#H.R. 22

[ivygorgon]

An open letter to the U.S. House of Representatives

Vote NO on the SAVE Act!

8,228 so far! Help us get to 10,000 signers!

I am writing to express my strong opposition to H.R. 22, the so-called “Safeguard American Voter Eligibility” (SAVE) Act. While this bill is framed as a measure to combat voter fraud, it is, in reality, a voter suppression effort that creates unnecessary barriers to voting and disenfranchises millions of Americans.

The SAVE Act would require voters to present narrow forms of “documentary proof of citizenship,” such as a passport or birth certificate, to participate in federal elections. This would disproportionately harm:

- Up to 150 million Americans who do not have a passport.

- Approximately 69 million women citizens who do not have a birth certificate with their current legal name on it.

- Elderly Americans, who are the least likely to hold passports.

Additionally, in 7 states, less than one-third of citizens have a valid passport – Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and West Virginia.

The SAVE Act is a solution in search of a problem. Worse, it would erode the fundamental right to vote, silencing the voices of vulnerable communities under the guise of election security. Rather than advancing harmful legislation like the SAVE Act, Congress should focus on protecting and expanding voting rights by supporting measures such as the Freedom to Vote Act and the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.

One of the foundational values of our democracy is the idea that every person is entitled to a vote – a say in the direction of our nation. I urge you and your colleagues to work towards that founding ideal. Thanks.

▶ Created on February 6 by Jess Craven · 8,228 signers in the past 7 days

📱 Text SIGN PKFOYU to 50409 to sign!

🤯 Text FOLLOW JESSCRAVEN101 to 50409

[gallifreyriver]

H.R. 22: SAVE Act

This is a call to action for you to call your reps and tell them to vote NO on House Resolution 22, aka the SAVE Act.

So what is the SAVE Act and why is it bad?

The SAVE act would require documentary proof of citizenship (such as a birth certificate, drivers license, or passport) in person, to register to vote.

Not only would this prevent people from being able to register to vote by mail and eliminate the ability to register to vote online (a service 42 states rely on btw). But this would also heavily affect anyone who changed their name, such as trans individuals or anyone who changed their name when they got married, because for people who lack passports (which is about half of US Americans) any mismatch between your birth certificates and IDs would present problems with registration. [ X ]

Right now the bill has only been introduced to the House. Bills must be passed by both the House and Senate and then be signed by the President to become law.

We want this to die before it ever gets to the Senate, so please contact your Reps and tell them to vote NO House Resolution 22, aka the SAVE Act. I recommend using 5calls.org if the thought of a phone call makes you nervous. You just plug in your info and the issue you're concerned about and 5calls brings up your reps and their numbers as well as script you can use if you don't know what to say.

Faxzero.com also makes contacting your reps easy, by allowing you to send up to 5 free faxes a day! Just find your rep and write what you want them to be faxed (even if that involves just copying 5calls script, or telling your reps that if they don't vote NO on this bill then you will vote NO on them in their next primary.)

And don't underestimate the power of an email! Usa.gov is good resource to find your reps contact information, and democracy.io is a basic web site that makes it easier for people to send email to their representatives. Again, if you don't know what to say just copy the script from 5calls- or even a simple "Vote NO on House Resolution 22, aka the SAVE Act." is honestly fine.

Hell, do all three if you really want to send a message. The more feedback our reps receive the better.

I'll update this post later if the status of this bill changes, but for now get out there and contact your reps!

[martyr-mayhem]

[ivygorgon]

📨 An open letter to the U.S. House of Representatives

��� Vote NO on the SAVE Act!

✍️ 8,228 so far! Help us get to 10,000 signers!

This letter urges the House to reject H.R. 22, the "SAVE Act," arguing that it is a voter suppression bill disguised as election security. It highlights how requiring passports or birth certificates to vote would disproportionately disenfranchise millions, including women, elderly citizens, and those in states with low passport rates. Instead of restricting voting rights, the letter calls for strengthening democracy through the Freedom to Vote Act and the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.

📱 Text SIGN PKFOYU to 50409 to sign!

🤯 Text FOLLOW JESSCRAVEN101 to 50409

Took this from Instagram because this is urgent US folks.

You need to call and email your reps no matter if you live in a red or blue state. This cannot be allowed to pass.

It will prevent anyone who has ever changed their name from voting (including their last name)

[prodigalwitch]

Heads up, American women. They are trying to take our vote.

The bill H.R.22 has been introduced and it is currently being fast-tracked. The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act will require you to register in person from now on and with proof of citizenship documentation. You will now be required to provide your Driver's License and your Passport or Birth Certificate. The gotcha here is that you cannot register to vote if the documentation doesn't match- so, for example, if your birth certificate has your maiden name but your driver's license shows a married name, you'll not be able to register to vote without jumping through additional hoops (as to be determined by each state).

This will add significant barriers to voting for women, especially married women, poor women, rural women, disabled women and WOC, as updating/acquiring this type of paperwork costs money and time and is more accessible in some areas than others. They are using anti-immigration sentiments as a smokescreen for this legislation. Make no mistake, the only people who will be affected by this are American citizens. Non-citizens can't vote anyway. This only affects people who were able to vote before.

The main barriers here that will primarily affect women, especially already marginalized women:

Name matching: women who are married/divorced or who have changed their name for any reason

In-person meeting: Poor people, elderly, disabled, rural, isolated/abused women

Requiring Driver's License: Poor people, elderly, disabled

In general, requiring poll workers/DMV staff to check extra documents on or before election day will have a significant impact on poor and marginalized communities that are understaffed/under-resourced to fulfill these requests.

TDLR; the gov is attempting to make it significantly more difficult to vote if you are not a rich, white male. Bill H.R.22 will add significant barriers to voting for women, especially marginalized women. Please contact your House Representative and tell them that this bill cannot pass.

[greatrunner]

There's a woman on a radio show (the Carl Nelson show) talking about the SAVE Act and other legislation that the US govt is currently pushing to disenfranchise marginalized voters. She is stressed to say the least.

So, just as a reminder: The SAVE act, H.R 22, is a Republican footed bill that intends to disenfranchise voters whose names do not match the names on their birth certificates, passport, or ID.

Expect Democrats and progressives will also vote in favor of this bill. It's up for consideration, so the best thing you as a person can do is disseminate information about the bill's intentions, "call your representatives", check for dedicated numbers or petitions about this act and see if you can throw a wrench in the works.

Also, keep an eye on the SCREEN IT ACT - Another attempt to censor information online via a age verification system ah-la KOSA. This is also a Republican footed bill, but again, expect Democrats and progressives to vote in favor of this as well.

If your rights and freedom of movement is constantly under threat and used as a tool for negotiating, your are neither free or living in a just world.

[dragon-creates]

Credit: dannyphanton.exe on TikTok.

Quote from video caption “I urge you to go read H.R.22 for yourself. If this bill is unconstitutional, and unlawful, and it must be stopped.”

OG video

[pintadorartist]

Call The HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES to REJECT the SAVE ACT

TLDR: Bill US HR8281, the SAVE Act, is a bill that would require anyone registering to vote in federal elections to provide proof of citizenship, and if passed, could disenfranchise numerous eligible voters who can’t provide the proper documentation when filling out voter registration forms.

While last year it was killed under the Biden Administration and the Democrat-controlled Senate, Republicans this year now have control of the Hosue, Senate, and the Presidency (Although with a slim majority); there are plans by House Speaker Mike Johnson to reintroduce the SAVE act again

However, a specific date hasn't been selected, but I ask that you take some time to tell your Representatives and House leaders to vote no on the SAVE act.

CALL TOOLS:

Fax:

Find your rep:

Use the HOUSE.GOV website by going on there, entering your zip code, and you will find your rep's profile with a link to their website; then, you should be able to see their contact info; I recommend that you call their Washington phone number.

And that same contact page should also list their fax number.

I also recommend that you call the HOUSE Leadership as well

CALL Scripts:

Hello, Senator [Senator Name], my name is [YOUR NAME], and I am calling to express my strong opposition to H.R. 22, the so-called "SAVE" Act.

While this bill is framed as a measure to combat voter fraud, it is, in reality, a voter suppression effort that creates unnecessary barriers to voting and disenfranchises millions of Americans.

If passed, the SAVE ACT would affect:

Up to 150 million Americans who do not have a passport.

Approximately 69 million women citizens who do not have a birth certificate with their current legal name on it.

Elderly Americans are the least likely to hold passports.

One of the foundational values of our democracy is the idea that every person is entitled to a vote – a say in the direction of our nation.

Rather than advancing harmful legislation like the SAVE Act, I urge you and congress to focus on protecting and expanding voting rights by supporting measures such as the Freedom to Vote Act and the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.

Petitions:

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

A judical tide overwhelms Trump.

April 25, 2025

Robert B. Hubbell

The plague of fantasy orders signed by Trump in his first 100 days in office has collided with reality. Reality is winning—big time. On Thursday, Trump's executive orders were overwhelmed by a rising tide of judicial decisions.

Trump's executive orders should be viewed as a mixture of propaganda and photo opportunities. Although we should treat the orders as serious statements of Trump's intent, we must also recognize that they violate the Constitution and laws of the US at every level.

Executive orders CANNOT

-Amend, suspend, or ignore the Constitution; -Supersede statutes enacted by Congress; -Cancel or impound congressional appropriations; -Shutter agencies created by statute; -Use mass layoffs to incapacitate agencies established by Congress; or -Overrule judicial decisions.

Because every executive order signed by Trump violates (at least) one of the above prohibitions, federal judges have enjoined the implementation of Trump’s orders at a scalding pace. Bewildered Trump supporters complain that no president has ever encountered such widespread judicial constraint. Trump's supporters ignore the obvious explanation—that no other president has acted in such a lawless manner.

One hundred days into Trump's second term, the courts have emerged as an essential bulwark in the defense of democracy. It is, of course, their duty to do so, but it could have been otherwise. Even the Supreme Court has dipped its toe into the emerging tide of opposition to Trump. We can only hope that the justices will read the winds and tides to help navigate our nation back to the safe harbor of the rule of law.

Let’s take a look at some of the judicial decisions issued on Thursday that are slowing or reversing Trump's efforts to overturn the Constitution and circumvent the rule of law.

Multiple court decisions halt the implementation of Trump's executive orders.

Republicans are attempting to push the SAVE Act through the Senate. The SAVE Act would require proof of citizenship for newly registering or re-registering voters. Trump understands that the SAVE Act will be blocked in the Senate by the filibuster rule, so he issued an executive order attempting to implement the SAVE Act by presidential fiat.

On Thursday, a federal judge told Trump that the president has no role in federal elections. See Democracy Docket, Judge Halts Trump’s Anti-Voting Executive Order.

The case was brought by the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) against the Trump administration. The Complaint is here: LULAC v. Executive Office of President.

On Wednesday, the US district judge overseeing the case, Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, issued an order blocking implementation of Trump's executive order. In her ruling, Judge Kollar-Kotelly noted that the president has no constitutional or statutory role in the administration of elections:

Our Constitution entrusts Congress and the States—not the President—with the authority to regulate federal elections. Consistent with that allocation of power, Congress is currently debating legislation that would effect many of the changes the President purports to order. See SAVE Act, H.R. 22, 119th Cong. (2025). And no statutory delegation of authority to the Executive Branch permits the President to short-circuit Congress’s deliberative process by executive order.

Judge Kollar-Kotelly’s order is here: Memorandum Opinion | LULAC v. EOP | 4/24/25.

The 119-page opinion rests on a simple but powerful point: The Constitution grants power to regulate to the states and to Congress. Trump's bloviating executive orders are propaganda, nothing more.

To a similar effect, a trio of decisions held that Trump's executive order prohibiting public schools from teaching or using “DEI” is unconstitutional. A “Dear Colleague” letter sent to schools across the nation threatened to cut off federal funding to schools that taught or utilized “DEI” in their curricula or operations. See CNN Politics, Department of Education policy targeting DEI and other race-related school programs is likely unconstitutional, judge rules.

Three US District Court judges, two of whom were appointed by Trump, wrote in three separate cases that the “Dear Colleagues” letter sent by the Department of Education to schools across the nation (a) constituted “viewpoint discrimination” under the First Amendment, (b) violated the Fifth Amendment due process guarantee, or (c) violated the Administrative Procedures Act.

The three orders are set forth below:

Order | NEA v. Department of Education (D. N.H.)

Oral Ruling | NAACP v. Department of Education (D. D.C.)

Memorandum Opinion | American Federation of Teachers v Department of Education | (D. MD).

The judges relied on three different judicial approaches in enjoining the implementation of the threats in the Dear Colleague letter. The various judicial approaches are explained by the legal theories asserted and remedies sought by the plaintiffs.

The fact that three jurists arrived at the same conclusion via three legal pathways underscores the breathtaking substantive illegality and procedural impropriety of the administration’s ham-fisted tactics. Trump's executive orders are performative in nature, unmoored from presidential authority and constraints set forth in the Constitution.

In another loss for Trump, a federal judge in the Northern District of California ruled that Trump's executive order that attempted to defund “sanctuary cities” is unconstitutional. See Order Granting Injunction | San Francisco v. Trump (N.D. Cal.).

US District Judge William H. Orrick issued an emergency order preventing implementation of an executive order that withheld federal funds from so-called “sanctuary jurisdictions.” Judge Orrick issued an identical injunction against a similar order issued by Trump in 2017. Judge Orrick noted that his ruling in the 2017 case was upheld by the Ninth Circuit.

There were other legal developments (all bad for Trump), but losing five cases in a day is likely a record for any president in US history. You have to work hard to be so wrong that you lose cases at their inception, when the burden of proof is stacked against the plaintiffs.

Pressure mounts for law firms to resist Trump's hostile takeover attempt

There were several significant developments in the efforts to oppose Trump's assault on the independence and integrity of the legal profession. First, Lawyers Defending American Democracy (LDAD), published a statement calling on lawyers at top law firms to end their silence in the face of Trump's hostile takeover attempt. See LDAD, Elite Lawyers Must End Their Silence and Unite to Protect the Justice System.

Although 21 major firms have chosen to take a public stand against the administration’s assault on the legal profession, 170 of the 200 largest firms have remained silent. LDAD has called upon those 170 law firms to speak out and declare their fealty to the rule of law.

LDAD published an open letter to those 170 firms, warning them of the consequences of capitulating to Trump.

LDAD writes,

Your firm will forever be redefined. Your rival firms will point to you as a portrait of cowardice and ask how any client could trust you after succumbing to powerful interests without a fight. You will forever be joined with a small group of the most privileged firms in this country who betrayed the principles that lawyers and clients must be free to choose one another; that all people appearing in our courts are entitled to the best advocacy their counsel can offer; and that the rule of law requires lawyers and their firms to stand up for it, even when it is not in their own personal or financial interest. Reputations take decades to build and only one fateful decision to destroy.

A coalition of law students has joined the effort to stiffen the backbones of leaders at elite law firms. The leaders of the effort are asking current law students to refrain from working for law firms that have capitulated to Trump. See Law Student Firm Pledge.

The Law Student Firm Pledge reads, in part,

Our democracy is under attack, and it is time for lawyers to choose sides. As the future of the legal profession, who have committed to defending the rule of law, we cannot stand for capitulation to tyranny. [¶] The response from too many firms has been either silence or collaboration, with some of the most powerful law firms in the world committing to the elimination of diversity programs and openly agreeing to set amounts of money in pro bono work to support Trump's lawless agenda.

We, the undersigned, refuse to work for any firm that gives in to Trump administration demands regarding diversity, equity, and inclusion or the types of cases handled by the firm.

In another courageous action, a law firm in Tennessee has served public notice of its withdrawal from the Tennessee Bar Association (TBA) because of the TBA’s silence in the face of Trump's lawlessness. See Memphis Flyer, Memphis Law Firm Leaves Tennessee Bar Association for Its Silence on Trump.

The law firm, Donati Law, announced its resignation from the TBA in a letter that stated, in part, as follows:

It is with great sadness that we feel obligated to leave the TBA due to its refusal to take a stand consistent with the ideals of the Rule of Law and an independent judiciary in the face of extreme threats from the executive branch.

Kudos to Donati Law for serving as examples for other law firms.

Finally, fourteen Democratic representatives in the US House have sent letters to the Capitulating Law Firms asking for voluntary responses to pointed questions. See 4/24/25 Letters to Brad Karp (Paul Weiss) et al.

The letters make the point that the agreements may have violated multiple federal and state anti-bribery statutes as well as ethics rules of the New York and D.C. bar associations. Ouch, double ouch, and triple ouch!

Each of the firms that received the above letter must have notified its malpractice carrier of a potential claim, loss, or alleged illegal act. And insurers for large law firms are busily drafting exclusions from insurance coverage for future “deals” with the Trump administration.

It is truly breathtaking that a handful of the largest, most sophisticated firms in the nation have placed themselves in such jeopardy to protect marginal profitability. What were they thinking?

Trump's corruption on full display—and Republicans shrug their shoulders.

Republicans pursued the “Hunter Biden laptop” with unrelenting zeal because they believed that it might somehow show that Joe Biden attempted to profit from holding the office of the Vice President.

Donald Trump is openly auctioning off dinners with the President and VIP tours of the White House, and Republicans are nowhere to be found. To be clear, Trump is not selling access to the president for his campaign coffers or those of other Republicans. Trump is funneling the money into his personal bank account.

Here’s the scam: Trump has started a cryptocurrency. He owns the initial “coin” of the currency. Subsequent purchasers of the cryptocurrency are purchasing the coin directly from Trump. Trump is offering White House dinners and tours to those who make the largest purchases of Trump's cryptocurrency. See Mother Jones, Trump Crypto Coin Buyers Offered VIP Tour of White House.

At the very moment that Trump is selling access to the Office of the Presidency to the highest bidder, he has directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to begin an investigation of ActBlue, the major Democratic fundraising arm. See Democracy Docket, Trump Orders Probe Against Democratic Fundraising Platform ActBlue.

Trump falsely claims that ActBlue has illegally accepted contributions from foreign donors. But as explained in Democracy Docket, ActBlue discovered attempted contributions by foreign donors and blocked them:

The president left out the fact that ActBlue took actions in response to those detections. It caught and rejected fraudulent donations . . . [and] banned contributions made from foreign IP addresses using domestic prepaid cards, according to House Republicans.

As noted above, Trump's executive orders are a mixture of propaganda and photo opportunities. The investigation ordered by Trump in Thursday’s executive order is duplicative of existing congressional investigations into fundraising by ActBlue—investigations that have yet to discover any illegal conduct by ActBlue.

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[milkyfederation]

A bunch of alien concepts I will explore more at some point. Love designing aliens.

Most recent ones! (07/23) a eusocial skeksis / H.R. Geiger alien bred to fight and conquer. (02/23) Two Milky Federation citizen species.

(04/22) alien from an almost lightless planet. (02/22) A sauropod / land cetacean giant species. (12/21) a hairy slug alien.

Older ones. (07/21) radial symmetry alien (should have 6 eyes, woops). (03/21) Shark-like species, and the Space Freelancers' notary.

(03/22) And a bunch on non-intelligent domesticated aliens.

[prodigalwitch]

Suppressing Women's Votes - Information on the SAVE act

Republicans are currently pushing bill H.R.22 aka the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act. This bill will add significant barriers to voting for women, especially married women, poor women, rural women, disabled women, and WOC.

The bill will require US citizens to present additional documentation in person to prove citizenship in order to vote. The gotcha here is that you cannot register to vote if the documentation doesn't match- so, for example, if your birth certificate has your maiden name but your driver's license shows a married name, you'll not be able to register to vote without jumping through additional hoops (as to be determined by each state). This will add complexity to the entire voting system and indeed make it harder to vote/register to vote for a wide group of people. Women, especially married women, will be impacted on a broad scale.

From Newsweek:

Much of the documentation listed under the SAVE Act is based on having a birth certificate that matches the person registering to vote. However, as many as 69 million married women in the United States have changed their legal name since getting married, meaning their name does not match their birth certificate, according to the Center for American Progress... If a voter does not have a passport, which nearly 146 million people in the U.S. don't, it could be much more difficult for those who have changed their name to register to vote under the SAVE Act... The SAVE Act lists several types of documentation that would be accepted, including a form of identification issued consistent with the requirements of the REAL ID Act of 2005, a valid United States passport, valid military ID, forms of Tribal identification and proof of naturalization. Many of these forms of ID, other than a passport, either include a birth certificate or must be presented alongside a birth certificate.

According to Jonathan Diaz, director of voting advocacy and partnerships at Campaign Legal Center:

"If you have a government-issued photo ID that does not indicate U.S. citizenship, which is what most IDs are…you can only register if you have some other document, like a certified birth certificate or a hospital record or something else that shows that you were born in the United States, or a naturalization certificate.Most [married women who have changed their name] do not have a birth certificate or other kind of citizenship document with their current legal name on it. [Even if states] create [a] filing process to satisfy the bill, you would have to go to your elections office with your original birth certificate and your current ID, and maybe your marriage license and then some other form…from when you changed your name…and then all of a sudden you've got, like, four or five difficult to obtain and expensive to reproduce government documents that you have to provide in person just to register to vote."

If you're thinking, "well, I have a REAL ID/Passport/easily-accessible, matching birth certificate" Good for you! Millions of Americans do not. These documents can be difficult to locate, if they even exist, and are expensive to reproduce.

Glamour:

In fact, the bill would impact millions of eligible voters, including the estimated 21.3 million Americans who do not have ready access to a birth certificate or passport, as well as anyone who relies on voting by mail. Early research indicates that it would disproportionately impact voters of color and young voters.

But it would also have a direct impact on anyone whose legal name does not match the name on their birth certificate or passport, such as the 79% of heterosexual married women, per Pew Research, who take their spouse’s last name. “If a married woman hasn’t paid $130 to update her passport—assuming she has one, which only about half of Americans do—she may not be able to vote in the next election if the SAVE Act becomes law,” says Wendy Weiser, vice president for democracy at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law.

And it's not just married women. Millions of Americans do not have these documents. From Campaign Legal Center, in an analysis:

"More than 21 million Americans are unable to access the additional documents that would be required to register to vote under the SAVE Act. People of color, married people who have changed their names, as well as young and elderly people are more likely to have difficulty in accessing these documents…. We already have strict laws in place to protect the security of our elections. The right to vote is a basic American freedom, and our elected officials should be working to protect that right, not restrict it."

Another component of this is presenting the documents in person. I haven't seen many articles talking about this (even when I tried to specifically search for articles on this topic) but this will present significant barriers for disabled women, poor women, isolated/abused women, elderly women, and rural women. Physically going to a location with these documents is not always possible for immunocompromised, elderly, and/or disabled people. + Getting there presents an issue for people without a car or access to reliable public transportation.

This post is not meant to spread fear- the bill has not currently passed into law. There is still time to call your representatives and tell them to vote no on HR22. A great resource for this is 5calls.org. Physical letters, postcards, emails, etc. are another option. Be noisy! Be sure to mention that you are a voting-age constituent in their district.

[johaerys-writes]

Why aren't more people talking about this?

As of November 22, 2024, the bill has already passed the House. It is now headed to the Senate, where it could still be stopped.

If this bill passes, every non profit is in danger, not just the AO3. It would give the Trump administration the power to investigate, harass and ultimately dismantle any non profit organisation (including food shelters, news outlets, universities, and civil rights organisations) and to crack down big time on free speech.

It will basically let Trump target and silence any organisation he doesn't agree with.

There is still time to stop this, but things aren't looking good. If you're US based, contact your representatives ASAP.

[us-cj]

Democrat lies DEBUNKED

Democrats have been spreading LIES about the SAVE Act because they don't want to secure our elections.

Here are the FACTS:

Radical progressive Democrats took drastic steps to fundamentally remake America through open borders

and a full-scale assault on election integrity laws.

Rep. Chip Roy's SAVE Act (H.R.22) will address this by requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote in Federal elections to ensure the integrity of our elections. It amends the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) to require states to verify US citizenship when registering an individual to vote in federal elections, give states the tools to remove non-citizens from their voter rolls, and penalize officials that knowingly register non-citizens.

MYTH: "The SAVE Act would prohibit married women - or anyone who has changed their name - from voting."

FACT: This is fake news. Under the SAVE Act, those individuals (i.e. most) who have updated their documentary proof of citizenship (which can include things like a REAL ID, passport, or government-issued identification with their place of birth), no action is needed, and they can register to vote. For the small fraction of individuals who have not yet updated their documentation to reflect a name change, which most do immediately for other life purposes, the SAVE Act explicitly directs states to establish a process for them to register to vote irrespective of those discrepancies. Like other areas of the law, citizens will be able to use combinations of existing identification documents, certificates of birth from the state, and other similar documentation to demonstrate citizenship. No one will be left unable toregister to vote due to a name change.

MYTH: "The SAVE Act would require everyone to have a U.S. passport to register to vote."

FACT: The SAVE Act merely requires documentary proof of United States citizenship to register to vote. This is not just limited to passports, but can include: a REAL ID (in use in all 50 states now), a US military ID card together with paperwork showing place of birth was in the United States, and any valid government issued identification card issued by Federal, State, or Tribal government showing the applicants place of birth was in the U.S.

MYTH: "In federal elections, we have no evidence of illegals voting."

FACT: There is ample evidence of non-US citizens registering to vote. One 2014 study of the 2008 and 2010 elections found that non-citizens voted and likely impacted the outcome in several races. Virginia removed 1,481 voter registrations for "non-citizen status." In 2014, North Carolina conducted a study that found over 1,400 registered voters on its rolls appeared to be non-citizens. Numerous states and local jurisdictions are actively seeking to register non-citizens in their elections. One illegal ballot cast is one too many and can impact the outcome of tight elections.

MYTH: "The SAVE Act is unnecessary because it is already illegal for non-citizens to vote."

FACT: While only U.S, citizens can legally vote in Federal elections, the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) effectively stops states from checking citizenship during registration, preventing the law from being enforced. The SAVE Act is needed to require states to verify US citizenship when registering individuals to vote in federal elections,

give states the tools to remove non-citizens from their voter rolls, and penalize officials that register non-citizens.

MYTH: The SAVE Act will make it impossible for U.S. Servicemembers to vote if deployed aboard."

FACT: This bill does not amend the Uniformed Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) and leaves in

place existing procedures and safeguards for servicemembers abroad to vote absentee in federal elections.

MYTH: "The SAVE Act is unconstitutional and violates the principles of federalism."

FACT: The Elections Clause, the Naturalization Clause, and the 15*, 19*hi, 24*, and 26* amendments clearly give Congress the authority to enact the SAVE Act. The SAVE Act is a narrow bill that simply strengthens the law that has governed the federal voter registration process for 30 years - the NVRA - by requiring states to verify citizenship for registration in federal elections.

[vivaciouscynner]

A voter suppression bill passed in the house

you need to overwhelm them - please contact your senators to trash this bill

we cannot have this