she was born in Texas, she can get a copy of her birth certificate sent to her by the state without even leaving the house. My wife went and got a name change on her SS card after our wedding and changed her passport and it took at most an hour or two of effort on her part in the mid-90s before you could do nearly all of it online. These barriers you are erecting in your mind are not nearly as insurmountable as you want to make them out to be.

---

I'm for voter ID, but here you highlight the problem with the SAVE ACT. Approximately 50-60% of Americans do not have a passport. Most people do not ever take a trip outside the US, especially the poorest portions of our population. Therefore, these people would need to spend the hour or two plus $165 for the passport in order to vote. Tying the ability to vote to a financial obligation limited to only a portion of the population, such as a poll-tax in violation of the 24th Amendment, and/or limiting the types of IDS that can be used is what the Supreme Court has traditionally found to be unlawful.

Mytash said:

---

txags92 said:

---

chrisocker said:

---

None of us should want a bill that takes rights away from states, especially when it comes to elections. But I further argue that this SAVE America Act is based on the false narrative of rampant voter fraud. There just isn't any credible data that voter fraud is a major issue. Heck, even the conservative think tank that is heritage.org shows a mere 1,620 instances of actual, proven fraud dating back to 1982. See for yourself here

The new version of the bill also says that states must share information with federal agencies. I don't know about you, but as a conservative I don't want my information flowing through federal agencies that have no business knowing my business.

Lastly, your TX drivers license or state issued ID is not enough to be able to vote since it does not share where you were born (and why would it!?), according to this bill. You will need a passport or some other [u]federal[/u] form of identification to be able to vote. I have to imagine the pain in the ass my wife would have to go through trying to whip up her birth certificate, which doesn't match her state ID due to taking my last name. So then she will also have to find or purchase a copy of our marriage license, then take all three of these IDs to the polling place. That's just ludicrous. You can see for yourself here

I support state rights, which is why I cannot support this bill.

---

So you and your wife have never left the country? Even for a honeymoon? Because her passport should match her married name and would be proof of citizenship. If she was born in Texas, she can get a copy of her birth certificate sent to her by the state without even leaving the house. My wife went and got a name change on her SS card after our wedding and changed her passport and it took at most an hour or two of effort on her part in the mid-90s before you could do nearly all of it online. These barriers you are erecting in your mind are not nearly as insurmountable as you want to make them out to be.

---

I'm for voter ID, but here you highlight the problem with the SAVE ACT. Approximately 50-60% of Americans do not have a passport. Most people do not ever take a trip outside the US, especially the poorest portions of our population. Therefore, these people would need to spend the hour or two plus $165 for the passport in order to vote. Tying the ability to vote to a financial obligation limited to only a portion of the population, such as a poll-tax in violation of the 24th Amendment, and/or limiting the types of IDS that can be used is what the Supreme Court has traditionally found to be unlawful.

---

stop all people have access to a id how do they buy booze, smokes, get EBT , bank account, cable, cell phone.

Someone on this thread posted that with the SAVE Act, a state issued ID wouldn't be enough, that something federal would be required, thus the idea of having to have a passport to vote under this act.

I haven't read the bill, but is there some kind of stipulation that more than a state issued ID is needed? If so, would that be to protect against leftist run states issuing driver's licenses to illegals that could then be used as ID to vote?

HoustonAggie11 said:

---

Mytash said:

---

txags92 said:

---

chrisocker said:

---

None of us should want a bill that takes rights away from states, especially when it comes to elections. But I further argue that this SAVE America Act is based on the false narrative of rampant voter fraud. There just isn't any credible data that voter fraud is a major issue. Heck, even the conservative think tank that is heritage.org shows a mere 1,620 instances of actual, proven fraud dating back to 1982. See for yourself here

The new version of the bill also says that states must share information with federal agencies. I don't know about you, but as a conservative I don't want my information flowing through federal agencies that have no business knowing my business.

Lastly, your TX drivers license or state issued ID is not enough to be able to vote since it does not share where you were born (and why would it!?), according to this bill. You will need a passport or some other [u]federal[/u] form of identification to be able to vote. I have to imagine the pain in the ass my wife would have to go through trying to whip up her birth certificate, which doesn't match her state ID due to taking my last name. So then she will also have to find or purchase a copy of our marriage license, then take all three of these IDs to the polling place. That's just ludicrous. You can see for yourself here

I support state rights, which is why I cannot support this bill.

---

So you and your wife have never left the country? Even for a honeymoon? Because her passport should match her married name and would be proof of citizenship. If she was born in Texas, she can get a copy of her birth certificate sent to her by the state without even leaving the house. My wife went and got a name change on her SS card after our wedding and changed her passport and it took at most an hour or two of effort on her part in the mid-90s before you could do nearly all of it online. These barriers you are erecting in your mind are not nearly as insurmountable as you want to make them out to be.

---

I'm for voter ID, but here you highlight the problem with the SAVE ACT. Approximately 50-60% of Americans do not have a passport. Most people do not ever take a trip outside the US, especially the poorest portions of our population. Therefore, these people would need to spend the hour or two plus $165 for the passport in order to vote. Tying the ability to vote to a financial obligation limited to only a portion of the population, such as a poll-tax in violation of the 24th Amendment, and/or limiting the types of IDS that can be used is what the Supreme Court has traditionally found to be unlawful.

---

stop all people have access to a id how do they buy booze, smokes, get EBT , bank account, cable, cell phone.

---

because you can't use just any ID per the SAVE ACT. Even the REAL ID is not valid proof of citizenship, which is what the SAVE ACT requires.

Mytash said:

---

txags92 said:

---

chrisocker said:

---

None of us should want a bill that takes rights away from states, especially when it comes to elections. But I further argue that this SAVE America Act is based on the false narrative of rampant voter fraud. There just isn't any credible data that voter fraud is a major issue. Heck, even the conservative think tank that is heritage.org shows a mere 1,620 instances of actual, proven fraud dating back to 1982. See for yourself here

The new version of the bill also says that states must share information with federal agencies. I don't know about you, but as a conservative I don't want my information flowing through federal agencies that have no business knowing my business.

Lastly, your TX drivers license or state issued ID is not enough to be able to vote since it does not share where you were born (and why would it!?), according to this bill. You will need a passport or some other [u]federal[/u] form of identification to be able to vote. I have to imagine the pain in the ass my wife would have to go through trying to whip up her birth certificate, which doesn't match her state ID due to taking my last name. So then she will also have to find or purchase a copy of our marriage license, then take all three of these IDs to the polling place. That's just ludicrous. You can see for yourself here

I support state rights, which is why I cannot support this bill.

---

So you and your wife have never left the country? Even for a honeymoon? Because her passport should match her married name and would be proof of citizenship. If she was born in Texas, she can get a copy of her birth certificate sent to her by the state without even leaving the house. My wife went and got a name change on her SS card after our wedding and changed her passport and it took at most an hour or two of effort on her part in the mid-90s before you could do nearly all of it online. These barriers you are erecting in your mind are not nearly as insurmountable as you want to make them out to be.

---

I'm for voter ID, but here you highlight the problem with the SAVE ACT. Approximately 50-60% of Americans do not have a passport. Most people do not ever take a trip outside the US, especially the poorest portions of our population. Therefore, these people would need to spend the hour or two plus $165 for the passport in order to vote. Tying the ability to vote to a financial obligation limited to only a portion of the population, such as a poll-tax in violation of the 24th Amendment, and/or limiting the types of IDS that can be used is what the Supreme Court has traditionally found to be unlawful.

---

You don't have to have a passport, and any person born in Texas can get a free copy of their birth certificate that can be used to get a free election identification card, just by going to their local county clerk's office. You can order a copy of your birth record online for a very small fee and never have to leave the comfort of your desk chair. This is not an insurmountable burden. As was pointed out, people have already been required to provide proof of citizenship to get their Texas DLs for years now. Anybody with a Texas DL with a gold star on it has already had to provide the same proof being asked for to certify them to vote. People are making this sound very hard and it is not.

Mytash said:

---

HoustonAggie11 said:

---

Mytash said:

---

txags92 said:

---

chrisocker said:

---

None of us should want a bill that takes rights away from states, especially when it comes to elections. But I further argue that this SAVE America Act is based on the false narrative of rampant voter fraud. There just isn't any credible data that voter fraud is a major issue. Heck, even the conservative think tank that is heritage.org shows a mere 1,620 instances of actual, proven fraud dating back to 1982. See for yourself here

The new version of the bill also says that states must share information with federal agencies. I don't know about you, but as a conservative I don't want my information flowing through federal agencies that have no business knowing my business.

Lastly, your TX drivers license or state issued ID is not enough to be able to vote since it does not share where you were born (and why would it!?), according to this bill. You will need a passport or some other [u]federal[/u] form of identification to be able to vote. I have to imagine the pain in the ass my wife would have to go through trying to whip up her birth certificate, which doesn't match her state ID due to taking my last name. So then she will also have to find or purchase a copy of our marriage license, then take all three of these IDs to the polling place. That's just ludicrous. You can see for yourself here

I support state rights, which is why I cannot support this bill.

---

So you and your wife have never left the country? Even for a honeymoon? Because her passport should match her married name and would be proof of citizenship. If she was born in Texas, she can get a copy of her birth certificate sent to her by the state without even leaving the house. My wife went and got a name change on her SS card after our wedding and changed her passport and it took at most an hour or two of effort on her part in the mid-90s before you could do nearly all of it online. These barriers you are erecting in your mind are not nearly as insurmountable as you want to make them out to be.

---

I'm for voter ID, but here you highlight the problem with the SAVE ACT. Approximately 50-60% of Americans do not have a passport. Most people do not ever take a trip outside the US, especially the poorest portions of our population. Therefore, these people would need to spend the hour or two plus $165 for the passport in order to vote. Tying the ability to vote to a financial obligation limited to only a portion of the population, such as a poll-tax in violation of the 24th Amendment, and/or limiting the types of IDS that can be used is what the Supreme Court has traditionally found to be unlawful.

---

stop all people have access to a id how do they buy booze, smokes, get EBT , bank account, cable, cell phone.

---

because you can't use just any ID per the SAVE ACT. Even the REAL ID is not valid proof of citizenship, which is what the SAVE ACT requires.

---

my guess is that would be re-written in the Senate version if passed

txags92 said:

---

Mytash said:

---

txags92 said:

---

chrisocker said:

---

None of us should want a bill that takes rights away from states, especially when it comes to elections. But I further argue that this SAVE America Act is based on the false narrative of rampant voter fraud. There just isn't any credible data that voter fraud is a major issue. Heck, even the conservative think tank that is heritage.org shows a mere 1,620 instances of actual, proven fraud dating back to 1982. See for yourself here

The new version of the bill also says that states must share information with federal agencies. I don't know about you, but as a conservative I don't want my information flowing through federal agencies that have no business knowing my business.

Lastly, your TX drivers license or state issued ID is not enough to be able to vote since it does not share where you were born (and why would it!?), according to this bill. You will need a passport or some other [u]federal[/u] form of identification to be able to vote. I have to imagine the pain in the ass my wife would have to go through trying to whip up her birth certificate, which doesn't match her state ID due to taking my last name. So then she will also have to find or purchase a copy of our marriage license, then take all three of these IDs to the polling place. That's just ludicrous. You can see for yourself here

I support state rights, which is why I cannot support this bill.

---

So you and your wife have never left the country? Even for a honeymoon? Because her passport should match her married name and would be proof of citizenship. If she was born in Texas, she can get a copy of her birth certificate sent to her by the state without even leaving the house. My wife went and got a name change on her SS card after our wedding and changed her passport and it took at most an hour or two of effort on her part in the mid-90s before you could do nearly all of it online. These barriers you are erecting in your mind are not nearly as insurmountable as you want to make them out to be.

---

I'm for voter ID, but here you highlight the problem with the SAVE ACT. Approximately 50-60% of Americans do not have a passport. Most people do not ever take a trip outside the US, especially the poorest portions of our population. Therefore, these people would need to spend the hour or two plus $165 for the passport in order to vote. Tying the ability to vote to a financial obligation limited to only a portion of the population, such as a poll-tax in violation of the 24th Amendment, and/or limiting the types of IDS that can be used is what the Supreme Court has traditionally found to be unlawful.

---

You don't have to have a passport, and any person born in Texas can get a free copy of their birth certificate that can be used to get a free election identification card, just by going to their local county clerk's office. You can order a copy of your birth record online for a very small fee and never have to leave the comfort of your desk chair. This is not an insurmountable burden. As was pointed out, people have already been required to provide proof of citizenship to get their Texas DLs for years now. Anybody with a Texas DL with a gold star on it has already had to provide the same proof being asked for to certify them to vote. People are making this sound very hard and it is not.

---

Again, you are proving the problem with the SAVE ACT. The SAVE ACT requires proof of citizenship, which may involve extra work/finances for some but not all. The REAL ID is a proxy but not proof and, as such, not acceptable. A person would have to take the time (as little or as much is needed) to get their birth certificate absent a passport. If the name on the birth cert does not match, the person would have to provide another court document to show why the document does not match (affidavit may be accepted but it is a crime on the receiver if it is false - i.e., who's going to want to face that chance?). So, who is likely to have their names not match their birth cert? It is most likely women. Now you have a de facto discriminatory law as it disproportionately affects women (mostly poor women).

Mytash said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Mytash said:

---

txags92 said:

---

chrisocker said:

---

None of us should want a bill that takes rights away from states, especially when it comes to elections. But I further argue that this SAVE America Act is based on the false narrative of rampant voter fraud. There just isn't any credible data that voter fraud is a major issue. Heck, even the conservative think tank that is heritage.org shows a mere 1,620 instances of actual, proven fraud dating back to 1982. See for yourself here

The new version of the bill also says that states must share information with federal agencies. I don't know about you, but as a conservative I don't want my information flowing through federal agencies that have no business knowing my business.

Lastly, your TX drivers license or state issued ID is not enough to be able to vote since it does not share where you were born (and why would it!?), according to this bill. You will need a passport or some other [u]federal[/u] form of identification to be able to vote. I have to imagine the pain in the ass my wife would have to go through trying to whip up her birth certificate, which doesn't match her state ID due to taking my last name. So then she will also have to find or purchase a copy of our marriage license, then take all three of these IDs to the polling place. That's just ludicrous. You can see for yourself here

I support state rights, which is why I cannot support this bill.

---

So you and your wife have never left the country? Even for a honeymoon? Because her passport should match her married name and would be proof of citizenship. If she was born in Texas, she can get a copy of her birth certificate sent to her by the state without even leaving the house. My wife went and got a name change on her SS card after our wedding and changed her passport and it took at most an hour or two of effort on her part in the mid-90s before you could do nearly all of it online. These barriers you are erecting in your mind are not nearly as insurmountable as you want to make them out to be.

---

I'm for voter ID, but here you highlight the problem with the SAVE ACT. Approximately 50-60% of Americans do not have a passport. Most people do not ever take a trip outside the US, especially the poorest portions of our population. Therefore, these people would need to spend the hour or two plus $165 for the passport in order to vote. Tying the ability to vote to a financial obligation limited to only a portion of the population, such as a poll-tax in violation of the 24th Amendment, and/or limiting the types of IDS that can be used is what the Supreme Court has traditionally found to be unlawful.

---

You don't have to have a passport, and any person born in Texas can get a free copy of their birth certificate that can be used to get a free election identification card, just by going to their local county clerk's office. You can order a copy of your birth record online for a very small fee and never have to leave the comfort of your desk chair. This is not an insurmountable burden. As was pointed out, people have already been required to provide proof of citizenship to get their Texas DLs for years now. Anybody with a Texas DL with a gold star on it has already had to provide the same proof being asked for to certify them to vote. People are making this sound very hard and it is not.

---

Again, you are proving the problem with the SAVE ACT. The SAVE ACT requires proof of citizenship, which may involve extra work/finances for some but not all. The REAL ID is a proxy but not proof and, as such, not acceptable. A person would have to take the time (as little or as much is needed) to get their birth certificate absent a passport. If the name on the birth cert does not match, the person would have to provide another court document to show why the document does not match (affidavit may be accepted but it is a crime on the receiver if it is false - i.e., who's going to want to face that chance?). So, who is likely to have their names not match their birth cert? It is most likely women. Now you have a de facto discriminatory law as it disproportionately affects women (mostly poor women).

---

Get a copy of marriage license, done. Women have already done this when they changed the name on their social security card after getting married. It's not like it's foreign to them.

Mytash said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Mytash said:

---

txags92 said:

---

chrisocker said:

---

None of us should want a bill that takes rights away from states, especially when it comes to elections. But I further argue that this SAVE America Act is based on the false narrative of rampant voter fraud. There just isn't any credible data that voter fraud is a major issue. Heck, even the conservative think tank that is heritage.org shows a mere 1,620 instances of actual, proven fraud dating back to 1982. See for yourself here

The new version of the bill also says that states must share information with federal agencies. I don't know about you, but as a conservative I don't want my information flowing through federal agencies that have no business knowing my business.

Lastly, your TX drivers license or state issued ID is not enough to be able to vote since it does not share where you were born (and why would it!?), according to this bill. You will need a passport or some other [u]federal[/u] form of identification to be able to vote. I have to imagine the pain in the ass my wife would have to go through trying to whip up her birth certificate, which doesn't match her state ID due to taking my last name. So then she will also have to find or purchase a copy of our marriage license, then take all three of these IDs to the polling place. That's just ludicrous. You can see for yourself here

I support state rights, which is why I cannot support this bill.

---

So you and your wife have never left the country? Even for a honeymoon? Because her passport should match her married name and would be proof of citizenship. If she was born in Texas, she can get a copy of her birth certificate sent to her by the state without even leaving the house. My wife went and got a name change on her SS card after our wedding and changed her passport and it took at most an hour or two of effort on her part in the mid-90s before you could do nearly all of it online. These barriers you are erecting in your mind are not nearly as insurmountable as you want to make them out to be.

---

I'm for voter ID, but here you highlight the problem with the SAVE ACT. Approximately 50-60% of Americans do not have a passport. Most people do not ever take a trip outside the US, especially the poorest portions of our population. Therefore, these people would need to spend the hour or two plus $165 for the passport in order to vote. Tying the ability to vote to a financial obligation limited to only a portion of the population, such as a poll-tax in violation of the 24th Amendment, and/or limiting the types of IDS that can be used is what the Supreme Court has traditionally found to be unlawful.

---

You don't have to have a passport, and any person born in Texas can get a free copy of their birth certificate that can be used to get a free election identification card, just by going to their local county clerk's office. You can order a copy of your birth record online for a very small fee and never have to leave the comfort of your desk chair. This is not an insurmountable burden. As was pointed out, people have already been required to provide proof of citizenship to get their Texas DLs for years now. Anybody with a Texas DL with a gold star on it has already had to provide the same proof being asked for to certify them to vote. People are making this sound very hard and it is not.

---

Again, you are proving the problem with the SAVE ACT. The SAVE ACT requires proof of citizenship, which may involve extra work/finances for some but not all. The REAL ID is a proxy but not proof and, as such, not acceptable. A person would have to take the time (as little or as much is needed) to get their birth certificate absent a passport. If the name on the birth cert does not match, the person would have to provide another court document to show why the document does not match (affidavit may be accepted but it is a crime on the receiver if it is false - i.e., who's going to want to face that chance?). So, who is likely to have their names not match their birth cert? It is most likely women. Now you have a de facto discriminatory law as it disproportionately affects women (mostly poor women).

---

IT IS FREE TO GET THE EIC CARD. It does not cost you a penny. I am not saying to rely on your Real ID as proof. I am saying that anybody who has a REAL ID DL in Texas (which is everybody who renewed their DL since 2008) already had to do this step and pay for it out of pocket. Anybody who showed up to renew their DL without proof of citizenship did not get a Texas DL. So, all of these people running around with Texas DLs with a star on them whining about what a hardship it is to get proof are lying. They have already done it and they already have the necessary documentation in their possession. They are just making up fake problems to complain about how hard it is...It is not that hard. It is not discriminatory against anybody. Women who chose to take on a different name at marriage and who didn't already do the (light) work to get their SS card and other ID changed to their new name can easily do that with very minimal hardship, or they can show their marriage license (easily obtainable online or in person) at the voting location.

If a woman's name has changed then she has already had to provide all of the documentation you referred to. If she threw all of that away, she can get it again.

Quote:

---

If the name on the birth cert does not match, the person would have to provide another court document to show why the document does not match (affidavit may be accepted but it is a crime on the receiver if it is false - i.e., who's going to want to face that chance?). So, who is likely to have their names not match their birth cert? It is most likely women. Now you have a de facto discriminatory law as it disproportionately affects women (mostly poor women).

---

LOL. Funny but wrong. It is not discriminatory.

Rex Racer said:

---

Mytash said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Mytash said:

---

txags92 said:

---

chrisocker said:

---

None of us should want a bill that takes rights away from states, especially when it comes to elections. But I further argue that this SAVE America Act is based on the false narrative of rampant voter fraud. There just isn't any credible data that voter fraud is a major issue. Heck, even the conservative think tank that is heritage.org shows a mere 1,620 instances of actual, proven fraud dating back to 1982. See for yourself here

The new version of the bill also says that states must share information with federal agencies. I don't know about you, but as a conservative I don't want my information flowing through federal agencies that have no business knowing my business.

Lastly, your TX drivers license or state issued ID is not enough to be able to vote since it does not share where you were born (and why would it!?), according to this bill. You will need a passport or some other [u]federal[/u] form of identification to be able to vote. I have to imagine the pain in the ass my wife would have to go through trying to whip up her birth certificate, which doesn't match her state ID due to taking my last name. So then she will also have to find or purchase a copy of our marriage license, then take all three of these IDs to the polling place. That's just ludicrous. You can see for yourself here

I support state rights, which is why I cannot support this bill.

---

So you and your wife have never left the country? Even for a honeymoon? Because her passport should match her married name and would be proof of citizenship. If she was born in Texas, she can get a copy of her birth certificate sent to her by the state without even leaving the house. My wife went and got a name change on her SS card after our wedding and changed her passport and it took at most an hour or two of effort on her part in the mid-90s before you could do nearly all of it online. These barriers you are erecting in your mind are not nearly as insurmountable as you want to make them out to be.

---

I'm for voter ID, but here you highlight the problem with the SAVE ACT. Approximately 50-60% of Americans do not have a passport. Most people do not ever take a trip outside the US, especially the poorest portions of our population. Therefore, these people would need to spend the hour or two plus $165 for the passport in order to vote. Tying the ability to vote to a financial obligation limited to only a portion of the population, such as a poll-tax in violation of the 24th Amendment, and/or limiting the types of IDS that can be used is what the Supreme Court has traditionally found to be unlawful.

---

You don't have to have a passport, and any person born in Texas can get a free copy of their birth certificate that can be used to get a free election identification card, just by going to their local county clerk's office. You can order a copy of your birth record online for a very small fee and never have to leave the comfort of your desk chair. This is not an insurmountable burden. As was pointed out, people have already been required to provide proof of citizenship to get their Texas DLs for years now. Anybody with a Texas DL with a gold star on it has already had to provide the same proof being asked for to certify them to vote. People are making this sound very hard and it is not.

---

Again, you are proving the problem with the SAVE ACT. The SAVE ACT requires proof of citizenship, which may involve extra work/finances for some but not all. The REAL ID is a proxy but not proof and, as such, not acceptable. A person would have to take the time (as little or as much is needed) to get their birth certificate absent a passport. If the name on the birth cert does not match, the person would have to provide another court document to show why the document does not match (affidavit may be accepted but it is a crime on the receiver if it is false - i.e., who's going to want to face that chance?). So, who is likely to have their names not match their birth cert? It is most likely women. Now you have a de facto discriminatory law as it disproportionately affects women (mostly poor women).

---

Get a copy of marriage license, done. Women have already done this when they changed the name on their social security card after getting married. It's not like it's foreign to them.

---

Yes, but not as a condition to vote. Since men don't have to provide the same, the requirements may be found to be discriminatory against women.

The 2011 Texas Voter ID law was struck down as having a discriminatory effect because its list of acceptable IDs was too limited, it is was more expansive than the SAVE ACT.

I think the argument is that women, like people of color, have certain inherent or "systemic" disabilities that result in their failure to read maps and perform even the simplest of tasks like obtaining documentation required to vote, which they had to provide in most cases anyways to get their drivers license.

I agree with this argument and the simplest way is to limit voters to us citizens with an ID and SAT scores over 1050.

Mytash said:

---

Rex Racer said:

---

Mytash said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Mytash said:

---

txags92 said:

---

chrisocker said:

---

None of us should want a bill that takes rights away from states, especially when it comes to elections. But I further argue that this SAVE America Act is based on the false narrative of rampant voter fraud. There just isn't any credible data that voter fraud is a major issue. Heck, even the conservative think tank that is heritage.org shows a mere 1,620 instances of actual, proven fraud dating back to 1982. See for yourself here

The new version of the bill also says that states must share information with federal agencies. I don't know about you, but as a conservative I don't want my information flowing through federal agencies that have no business knowing my business.

Lastly, your TX drivers license or state issued ID is not enough to be able to vote since it does not share where you were born (and why would it!?), according to this bill. You will need a passport or some other [u]federal[/u] form of identification to be able to vote. I have to imagine the pain in the ass my wife would have to go through trying to whip up her birth certificate, which doesn't match her state ID due to taking my last name. So then she will also have to find or purchase a copy of our marriage license, then take all three of these IDs to the polling place. That's just ludicrous. You can see for yourself here

I support state rights, which is why I cannot support this bill.

---

So you and your wife have never left the country? Even for a honeymoon? Because her passport should match her married name and would be proof of citizenship. If she was born in Texas, she can get a copy of her birth certificate sent to her by the state without even leaving the house. My wife went and got a name change on her SS card after our wedding and changed her passport and it took at most an hour or two of effort on her part in the mid-90s before you could do nearly all of it online. These barriers you are erecting in your mind are not nearly as insurmountable as you want to make them out to be.

---

I'm for voter ID, but here you highlight the problem with the SAVE ACT. Approximately 50-60% of Americans do not have a passport. Most people do not ever take a trip outside the US, especially the poorest portions of our population. Therefore, these people would need to spend the hour or two plus $165 for the passport in order to vote. Tying the ability to vote to a financial obligation limited to only a portion of the population, such as a poll-tax in violation of the 24th Amendment, and/or limiting the types of IDS that can be used is what the Supreme Court has traditionally found to be unlawful.

---

You don't have to have a passport, and any person born in Texas can get a free copy of their birth certificate that can be used to get a free election identification card, just by going to their local county clerk's office. You can order a copy of your birth record online for a very small fee and never have to leave the comfort of your desk chair. This is not an insurmountable burden. As was pointed out, people have already been required to provide proof of citizenship to get their Texas DLs for years now. Anybody with a Texas DL with a gold star on it has already had to provide the same proof being asked for to certify them to vote. People are making this sound very hard and it is not.

---

Again, you are proving the problem with the SAVE ACT. The SAVE ACT requires proof of citizenship, which may involve extra work/finances for some but not all. The REAL ID is a proxy but not proof and, as such, not acceptable. A person would have to take the time (as little or as much is needed) to get their birth certificate absent a passport. If the name on the birth cert does not match, the person would have to provide another court document to show why the document does not match (affidavit may be accepted but it is a crime on the receiver if it is false - i.e., who's going to want to face that chance?). So, who is likely to have their names not match their birth cert? It is most likely women. Now you have a de facto discriminatory law as it disproportionately affects women (mostly poor women).

---

Get a copy of marriage license, done. Women have already done this when they changed the name on their social security card after getting married. It's not like it's foreign to them.

---

Yes, but not as a condition to vote. Since men don't have to provide the same, the requirements may be found to be discriminatory against women.

The 2011 Texas Voter ID law was struck down as having a discriminatory effect because its list of acceptable IDs was too limited, it is was more expansive than the SAVE ACT.

---

Do you have an accurate number on how many married women will actually be impacted?

Mytash said:

---

Rex Racer said:

---

Mytash said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Mytash said:

---

txags92 said:

---

chrisocker said:

---

None of us should want a bill that takes rights away from states, especially when it comes to elections. But I further argue that this SAVE America Act is based on the false narrative of rampant voter fraud. There just isn't any credible data that voter fraud is a major issue. Heck, even the conservative think tank that is heritage.org shows a mere 1,620 instances of actual, proven fraud dating back to 1982. See for yourself here

The new version of the bill also says that states must share information with federal agencies. I don't know about you, but as a conservative I don't want my information flowing through federal agencies that have no business knowing my business.

Lastly, your TX drivers license or state issued ID is not enough to be able to vote since it does not share where you were born (and why would it!?), according to this bill. You will need a passport or some other [u]federal[/u] form of identification to be able to vote. I have to imagine the pain in the ass my wife would have to go through trying to whip up her birth certificate, which doesn't match her state ID due to taking my last name. So then she will also have to find or purchase a copy of our marriage license, then take all three of these IDs to the polling place. That's just ludicrous. You can see for yourself here

I support state rights, which is why I cannot support this bill.

---

So you and your wife have never left the country? Even for a honeymoon? Because her passport should match her married name and would be proof of citizenship. If she was born in Texas, she can get a copy of her birth certificate sent to her by the state without even leaving the house. My wife went and got a name change on her SS card after our wedding and changed her passport and it took at most an hour or two of effort on her part in the mid-90s before you could do nearly all of it online. These barriers you are erecting in your mind are not nearly as insurmountable as you want to make them out to be.

---

I'm for voter ID, but here you highlight the problem with the SAVE ACT. Approximately 50-60% of Americans do not have a passport. Most people do not ever take a trip outside the US, especially the poorest portions of our population. Therefore, these people would need to spend the hour or two plus $165 for the passport in order to vote. Tying the ability to vote to a financial obligation limited to only a portion of the population, such as a poll-tax in violation of the 24th Amendment, and/or limiting the types of IDS that can be used is what the Supreme Court has traditionally found to be unlawful.

---

You don't have to have a passport, and any person born in Texas can get a free copy of their birth certificate that can be used to get a free election identification card, just by going to their local county clerk's office. You can order a copy of your birth record online for a very small fee and never have to leave the comfort of your desk chair. This is not an insurmountable burden. As was pointed out, people have already been required to provide proof of citizenship to get their Texas DLs for years now. Anybody with a Texas DL with a gold star on it has already had to provide the same proof being asked for to certify them to vote. People are making this sound very hard and it is not.

---

Again, you are proving the problem with the SAVE ACT. The SAVE ACT requires proof of citizenship, which may involve extra work/finances for some but not all. The REAL ID is a proxy but not proof and, as such, not acceptable. A person would have to take the time (as little or as much is needed) to get their birth certificate absent a passport. If the name on the birth cert does not match, the person would have to provide another court document to show why the document does not match (affidavit may be accepted but it is a crime on the receiver if it is false - i.e., who's going to want to face that chance?). So, who is likely to have their names not match their birth cert? It is most likely women. Now you have a de facto discriminatory law as it disproportionately affects women (mostly poor women).

---

Get a copy of marriage license, done. Women have already done this when they changed the name on their social security card after getting married. It's not like it's foreign to them.

---

Yes, but not as a condition to vote. Since men don't have to provide the same, the requirements may be found to be discriminatory against women.

The 2011 Texas Voter ID law was struck down as having a discriminatory effect because its list of acceptable IDs was too limited, it is was more expansive than the SAVE ACT.

---

A woman does not HAVE to change her last name, so how is it discriminatory?

Btw, in Texas, it could not possibly be easier.

And the name change applies to more than just woman. It's amazing how racist and sexist libs are in plain sight.

Their assumption is that name change only applies to married women, and this sexists.

Have they ever heard of adoption? I know abortions are their usual jam but people sometimes adopt children versus murder them.

What about gay married men? What about soy neck beard boys who take their wife's name?

How about people who change their name? What will let's say… Dan Patrick here in Texas do? He must be shaking about being disenfranchised if the SAVE Act passes.

The Hubs and I were married in Jamaica. I paid a small extra sum to have our marriage certificate expedited since I had been advised they can sometimes take months and months to get those certificates sent out.

A week after we returned from our honeymoon, I received the marriage certificate. Went to DMV to change my name on my DL, then sent my existing passport along with a certified copy of the marriage to update my passport. Went to the post office to pay a small fee for a new photo and then postage costs.

The only issue I might see is Texas common law marriage. Using the name but not formally married being registered with the county/state.

Still should not matter. Being married and changing your name really have nothing to do with one another, right?

I think people just assume you need a reason to legally change your name but I think it's just that you cannot do it with ill intent or whatever legal words would be appropriate.

I would imagine it may vary by state.

Right. But they don't have the RIGHT to vote. They are just allowed to do so.

They don't need a passport.

Stop with the leftist lies.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Still should not matter. Being married and changing your name really have nothing to do with one another, right?

I think people just assume you need a reason to legally change your name but I think it's just that you cannot do it with ill intent or whatever legal words would be appropriate.

I would imagine it may vary by state.

---

Name change petitions are easy unless a minor.

But the reason the SAVE Act is not discriminatory towards married women because they have a choice in whether or not they take their husband's name. When I married my first husband I did not change my name because I was years into practicing law and all of my licenses (two states) and certifications were in my maiden name, as was my reputation. First hubs didn't care one whit because he was also a lawyer and understood.

Now I was inactive and had no plans to go to back to the practice of law when I married The Hubs, so I did take his last name.

Mytash said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Mytash said:

---

txags92 said:

---

chrisocker said:

---

None of us should want a bill that takes rights away from states, especially when it comes to elections. But I further argue that this SAVE America Act is based on the false narrative of rampant voter fraud. There just isn't any credible data that voter fraud is a major issue. Heck, even the conservative think tank that is heritage.org shows a mere 1,620 instances of actual, proven fraud dating back to 1982. See for yourself here

The new version of the bill also says that states must share information with federal agencies. I don't know about you, but as a conservative I don't want my information flowing through federal agencies that have no business knowing my business.

Lastly, your TX drivers license or state issued ID is not enough to be able to vote since it does not share where you were born (and why would it!?), according to this bill. You will need a passport or some other [u]federal[/u] form of identification to be able to vote. I have to imagine the pain in the ass my wife would have to go through trying to whip up her birth certificate, which doesn't match her state ID due to taking my last name. So then she will also have to find or purchase a copy of our marriage license, then take all three of these IDs to the polling place. That's just ludicrous. You can see for yourself here

I support state rights, which is why I cannot support this bill.

---

So you and your wife have never left the country? Even for a honeymoon? Because her passport should match her married name and would be proof of citizenship. If she was born in Texas, she can get a copy of her birth certificate sent to her by the state without even leaving the house. My wife went and got a name change on her SS card after our wedding and changed her passport and it took at most an hour or two of effort on her part in the mid-90s before you could do nearly all of it online. These barriers you are erecting in your mind are not nearly as insurmountable as you want to make them out to be.

---

I'm for voter ID, but here you highlight the problem with the SAVE ACT. Approximately 50-60% of Americans do not have a passport. Most people do not ever take a trip outside the US, especially the poorest portions of our population. Therefore, these people would need to spend the hour or two plus $165 for the passport in order to vote. Tying the ability to vote to a financial obligation limited to only a portion of the population, such as a poll-tax in violation of the 24th Amendment, and/or limiting the types of IDS that can be used is what the Supreme Court has traditionally found to be unlawful.

---

You don't have to have a passport, and any person born in Texas can get a free copy of their birth certificate that can be used to get a free election identification card, just by going to their local county clerk's office. You can order a copy of your birth record online for a very small fee and never have to leave the comfort of your desk chair. This is not an insurmountable burden. As was pointed out, people have already been required to provide proof of citizenship to get their Texas DLs for years now. Anybody with a Texas DL with a gold star on it has already had to provide the same proof being asked for to certify them to vote. People are making this sound very hard and it is not.

---

Again, you are proving the problem with the SAVE ACT. The SAVE ACT requires proof of citizenship, which may involve extra work/finances for some but not all. The REAL ID is a proxy but not proof and, as such, not acceptable. A person would have to take the time (as little or as much is needed) to get their birth certificate absent a passport. If the name on the birth cert does not match, the person would have to provide another court document to show why the document does not match (affidavit may be accepted but it is a crime on the receiver if it is false - i.e., who's going to want to face that chance?). So, who is likely to have their names not match their birth cert? It is most likely women. Now you have a de facto discriminatory law as it disproportionately affects women (mostly poor women).

---

You Democrats want to continue to cheat. Always have an excuse for not proving you're a US citizen. You don't necessarily have to have a passport there's other ways. All our lives, we are asked true to provide items such as birth certificates, passports, pictures of our self, etc. if you went to college, you probably had to provide all this to get accepted. Most of y'all's excuses are bull***** You just don't want to have a voter ID so y'all continue to cheat a birth certificate in Texas cost about $22. not that big of financial burden is it

chrisocker said:

---

None of us should want a bill that takes rights away from states, especially when it comes to elections. But I further argue that this SAVE America Act is based on the false narrative of rampant voter fraud. There just isn't any credible data that voter fraud is a major issue. Heck, even the conservative think tank that is heritage.org shows a mere 1,620 instances of actual, proven fraud dating back to 1982. See for yourself here

The new version of the bill also says that states must share information with federal agencies. I don't know about you, but as a conservative I don't want my information flowing through federal agencies that have no business knowing my business.

Lastly, your TX drivers license or state issued ID is not enough to be able to vote since it does not share where you were born (and why would it!?), according to this bill. You will need a passport or some other [u]federal[/u] form of identification to be able to vote. I have to imagine the pain in the ass my wife would have to go through trying to whip up her birth certificate, which doesn't match her state ID due to taking my last name. So then she will also have to find or purchase a copy of our marriage license, then take all three of these IDs to the polling place. That's just ludicrous. You can see for yourself here

I support state rights, which is why I cannot support this bill.

---

a) It's hard to determine if there have been fraudulent votes cast when you don't check to see if the votes were cast by eligible voters, because you don't have data showing if the voters casting votes were eligible...

b) Texas complies with the Real ID law. You can't get your TX DL/ID without your birth certificate.


c) Yeah...we all believe you support "state rights"...

hth

DannyDuberstein said:

---

When you have an anonymous ballot and require no ID, you cannot prove fraud. Saying "they haven't found fraud" as an excise to not require ID is as moronic as it gets. I worry how some of you get thru life.

---

It would be analogous to a police department stating that they will not patrol a certain set of streets and then later declaring that absolutely NO ONE speeds on those streets...

flown-the-coop said:

---

Mytash said:

---

Rex Racer said:

---

Mytash said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Mytash said:

---

txags92 said:

---

chrisocker said:

---

None of us should want a bill that takes rights away from states, especially when it comes to elections. But I further argue that this SAVE America Act is based on the false narrative of rampant voter fraud. There just isn't any credible data that voter fraud is a major issue. Heck, even the conservative think tank that is heritage.org shows a mere 1,620 instances of actual, proven fraud dating back to 1982. See for yourself here

The new version of the bill also says that states must share information with federal agencies. I don't know about you, but as a conservative I don't want my information flowing through federal agencies that have no business knowing my business.

Lastly, your TX drivers license or state issued ID is not enough to be able to vote since it does not share where you were born (and why would it!?), according to this bill. You will need a passport or some other [u]federal[/u] form of identification to be able to vote. I have to imagine the pain in the ass my wife would have to go through trying to whip up her birth certificate, which doesn't match her state ID due to taking my last name. So then she will also have to find or purchase a copy of our marriage license, then take all three of these IDs to the polling place. That's just ludicrous. You can see for yourself here

I support state rights, which is why I cannot support this bill.

---

So you and your wife have never left the country? Even for a honeymoon? Because her passport should match her married name and would be proof of citizenship. If she was born in Texas, she can get a copy of her birth certificate sent to her by the state without even leaving the house. My wife went and got a name change on her SS card after our wedding and changed her passport and it took at most an hour or two of effort on her part in the mid-90s before you could do nearly all of it online. These barriers you are erecting in your mind are not nearly as insurmountable as you want to make them out to be.

---

I'm for voter ID, but here you highlight the problem with the SAVE ACT. Approximately 50-60% of Americans do not have a passport. Most people do not ever take a trip outside the US, especially the poorest portions of our population. Therefore, these people would need to spend the hour or two plus $165 for the passport in order to vote. Tying the ability to vote to a financial obligation limited to only a portion of the population, such as a poll-tax in violation of the 24th Amendment, and/or limiting the types of IDS that can be used is what the Supreme Court has traditionally found to be unlawful.

---

You don't have to have a passport, and any person born in Texas can get a free copy of their birth certificate that can be used to get a free election identification card, just by going to their local county clerk's office. You can order a copy of your birth record online for a very small fee and never have to leave the comfort of your desk chair. This is not an insurmountable burden. As was pointed out, people have already been required to provide proof of citizenship to get their Texas DLs for years now. Anybody with a Texas DL with a gold star on it has already had to provide the same proof being asked for to certify them to vote. People are making this sound very hard and it is not.

---

Again, you are proving the problem with the SAVE ACT. The SAVE ACT requires proof of citizenship, which may involve extra work/finances for some but not all. The REAL ID is a proxy but not proof and, as such, not acceptable. A person would have to take the time (as little or as much is needed) to get their birth certificate absent a passport. If the name on the birth cert does not match, the person would have to provide another court document to show why the document does not match (affidavit may be accepted but it is a crime on the receiver if it is false - i.e., who's going to want to face that chance?). So, who is likely to have their names not match their birth cert? It is most likely women. Now you have a de facto discriminatory law as it disproportionately affects women (mostly poor women).

---

Get a copy of marriage license, done. Women have already done this when they changed the name on their social security card after getting married. It's not like it's foreign to them.

---

Yes, but not as a condition to vote. Since men don't have to provide the same, the requirements may be found to be discriminatory against women.

The 2011 Texas Voter ID law was struck down as having a discriminatory effect because its list of acceptable IDs was too limited, it is was more expansive than the SAVE ACT.

---

Do you have an accurate number on how many married women will actually be impacted?

---

According to the DEMs 3 weeks ago it was 20 million women, then it was 50 million, by next week it will be 100 million, and then the week after that it will be 1 billion women. They gotta wait to get the talking point from the Grand Wizard of DEMs. Who knows who that is and where they get their stats...

Even these extremely poor people that they keep saying won't be able to vote have to show proof of citizenship to get on welfare, EBT or any government programs that are only available for citizens or people legally in the country..

Ramdiesel said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Mytash said:

---

Rex Racer said:

---

Mytash said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Mytash said:

---

txags92 said:

---

chrisocker said:

---

None of us should want a bill that takes rights away from states, especially when it comes to elections. But I further argue that this SAVE America Act is based on the false narrative of rampant voter fraud. There just isn't any credible data that voter fraud is a major issue. Heck, even the conservative think tank that is heritage.org shows a mere 1,620 instances of actual, proven fraud dating back to 1982. See for yourself here

The new version of the bill also says that states must share information with federal agencies. I don't know about you, but as a conservative I don't want my information flowing through federal agencies that have no business knowing my business.

Lastly, your TX drivers license or state issued ID is not enough to be able to vote since it does not share where you were born (and why would it!?), according to this bill. You will need a passport or some other [u]federal[/u] form of identification to be able to vote. I have to imagine the pain in the ass my wife would have to go through trying to whip up her birth certificate, which doesn't match her state ID due to taking my last name. So then she will also have to find or purchase a copy of our marriage license, then take all three of these IDs to the polling place. That's just ludicrous. You can see for yourself here

I support state rights, which is why I cannot support this bill.

---

So you and your wife have never left the country? Even for a honeymoon? Because her passport should match her married name and would be proof of citizenship. If she was born in Texas, she can get a copy of her birth certificate sent to her by the state without even leaving the house. My wife went and got a name change on her SS card after our wedding and changed her passport and it took at most an hour or two of effort on her part in the mid-90s before you could do nearly all of it online. These barriers you are erecting in your mind are not nearly as insurmountable as you want to make them out to be.

---

I'm for voter ID, but here you highlight the problem with the SAVE ACT. Approximately 50-60% of Americans do not have a passport. Most people do not ever take a trip outside the US, especially the poorest portions of our population. Therefore, these people would need to spend the hour or two plus $165 for the passport in order to vote. Tying the ability to vote to a financial obligation limited to only a portion of the population, such as a poll-tax in violation of the 24th Amendment, and/or limiting the types of IDS that can be used is what the Supreme Court has traditionally found to be unlawful.

---

You don't have to have a passport, and any person born in Texas can get a free copy of their birth certificate that can be used to get a free election identification card, just by going to their local county clerk's office. You can order a copy of your birth record online for a very small fee and never have to leave the comfort of your desk chair. This is not an insurmountable burden. As was pointed out, people have already been required to provide proof of citizenship to get their Texas DLs for years now. Anybody with a Texas DL with a gold star on it has already had to provide the same proof being asked for to certify them to vote. People are making this sound very hard and it is not.

---

Again, you are proving the problem with the SAVE ACT. The SAVE ACT requires proof of citizenship, which may involve extra work/finances for some but not all. The REAL ID is a proxy but not proof and, as such, not acceptable. A person would have to take the time (as little or as much is needed) to get their birth certificate absent a passport. If the name on the birth cert does not match, the person would have to provide another court document to show why the document does not match (affidavit may be accepted but it is a crime on the receiver if it is false - i.e., who's going to want to face that chance?). So, who is likely to have their names not match their birth cert? It is most likely women. Now you have a de facto discriminatory law as it disproportionately affects women (mostly poor women).

---

Get a copy of marriage license, done. Women have already done this when they changed the name on their social security card after getting married. It's not like it's foreign to them.

---

Yes, but not as a condition to vote. Since men don't have to provide the same, the requirements may be found to be discriminatory against women.

The 2011 Texas Voter ID law was struck down as having a discriminatory effect because its list of acceptable IDs was too limited, it is was more expansive than the SAVE ACT.

---

Do you have an accurate number on how many married women will actually be impacted?

---

According to the DEMs 3 weeks ago it was 20 million women, then it was 50 million, by next week it will be 100 million, and then the week after that it will be 1 billion women. They gotta wait to get the talking point from the Grand Wizard of DEMs. Who knows who that is and where they get their stats...

Even these extremely poor people that they keep saying won't be able to vote have to show proof of citizenship to get on welfare, EBT or any government programs that are only available for citizens or people legally in the country..

---

Dems learned statistics from the Gaza Health Ministry…

txags92 said:

---

Ramdiesel said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Mytash said:

---

Rex Racer said:

---

Mytash said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Mytash said:

---

txags92 said:

---

chrisocker said:

---

None of us should want a bill that takes rights away from states, especially when it comes to elections. But I further argue that this SAVE America Act is based on the false narrative of rampant voter fraud. There just isn't any credible data that voter fraud is a major issue. Heck, even the conservative think tank that is heritage.org shows a mere 1,620 instances of actual, proven fraud dating back to 1982. See for yourself here

The new version of the bill also says that states must share information with federal agencies. I don't know about you, but as a conservative I don't want my information flowing through federal agencies that have no business knowing my business.

Lastly, your TX drivers license or state issued ID is not enough to be able to vote since it does not share where you were born (and why would it!?), according to this bill. You will need a passport or some other [u]federal[/u] form of identification to be able to vote. I have to imagine the pain in the ass my wife would have to go through trying to whip up her birth certificate, which doesn't match her state ID due to taking my last name. So then she will also have to find or purchase a copy of our marriage license, then take all three of these IDs to the polling place. That's just ludicrous. You can see for yourself here

I support state rights, which is why I cannot support this bill.

---

So you and your wife have never left the country? Even for a honeymoon? Because her passport should match her married name and would be proof of citizenship. If she was born in Texas, she can get a copy of her birth certificate sent to her by the state without even leaving the house. My wife went and got a name change on her SS card after our wedding and changed her passport and it took at most an hour or two of effort on her part in the mid-90s before you could do nearly all of it online. These barriers you are erecting in your mind are not nearly as insurmountable as you want to make them out to be.

---

I'm for voter ID, but here you highlight the problem with the SAVE ACT. Approximately 50-60% of Americans do not have a passport. Most people do not ever take a trip outside the US, especially the poorest portions of our population. Therefore, these people would need to spend the hour or two plus $165 for the passport in order to vote. Tying the ability to vote to a financial obligation limited to only a portion of the population, such as a poll-tax in violation of the 24th Amendment, and/or limiting the types of IDS that can be used is what the Supreme Court has traditionally found to be unlawful.

---

You don't have to have a passport, and any person born in Texas can get a free copy of their birth certificate that can be used to get a free election identification card, just by going to their local county clerk's office. You can order a copy of your birth record online for a very small fee and never have to leave the comfort of your desk chair. This is not an insurmountable burden. As was pointed out, people have already been required to provide proof of citizenship to get their Texas DLs for years now. Anybody with a Texas DL with a gold star on it has already had to provide the same proof being asked for to certify them to vote. People are making this sound very hard and it is not.

---

Again, you are proving the problem with the SAVE ACT. The SAVE ACT requires proof of citizenship, which may involve extra work/finances for some but not all. The REAL ID is a proxy but not proof and, as such, not acceptable. A person would have to take the time (as little or as much is needed) to get their birth certificate absent a passport. If the name on the birth cert does not match, the person would have to provide another court document to show why the document does not match (affidavit may be accepted but it is a crime on the receiver if it is false - i.e., who's going to want to face that chance?). So, who is likely to have their names not match their birth cert? It is most likely women. Now you have a de facto discriminatory law as it disproportionately affects women (mostly poor women).

---

Get a copy of marriage license, done. Women have already done this when they changed the name on their social security card after getting married. It's not like it's foreign to them.

---

Yes, but not as a condition to vote. Since men don't have to provide the same, the requirements may be found to be discriminatory against women.

The 2011 Texas Voter ID law was struck down as having a discriminatory effect because its list of acceptable IDs was too limited, it is was more expansive than the SAVE ACT.

---

Do you have an accurate number on how many married women will actually be impacted?

---

According to the DEMs 3 weeks ago it was 20 million women, then it was 50 million, by next week it will be 100 million, and then the week after that it will be 1 billion women. They gotta wait to get the talking point from the Grand Wizard of DEMs. Who knows who that is and where they get their stats...

Even these extremely poor people that they keep saying won't be able to vote have to show proof of citizenship to get on welfare, EBT or any government programs that are only available for citizens or people legally in the country..

---

Dems learned statistics from the Gaza Health Ministry…

---

Yes, they like throwing out a bunch of BS numbers in the milliions for the shock and awe factor, and if they all say it with enough authority, they can will it to be true..