No.Nonsense.

Over the weekend, I commented on a meme on Facebook and started a protracted debate over the impending vote on the SAVE Act which requires proof of US citizenship in order to register to vote. In expressing my distaste for the act, I seemed to be in the minority of my Facebook friends, most of whom considered my lack of support for the bill as much ado about nothing. So let’s dive in and I’ll try to break down my reservations.

I’m going to preface my arguments by saying that I am an ardent supporter of being required to present identification when voting. If I have to show my ID to buy an adult beverage or get on a plane then I should be required to do so before I engage in our most sacred duty as a citizen of this country. To not have this requirement to ensure your identity seems ridiculous to me. And for states to argue against such a requirement raises the argument about potential voter fraud, an argument that should not exist. Our elections should be kept at the highest standards of integrity and voter ID is the way to make that happen.

So in saying this, why would I be against the SAVE Act that purports to prevent those who are not citizens, more specifically those who have crossed our borders illegally, from voting? The primary reason is because that law already exists. It is currently a violation of federal law for anyone who is not a citizen to vote in federal elections. Secondly, the incidences of someone who is not a citizen actually voting in a federal election is less than 3%. That means that a minimum of 97% of the votes cast are aboveboard. It’s not a problem that needs to be fixed. The old adage comes to mind that if you’re holding a hammer then everything looks like a nail.

But it’s not just the fact that another piece of paper in the annals of law is completely unnecessary, it’s specifically the documentation that is required that makes me bristle. Okay, yes, it’s when you register to vote that the documentation is required so conceivably it’s only once, but let’s delve further.

The primary argument points to married women who’ve changed their names. The argument I got on my meme comment was that it’s no big deal, just show the marriage license. Let me say that I have known quite a few women who chose not to change their names post-marriage, not because they are progressive women but because it’s such a pain in the backside to officially change their name. For me, it’s the fact that it’s the woman who has to jump through the hoops. It’s the woman who has to bring additional documentation. It’s the woman who has to go further to make it happen. Why? If the requirement is to show a birth certificate, why is the onus on the woman to prove her identity because her name is different than the one given her at birth? Is it because it’s just because that’s how it’s always been done? That’s not good enough for me. And what happens if she divorces and returns to her maiden name? She has to do it all over again. Good lord.

The other question arises in those who are not born on US soil but who are nevertheless US citizens. Whether born to parents who are citizens or adopted by citizens, either way, getting the necessary documents can be a huge barrier. For a child adopted within the US, upon adoption, their original birth certificate is sealed and replaced by a new one in the office of vital records. For foreign adoptions, however, the rules vary by state and can become murky in proving a child’s citizenship, often requiring going back to the adoption agency and hoping they are still in business. For children born on foreign soil to citizens, they must provide a certification of birth on foreign soil along with their certified birth certificate from the country in which they were born. As you can see, it can become a boondoggle of bureaucracy.

When I got my Real ID, it took me two tries and six months of waitlist. Why? Because the birth certificate I have used my entire life was not considered to be certified because it didn’t have a raised seal. I had to show multiple items to prove who I was and where I lived. It was insane. A final provision of the SAVE Act sets forth criminal penalties if an official registers someone to vote who does not provide the proper documentation. My question is if that penalty occurs if a mistake is made because the requirement is too cumbersome. What would have happened to the examiner if my first set of documents had mistakenly been accepted? When regulations become a barrier to our basic rights then we need to re-examine them.

While we want to ensure that the right to vote is protected and elections are secure, the tools are already there. We do not need more laws. Those on the right constantly decry virtue signaling while engaging in it themselves by trying to fix a problem that doesn’t exist. So, let’s move on and fix something that’s actually broken.