Why my head hurts: This exchange just happened Thursday on the Senate floor.
Cornyn: “I don’t understand how the SAVE Act disenfranchises voters.”
Durbin: “Happy to explain. Driver’s licenses don’t qualify under the bill. 50% of Americans don’t have passports.”
Cornyn: “Why not just amend it?”
Durbin: “When’s the last time the Senate actually amended a bill?”
Silence.
The SAVE Act requires passport-level documentation to register to vote.
50% of Americans don’t have a passport.
The people least likely to have passports: the elderly, the poor, rural Americans, young first-time voters.
The people most likely to have passports: wealthy Americans.
This is not voter protection. This is voter selection.
And when a senator suggested fixing it — his own colleague couldn’t name the last time the Senate amended anything.
That’s the Senate in 2026.
My thanks to Brian Allen
@allenanalysis
= new reply since forum marked as read
and non-travelers are smart. This is not the way to handle those who aren't. Snobby elitist point of view that divides us further.
One citizen = one vote.
Address the propaganda machine and all the other fascist mechanisms at work in this corrupt nation.
From what I have read, the certificate has to have an official seal on it to be accepted. Just like getting an official copy of your birth certificate, this takes time and costs money.
Ultimately, this is being done to disinfranchise married women who took their husband's last name at marriage and is designed specifically to suppress the vote before the midterm election. Getting rid of mail in voting and voting machines is also designed to suppress the vote by making it harder for the elderly and disabled people to vote due to having to stand in long lines. 
I also had to get one because I used to drive commercially and having one was required to renew my CDL for work. I had to order an official copy of my birth certificate, because the copy that the hospital sent home with my parents wasn't accepted as proof of citizenship.
What the Pukes are after is suppression of the vote, especially the votes of women, lower income people and the elderly who are lower income. It's specifically because those groups are more likely to vote for Democrats. 
One tiny spot of hope: this could end up biting harder on women who vote for the Pukes, because they are more likely to take their husband's last name at marriage. Women who vote for Democrats tend to be more educated and often keep their last names after marriage. I'm glad that I made that decision when I got married. I've been divorced for over 40 years and am glad that I didn't have to come up with the money for a lawyer and go to court to get my maiden name back. Sadly, many women won't be so lucky.
This is blatantly a poll tax on women. No man will have to provide any proof of citizenship about his last name because of either marriage or divorce.
After all, the "Founders" saw voting as something that only landed males should be able to do. We've evolved over time, but SCOTUS wants to kill all that progress. I would see this as a perfect case to cancel voting for everyone except men who own property... and knowing this group in this admin, they'd probably set a minimum $$$ amount of the property owned if you want to vote.
No way you can look at it without it being a Poll Tax, in my opinion... but I got a lot of opinions... and generally they don't jive with everyone else's. 
Fun dayn moyl zu Got's oyem. 
