Missouri and Kansas married women could have a harder time voting if Trump’s SAVE Act passes 37%
By Jonathan Shorman0%
4/12/2026, 9:00:00 AM
Topics: Voting Rights, Election Security
BS Summary: This article contains 30 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Appeal to Authority, and Hasty Generalization, with Pessimism Bias as the most egregious example at 21.4% saturation with 291 hits. Analysis detected 2,278 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,357 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 43.3% and a BS Rank of 37% (13,956 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 63.80% of the article peer group.
Millions of women could face new challenges to voting under President Donald Trump’s SAVE America Act, which would require voters to prove their citizenship before casting a ballot.
The federal legislation would mandate that most Americans show a birth certificate or passport to register to vote.
But people with names that don’t match their birth certificate in some instances could have to produce additional documents like a marriage certificate or divorce decree linking their past and current identities.
The proposal holds potentially outsized consequences for millions of married and divorced women, transgender individuals and others who have changed their names.
As many as 69 million American women have birth certificates that don’t match their current name, according to an analysis by the liberal Center for American Progress.
“The fact that the majority of women upon marriage do change their name already means that this is going to be completely unequal in how the law is applied,” said Letitia Harmon, senior director of policy and research at Florida Rising, a racial and economic justice nonprofit.
Harmon, 43, has personal experience with the issue because of state proof-of-citizenship laws, which have become more common in recent years.
The Florida resident used to live in Kansas, which required individuals to show documents like a birth certificate or passport to register to vote until federal courts struck down the law as unconstitutional.
Ahead of the 2014 election, Harmon was unable to locate her birth certificate before the registration deadline and couldn’t vote.
More recently, Florida, Mississippi, South Dakota and Utah have all enacted proof-of-citizenship measures this year, in addition to Wyoming in 2025.
Florida Republican Gov.
Ron DeSantis signed the Florida SAVE Act last week.
A dozen years later, Harmon worries she could again face additional hurdles to voting — this time because of multiple name changes.
Harmon, who changed her name when she married but later divorced and changed it back, voiced concern that if election officials ever check her registration, it will be flagged.
“It’s heartbreaking and it’s infuriating.
It feels like we’re going backwards,” Harmon said.
Debate in D.C.
In Washington, the U.S.
Senate has been debating the SAVE America Act, Trump’s signature elections initiative, after a version of the legislation passed the House.
The bill doesn’t appear to have enough support to survive a filibuster, but Trump and his allies have pressured senators to end the filibuster to pass it before the midterm elections.
Supporters of the bill describe it as an election integrity measure and say it’s necessary to prevent noncitizen voting, though studies have shown that’s extremely rare.
The measure reflects a long-running effort by Trump to assert more federal control over elections that includes a campaign by the Department of Justice to obtain sensitive state voter data and an executive order signed last week restricting mail-in voting.
Opponents condemn the legislation as unneeded and poorly drafted.
If enacted, the bill would take immediate effect, throwing the election process into chaos in a midterm election year as millions of people registering to vote attempt to prove their citizenship.
The new requirements would risk disenfranchising American voters struggling to obtain the documents they need in time.
Disproportionate effect on married women
Critics have especially focused on the disproportionate effect the legislation could have on women.
Eighty-four percent of women in opposite-sex marriages take either their husband’s last name or hyphenate their name, according to a 2023 Pew Research Center survey.
By contrast, less than 6% of men took their wife’s last name or hyphenated their name.
“Given that 85% of American women change their name when they get married, the impact on women is going to be huge and it’s going to be very problematic,” Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, a Democrat, said in a February interview.
The House-passed version of the bill says that when individuals applying to register have names that don’t match the name on their proof-of-citizenship documents, they could provide “additional documentation as necessary to establish that the name on the documentation is a previous name of the applicant” or sign an affidavit affirming that the name on the documents is their previous name.
According to the bill, each state would establish a process to carry out this provision, in line with guidance from the federal Election Assistance Commission, a bipartisan independent commission that aids election officials.
Affidavit provision unclear
Some election and legal experts have said the affidavit provision is unclear.
It comes immediately before another provision that allows individuals without proof-of-citizenship documentation to register if they sign an attestation that they are a citizen and an election official signs an affidavit saying the person has sufficiently established citizenship.
The Election Assistance Commission would create a uniform affidavit for use in that situation.
“Who knows what sort of process they’ll say,” said Alison Gill, director of nominations and democracy at the National Women’s Law Center, a progressive legal advocacy group.
“So there is language there, but it’s still very vague and conflictual.”
Because states would be responsible for setting procedures to vet those with different names on their documents, Gill said some states would probably try to make the process easier than others.
But election officials would likely err on the side of strict enforcement because they could be prosecuted for registering individuals who don’t provide citizenship documents.
“Ultimately, this puts the burden on election officials, who face criminal and civil liability under the bill, potentially to decide whether to risk registering a person with mismatching documents,” Gill said.
‘Frankly insulting’
White House officials and some congressional Republicans have denied that individuals who change their name would face greater difficulty registering to vote.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in March that there was “zero validity” to claims that the legislation would stop women from voting or make it harder for them to vote.
Married women who have changed their name and are already registered to vote would be unaffected by the legislation, Leavitt said.
She added that for the “small fraction” of individuals who go on to change their name or their address, they would have to go through their state’s process to update their documentation.
“I think it’s frankly insulting that the Democrats are saying that there are certain groups of people in this country who aren’t smart enough to update their documentation to allow them to vote,” Leavitt said.
But Alaska Republican Sen.
Lisa Murkowski has raised concerns about how the SAVE America Act would affect married women.
Murkowski, who opposes the bill, said in a floor speech that an estimated 155,000 female citizens in Alaska age 15 and older have names that don’t match their birth certificates.
“Again, is it impossible?
No,” Murkowski said.
“Is it going to be really challenging?
Absolutely, yes.”
Lawsuits ensured
The SAVE America Act would almost certainly face legal challenges if it became law and the Supreme Court would come under immense pressure to weigh in because of the sweeping, nationwide changes in the legislation.
Some federal courts have ruled against proof-of-citizenship voter registration requirements.
In 2020, the 10th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Kansas’ law, finding that it violated federal voting laws as well as the Constitution’s equal protection clause.
The Supreme Court at the time declined to take the Kansas case.
The provisions on name changes alone could face their own legal challenges.
Tracy Thomas, a constitutional law professor at the University of Akron School of Law in Ohio, said opponents could argue the bill’s impact on people who change their name amounts to voting discrimination in violation of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law.
Courts have affirmed some election restrictions, like requirements to show a photo ID at the polls, as acceptable rules that don’t overly burden voters.
However, Thomas suggested the SAVE America Act may go too far if it delays people from registering, requires multiple steps and forces them to pay for needed documents.
“That starts to sound like more than minimal inconvenience,” Thomas said.
This article originally published in The Missouri Independent.
Speakers
7speakers32%attributed speech925writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Selected voice
100%flagged-word coverageShenna Bellows
42 attributed words9.7% of attributed speech77% writer coverage
Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Analysis
Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.