The SAVE Act passed the House on Feb. 11, 2026 by a vote of 218-213 and is now in the Senate awaiting a vote. Voting is expected to take place next week, according to Thune. If and when it passes the Senate, it will go to the president for a final signature.
Will SAVE Act Prevent Married Women from Registering to Vote?
Posted on February 28, 2025
Q: Is it true that under the SAVE Act married women will not be able to register to vote if their married name doesn’t match their birth certificate?
A: The proposed SAVE Act instructs states to establish a process for people whose legal name doesn’t match their birth certificate to provide additional documents. But voting rights advocates say that married women and others who have changed their names may face difficulty when registering because of the ambiguity in the bill over what documents may be accepted.
All scepticism of that claim aside, I'm not sure it has something to do with progressiveness, strictly speaking. It's a historical artifact, to be sure, but as far as I know, the laws and expectations on this have softened somewhat. My wife and I each kept ours, for instance, and nobody bats an eye.
It's a thing many people do anyway, because sharing a family name makes it more obvious that, well, you're a family, but even for that, there are alternatives that (in my social environment at least) are just as acceptable. My boss took his wife's, for instance. Double-names have been common for a long time now (several of my older teachers had them) and German law also allows you to come up with a new family name (even later on, doesn't have to be right when you get married).
The fact that it tends to be the man's name in hetero marriages is a relic of a society that thought of marriages as the women coming into the men's household, long before family names became a thing (as the other reply mentions). Whatever the origin of it, that patriarchal model no longer has any grounding in modern family patterns and no reason to keep existing.
However, a habit doesn't strictly have to be good or bad. In the case of names, their value depends in what they symbolise. In this case, it used to (and unfortunately in many places still does) represent that power dynamic of the man as head of the household. And it's that dynamic that would be the target of progressive efforts to break it up.
I won't say it's gone entirely, because it isn't, and there are plenty of places where it hasn't diminished much, if at all. But in some places, it has softened, and that is reflected in the way we treat family names: You're no longer required nor strongly expected to use the man's, and even if you do, that doesn't mean the woman has to be subordinate.
As a historical relic, the habit isn't progressive by definition, but if there is neither obligation nor implication of male dominant, it also isn't anti-progressive. It just is a thing people commonly do (but don't have to).
Of course, if it were used to selectively disenfranchise some voter demographics, that would give it a new and very much regressive meaning. In that case, the habit would be a bad thing again. I hope it doesn't come to that.