this post was submitted on 12 Feb 2026
734 points (99.7% liked)

politics

28262 readers
2835 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The GOP’s sweeping new anti-voting bill cleared the U.S. House Wednesday, setting up a high-stakes battle in the Senate.

The House voted 218-213 to pass the SAVE America Act, which experts have said could disenfranchise millions by requiring voters to show documentary proof of citizenship at registration and to provide photo ID when they cast ballots.

Republicans have argued for voter ID broadly, pointing out that there isn’t much to prevent a noncitizen from casting a ballot in a federal election — besides the fact that it’s a felony, easily caught, and would lead to deportation all for the chance to cast one out of hundreds of thousands of votes.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] LoafedBurrito@lemmy.world 40 points 2 days ago (7 children)

The GOP voted to take away the rights from almost every married woman in the country, think about that for a second and you'll understand why they even made the SAVE act.

They claim it's about immigrants, but it's truly about taking away the right to vote from people the GOP doesn't like. So if you aren't a rich, white, male, you cannot vote under GOP rule.

[–] Zink@programming.dev 8 points 2 days ago

I wonder how much of the push behind this is from asshole men worried that their kinder wife is secretly voting against the republicans.

[–] Garbagio@lemmy.zip 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I think what's funny is that if they did get that, they'd never win another election again. Literally the only pro-republican voting block is undereducated white men. If you locked out anyone who didn't have a passport, dems would have a supermajority across the country.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Washedupcynic@lemmy.ca 33 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Time for women everywhere to refuse to take their husband's surname when they get married.

[–] stopforgettingit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 23 points 2 days ago (1 children)

My friend changed her name socially, but not legally about 18 years back purely because she was too lazy to do all the paperwork it took to change your name. Now, her husband says it was one of the smartest choices she could have done and I agree.

[–] pineapplelover@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Why's it smart? I think I'm too stupid to understand

[–] FearMeAndDecay@literature.cafe 14 points 2 days ago (2 children)

When someone (traditionally a woman) changes her name when she gets married she has to change it with everything, including social security, which is a real pain in the ass. It also means that her “real name” is now different to the name on her birth certificate. So if she tries to use her birth certificate as proof of identity and citizenship, like for this other ID bill, it likely would be denied as proof bc the names don’t match. So she would probably have to get a passport if she doesn’t already have one. Except to get her passport she would probably also need to use her birth certificate or a whole bunch of other stuff. Basically, tho bill doesn’t explicitly say “we want to make it harder for women to vote” but it will cause issues for everyone and women will be disproportionally affected bc traditional women take their husband’s last names

[–] pineapplelover@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 2 days ago (1 children)

That's actually pretty terrifying. That means a significant portion of the women population will probably not vote.

I wonder how many republican women who take husband's last name compare with the portion of left leaning women who don't take husband's last name.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Washedupcynic@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Marriage certificates have the wife's maiden name, and then specify a space for a new surname, just in case someone changes the surname when they get married. I guess the point I am making is that there is a way over the hurdle as long as that info is on your marriage certificate.

[–] NikkiDimes@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

For sure, and standard legal name changes give you a certificate of name change, but it's another thing to pile onto the burden of proof for every step along the way. Shit adds up and becomes cumbersome quick.

[–] Typotyper@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 days ago

I'm guessing birth certificate has maiden name and proves citizenship.

Passport has today's name and does the same.

[–] bitjunkie@lemmy.world 12 points 2 days ago

This is a daylight robbery. Time to respond in kind.

[–] NotASharkInAManSuit@lemmy.world 49 points 3 days ago (12 children)

When the fuck do we just start killing politicians and billionaires? Seriously. Why are we still pretending like laws mean anything in this fucking country?

[–] JackFrostNCola@aussie.zone 25 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Imagine if all those school & mass shooters instead chose corrupt politicians and billionaires...

[–] minorkeys@lemmy.world 19 points 2 days ago

Luigi showed us the way.

[–] MarcPG@lemmy.zip 14 points 2 days ago

They most certainly killed a lot of people too. If not directly, then indirectly. Don’t see anything wrong with returning the favor

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 181 points 3 days ago (8 children)

This mandates government registration to access an essential right of a citizen in a democracy. Ask for the same thing for gun ownership though and the right would lose their minds.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 109 points 3 days ago (5 children)

What’s interesting, is that many of us already do register with the state governments.

Its goal isn’t to regulate voting. It’s to suppress it.

[–] JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 47 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (7 children)

Yep. Very easy to disenfranchise many people this way.

Particularly, anyone whose name or SAAB on their passport or birth certificate doesn't match their photo id. Anyone who works during DMV hours and can't take time off to renew an ID. Especially those who don't drive (and thus don't need a license).

So let's see, that's mainly women, genderqueer, and the working poor. Alright alright.

Who else?

I'm sure that a lot of the unhoused don't have easy access to their birth certificate or passport.

Anybody who cut ties with their parents and can't access this paperwork. So no strong family values.

Oh yeah. The millions of Americans who can't even dream of leaving the country who never even got a passport in the first place.

How is this not a poll tax?

And I'm gonna guess that this is going to make mail in voting more difficult? Or perhaps we will have to verify our ID with an app, this getting all of our info while also removing anonymity from voting, at a time when one party is not just hostile, but downright violent towards members of the other.

How about this...the republicans get to have a poll tax if the Democrats get to have a literacy test. If we are gonna make voting harder, lets make it harder for both sides. Deal?

Obviously that's quite tongue in cheek.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 40 points 3 days ago (2 children)

The goal here is to keep women from voting: the SAVE act very specifically requires that you

  • Prove citizenship
  • That you prove that the name on your citizenship document (eg: birth certificate) match your current name

Because women often change name when they get married, they'll have a mismatch, and need to spend time and money to be able to vote. If the legislation passes, it will block about 20 million Americans from voting. Because of gender disparities in voting, Republicans see this as to their advantage.

Give your Senators a call at 202-224-3121 and ask them to block this change.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] JeeBaiChow@lemmy.world 27 points 2 days ago

Well done american voters! And a special shoutout to all the sitouts who stood idly by and let a fascist child rapist in on their watch.

[–] Gates9@sh.itjust.works 97 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Last election several individuals committed voter AND election fraud. They were all Republicans.

Let’s see ‘em in the comments if you’re inclined to display them.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 81 points 3 days ago (20 children)

To everyone saying people needed to wait until the mid-terms to take action: Fuck You.

load more comments (20 replies)
[–] GutterRat42@lemmy.world 9 points 2 days ago

They need to eliminate the filibuster to pass this in the senate. It's dead on arrival.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago

Could?

Isn't this the intent?

[–] DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works 13 points 2 days ago

This season of House of Cards is thrilling!

grabs popcorn

oh wait, I'm living inside the tv show... 🫠

[–] kurmudgeon@lemmy.world 21 points 3 days ago (1 children)

GOP is scared. They know, short of gestapo-like tactics this November, their days are numbered.

[–] minorkeys@lemmy.world 24 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Sucks that they're capable of gestapo type tactics, then.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] SnarkoPolo@lemmy.world 23 points 3 days ago

Married women can't vote because the names don't match.

This will skate through the Senate. Elections in the USA won't mean shit after this.

[–] redwattlebird@lemmings.world 32 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Here we go. This is how they're going to further oppress the opposition and keep the regime in power. Anything to keep Trump from paying for his crimes.

[–] ameancow@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I'm still wondering if this is going to be another case of themselves shooting themselves in the dick.

Most major urban centers and areas with the most electoral value are populated by metropolitan people and immigrants who already are well-used to carrying their passports and copies of all their validating paperwork. I travel a lot and know a lot of immigrant families, they almost all always carry a passport as primary identification (especially right now) and have photocopies of their paperwork and related documents.

Meanwhile, across most of rural, white hicksville America, people often don't even have ID because they never left their town, and those who do may have their driver's license and not much else.

I am really unsure what the administration's plan is here. I figured they would have rolled out a voter ID law that actually helps them.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] JeeBaiChow@lemmy.world 9 points 2 days ago

The alternative was a woman! Of color!

/s for the fucking halfwits

[–] Bustedknuckles@lemmy.world 46 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

It's a disgusting attempt to disenfranchise millions of women and anyone else who changes their name, or doesn't have time/money for the hassle, but it's also only one prong of the attack. The name match requirement would be at the time of voter registration, so wouldn't affect current voters unless..... Massive swaths were purged from the voter rolls - this is a reason why the feds keep suing for voter roll information from states, and why red states have complied

[–] knobbysideup@sh.itjust.works 21 points 3 days ago (6 children)

And wtf can be used as "proof of citizenship"

[–] ameancow@lemmy.world 13 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Ironically, passports which most non-native-born Americans already own and keep updated constantly because they often travel in and out of the country to visit family and attend events.

It's projected this is going to hurt red states more than blue, since most midwest white-as-fuck Americans who never left their hometown and are scared of the whole world don't have a shred of identification past their driver's license.

Meanwhile, most immigrant families I know have their passports and copies of their birth certificates on-hand at all times.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] RagingRobot@lemmy.world 18 points 3 days ago

Some paper you lost 30 years ago

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] CubitOom@infosec.pub 44 points 3 days ago (13 children)

provide photo ID when they cast ballots.

Does this mean mail in voting is dead?

Also, the party of state's rights everyone.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 51 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The key requirement in it requires you to have ID with the same name as proof of citizenship. Because women frequently change their name when they get married, it means that they won't have matching documents, and won't be able to vote.

Call your Senators at 202-224-3121 and tell them to vote against it.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›