NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Rep. Hillary Scholten, D-Mich., is claiming that under Republican-led voter integrity legislation, married women would find themselves unable to vote unless they were to change their birth certificate to match other government-issued ID.
“Nearly 70 million married women in this country have changed their last name, but their birth certificates don’t reflect that,” Scholten said at a press event, explaining her opposition to the SAVE America Act.
“In Michigan’s third district alone, 167,000 women could find themselves unable to register simply because when they got married, they didn’t change both their ID and their birth certificate.”
SCHUMER FACES BACKLASH AFTER CALLING SAVE ACT ‘JIM CROW’ DESPITE PREVIOUS ALLEGATION FALLING FLAT
However, under Michigan law, marriage isn’t listed as one of the reasons to correct a birth certificate.
According to the state’s Department of Health and Human Services, citizens may only change their birth certificate to correct a birth record, change a sex designation, correct a place of birth or amend a parental record.
Scholten, like many Democrats, has voiced opposition to the SAVE America Act — a bill that would require federal voter registrants to present government-issued photo ID to verify their citizenship.
The bill would also require a photo ID to vote.
HAKEEM JEFFRIES PRESSED ON DEMOCRAT OPPOSITION TO VOTER ID
In their view, the bill creates too many obstacles for voters to participate in federal elections.
“Republicans are trying to sell the SAVE Act as a way to stop non-citizens from voting, but we know that’s already illegal. What this bill really does is make it harder for citizens to vote, especially women,” Scholten said when the House considered an earlier version of the legislation last year.
Although the bill lists a birth certificate as one way voters can confirm their identity, it does not specify a last-name match requirement in the manner Scholten described.
Instead, voters can use “a certified birth certificate issued by a state in which the applicant was born … [that] includes the full name, date of birth and place of birth of the applicant” to supplement other forms of identification.
Among other forms of valid paperwork, voters can also display a passport, a REAL ID, or a military identification card to prove their citizenship.
A senior GOP staffer confirmed that the SAVE Act does not come with the requirements Scholten described.
“That is not right at all and simply another Democrat propaganda talking point,” the staffer said. “Every married woman should have their marriage license.”
The office of Rep. Keith Self, R-Texas, one of the many who has helped champion the SAVE Act, pointed to an analysis of the bill laid out by the Federalist Society, a conservative-leaning legal group.
“The SAVE Act itself contemplates these name changes and provides protections so that Americans who have changed their names — because of marriage or otherwise — are not prevented from voting,” the group’s page reads.
“The bipartisan federal Election Assistance Commission (EAC) is commanded by the SAVE Act to establish guidelines for states to accept supplementary documents — for instance, a marriage license — to prove citizenship when a voter’s birth certificate and current name do not match. Those on the Left who claim that the SAVE Act will disenfranchise millions of married women are simply wrong; they ought to read the bill’s text and see that it provides mechanisms to ensure that this does not happen.”
Rep. Lance Gooden, R-Texas, another advocate of the SAVE America Act, similarly noted that the bill specifically accounts for Scholten’s concerns and blasted her description of what the legislation aims to do.
“The bill directs states to create a process to address discrepancies with name changes. Claiming that the SAVE America Act disenfranchises married women is a fallacy intended to fearmonger women into opposing election security,” Gooden said.
Scholten’s office did not respond to a request for clarification on her statement.
Read the full article here
