The SAVE act targets people who've changed their name *for any reason*. Ya know who's done that?

- Married women
- Trans & nonbinary folx
- Immigrants

You know which US citizens that leaves?

Mostly white men.

The SAVE act isn't trying to save anything other than patriarchy and fascism.

@amydiehl mstdn.social/@amydiehl/1160089โ€ฆ


SAVE Act would require birth cert or passport that matches voters legal name. 69M women may have a legal name that doesnโ€™t match their birth cert. An estimated 21M would be turned away at polls. This act is an attempt to disenfranchise women voters.
thepersistent.com/this-bill-inโ€ฆ
in reply to ็ ‚ๆผ ไบบ x ๐Ÿœ๏ธ

@sleepytako My wife and I both kept our names when we married (in academics it's a pita to prove authorship of something after a name change). We get confused looks regularly when people realize we have different last names. Most people are still living in the old world.
It also confuses people that our son has her last name. We did that mostly because her last name is far more interesting/unique than mine.
in reply to ๐Ÿ…ฐ๐Ÿ…ป๐Ÿ…ธ๐Ÿ…ฒ๐Ÿ…ด (๐ŸŒˆ๐Ÿฆ„)

@shansterable also (and while it shouldnโ€™t matter this might sway some folks) Catholic nuns, monks and priests - up to and including the Pope who often take new names when they take their vows.

(My aunt has been a Catholic nun for over 60 years - we in the family know her under one name. But her public name under which she has written books, led centers for the environment at universities and been a longtime lobbyist to Congress is her name she took when she took her vows)

The Lady (La Donna) reshared this.

in reply to ๐Ÿ…ฐ๐Ÿ…ป๐Ÿ…ธ๐Ÿ…ฒ๐Ÿ…ด (๐ŸŒˆ๐Ÿฆ„)

That also means the end to witness protection schemes.

How do you deal with an asylum seeker without papers? There is no birth certificate or passport to be found particularly in countries where civil society and the system of keeping of public records has broken down.

in reply to Eggs now in different baskets.

@the_wub People with new identities courtesy of witness protection get birth certificates for their new names.

Very few countries allow asylum-seekers to vote in national elections at all, regardless of how well-documented they are. If one becomes a US citizen, they get a certificate of naturalization, which is explicitly listed as acceptable proof of citizenship in the bill.

This proposed law is awful, but those two specific concerns arenโ€™t affected either way.

in reply to Zimmie

@bob_zim I have had a collection of experiences, related to the different way that the UK and most other European countries treat identity.

Some countries base your permission to stay on your birth certificate and others on the passport you present.

In my case the names on the two are not the same.

The UK demands that if you have two passports then the names on both must be identical.

But UK passports do not support accented characters found in other European alphabets.

in reply to Eggs now in different baskets.

@the_wub Yeah, the EU+UK situation is separately awful, since thereโ€™s no super-state authority you can directly be a citizen of (i.e, you canโ€™t be a citizen of the EU directly, only of a state within it). Instead, thereโ€™s a mess of individual states all with their own individual idiosyncrasies. Most allow non-resident citizens to vote. Some allow non-citizen residents to vote. Ridiculous, inconsistent documentation standards like the passport situation you mentioned. All based on imaginary lines on the ground.
in reply to Zimmie

@bob_zim Before Brexit happened if there had been an "EU passport" I would have applied for it immediately.

Identity is a pain in the neck. In the UK you can choose the name that appears on your passport.

In the Netherlands and Norway people are all registered in the People Registers. So you get the name that you are officially registered with when you apply for a passport.

The UK has a perculiar way of dealing with legal identity and has no central register for all people.

in reply to Eggs now in different baskets.

@the_wub Births are registered at the local level (county/parrish, below US state), but they confer citizenship at the federal level. The US federal government is the entity which issues passports and social security numbers (basically our national ID number for financial purposes). Driver licenses and most other non-passport IDs are managed by the US states. Depending on who is asking for identity and why, we may need a birth/naturalization certificate, passport, social security number, driver license/state ID number, or a paper utility bill (sometimes needed to prove residency for state and local elections).

US states run their own elections, so rules for voting are all over the place (which is why the USA doesnโ€™t meet the minimum standards for election monitoring by the Carter Center).

in reply to Zimmie

@bob_zim "SAVE Act would require birth cert or passport that matches voters legal name. "

So where and how is a person's "legal name" recorded?

In the UK there is the concept of "known as" which means that you can end up being called something other than is on your passport.

You can change the name on your passport without changing your legal name by deed poll to match it.

Not advisable as I found out trying to help a relative but I believe even now it is still possible.

in reply to Eggs now in different baskets.

in reply to Zimmie

@bob_zim We had a poll tax in the UK at the end of 1980s/early 1990s. Implicit in the law was that it would force people to remove themselves from the electoral roll in order to avoid paying the tax.

The only good that came out of it was that the opposition to the tax forced the resignation of Prime Minister Thatcher - an odious pro-Pinochet, neo-liberal, monetarist, Reaganite.

So maybe this tale gives some hope for you folks in the US.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_taxโ€ฆ

This entry was edited (3 hours ago)
in reply to Eggs now in different baskets.

@the_wub A lot of the US is heavily racist. After slavery was limited to prisoners, states used a variety of techniques to prevent Black people from voting. Poll taxes and poll tests (literacy tests, civics tests with biased answers) were favorites. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 explicitly made poll taxes illegal for federal elections. The Supreme Court of the United States also declared poll taxes unconstitutional in 1966.

Incidentally, the literacy tests are where the terms โ€œgrandfather clauseโ€ and โ€œgrandfathered inโ€ come from. Many states allowed a man to skip the literacy test and vote if his father or grandfather had voted before 1867, a date selected to exclude most Black men.

reshared this

in reply to yPhil

@yPhil there's already a law against being a criminal, that's what made them a criminal. There are also already laws against election tampering and fraud.

Two states let felons vote while in prison.

If they've "paid their dues", then most places (eventually) let them vote again anyway.

Blocking upwards of a third of the population from voting because it might stop a handful of "criminals" is fucking ridiculous. If we wanted to do *that* and have fewer false-positives, we could just block straight men from votingโ€”they make up ~93% of inmatesยนโ€”and that's with the fact that queer folx have arrest rates ~2.3ร— higher than straight peopleยฒ (because the system is fucking busted).

Also, your argument is bullshit.

ยน prisonpolicy.org/reports/beyonโ€ฆ

ยฒ prisonpolicy.org/blog/2021/03/โ€ฆ

@amydiehl

in reply to yPhil

I'm not your honey, nor did I say "only" anywhere in my post. I even included "mostly" just to head off diversionary comments like yours.

You seem to be putting words in my mouth while intentionally missing the point of my original post.

But maybe if you walk me through it in baby steps, using smaller words I'll understand, then we can engineer this thing together, sweetheart.

@amydiehl

This entry was edited (2 hours ago)
in reply to ๐Ÿ…ฐ๐Ÿ…ป๐Ÿ…ธ๐Ÿ…ฒ๐Ÿ…ด (๐ŸŒˆ๐Ÿฆ„)

Thank you for your kind answer, no srsly ; so OK (in retrospect baby steps can sound condescending, it's actually not but I'm sorry if it... Nahh, you understood) so OK, we're on the same page.

Name changing is a problem, in a society basically based upon it. I'm not talking social credit here, I'm talking basic secular rules. You are supposed to be able to ask about/search the registers/google the person in front of you and know who they are. Can we agree on that?

This entry was edited (1 hour ago)
in reply to ruivo

@ruivo I'm a US citizen, as were my parents, and their parents, going back about as long as there's been a US.

I didn't take my spouse's name when I got married, but my birth certificate doesn't match my state ID or passport. I legally changed my name shortly after I became an adult, so I could get rid of my dad's last name (and my first name, because it was dumb).

At the time, I didn't have enough money to pay to update it everywhere, so I just never did.

I have a valid state ID and passport (well, my state ID has a nonbinary gender marker on it, so who knows if it'll be honored outside of Washington state ๐Ÿคท๐Ÿผโ€โ™€๏ธ these days).

By the wording of the SAVE act, I don't think I'd be eligible to vote (for the first time since I turned 18).

@amydiehl

in reply to ๐Ÿ…ฐ๐Ÿ…ป๐Ÿ…ธ๐Ÿ…ฒ๐Ÿ…ด (๐ŸŒˆ๐Ÿฆ„)

I'm not defending it. Any kind of extra documentation asked will raise barriers. Even if you carry paperwork proving change it'll do exactly what they want: make it more difficult to vote for specific demographics. People forgetting to bring, not knowing, losing it, expired and so on. Just pointing out that first generation citizens (which I assume 'immigrants' meant there) aren't likely (again, not everyone) to be impacted as much.
in reply to ๐Ÿ…ฐ๐Ÿ…ป๐Ÿ…ธ๐Ÿ…ฒ๐Ÿ…ด (๐ŸŒˆ๐Ÿฆ„)

The "married women" thing may surprise some people who haven't worked out all the arithmetic on this yet. After all, aren't the right wing always obsessed with traditions such as women taking on their husband's family name?

The whole point is that they'd streamline the edits to the birth certificate along with marriage certificates, and then make the reverse change extremely difficult so as to interfere with divorce proceedings.

reshared this

in reply to ๐Ÿ…ฐ๐Ÿ…ป๐Ÿ…ธ๐Ÿ…ฒ๐Ÿ…ด (๐ŸŒˆ๐Ÿฆ„)

Clarence Thomas also made mention at some point last year that states should revert trans people's birth certificates to their deadnames/genders. So then it would be completely impossible nationwide for anyone to have a matching birth certificate.
โ‡ง