Chart showing how Colorado Representatives voted on HR-22, the “Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility” (“SAVE”) Act. CD-3 Rep. Jeff Hurd voted “yes” on the Act, which will make it much harder for millions of married women to vote. All Colorado Democrats opposed the measure.
On April 10, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to pass the “Safeguard American Voter Eligibility” (SAVE) Act by a margin of 220-208. CD-3 Rep. Jeff Hurd (R) voted for the measure, essentially a voter suppression law that would make it vastly harder for married women and rural voters to register to vote or update their voter registrations. The bill was supposedly introduced supposedly to make it harder for non-citizens to vote, but there are already laws in place that prohibit non-citizens from voting and in reality, the problem of non-citizens voting is vanishingly rare. For example, a 2024 audit of voters in Georgia found that out of 20 million registered voters, only 20 non-citizens were registered to vote, and when they were found, they were purged from the voter rolls.
Republican House Rep. Jeffrey S. Hurd. CD-3, voted to make it harder for married women and rural residents to register to vote and to update their voter registrations
This bill requires Americans go in person to register and present “documentary proof of citizenship” that shows their birthplace, like a birth certificate or passport to register to vote. A driver’s license may not work, even if it is “Real ID” license, since it doesn’t show the location of birth. This means people who live in rural areas would have to travel for hours to go in person to their county clerks’ offices to present specific documents to register or update their voter registration. The SAVE Act also requires voters’ last names match the names on their birth certificates, an extra obstacle for married women who changed their last names when they got married, since they would need to show additional documentation of their name change, like a marriage certificate and court record documenting the name change, to register to vote or update their registration if they move to a new address.
In 2004 Arizona passed a ballot measure that did essentially the same thing. It ended up preventing about 35,000 eligible American voters from voting. It was challenged and ultimately struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2013 for conflicting with federal laws that were enacted to make voting easier.
The SAVE Act now goes to the Senate.
PS. All that is being required is proof of citizenship which proves the right you speak of. For the record, I wasn’t the one who characterized this as “jumping through hoops” originally.
There are lots of hoops we all have to jump through on a daily basis. This law is being characterized as “preventing married women from voting” to score political points. I’m pretty sure signs will show up on April 19, exclaiming “trump hates women!”
For some reason, the dems have never liked voter ID and routinely liken it to a poll tax.
Oh brother! It took me months to get a Colorado drivers license, even though I haven’t been without a license since I was 18. This had to do with the new “real ID” which was first made law after 911 and is finally being required by Colorado.
It was so much fun going down memory lane to find or send for my birth certificate, first marriage license, second marriage license and then being told not to smile when they took my picture.
The reason the Arizona law was ruled against in the Supreme Court is because it conflicted with federal law. But if the SAVE act passes…now it won’t.
So what do you think about this legislation? Do you think every woman is going to jump through all those hoops to vote? Do you think its possible that this act is intended to make it more difficult for women to vote?
I like the legislation. If women don’t want to jump through hoops, then voting probably isn’t that important to them and that’s their choice.
And no, I don’t think this is intended to make it hard for women to vote, but playing the victim card is always the go-to for the opposition…just like we heard for years how hard/impossible it was for “people of color” to get any form of identification.
Maybe if NGOs hadn’t made a career out of guiding illegal migrants into signing up for benefits not meant for them, there would be more trust…but now people are rightly skeptical and this is what we get.
But never fear, the law can always be tested in the courts.
If (gun owners) don’t want to jump through hoops, then (owning guns) probably isn’t that important to them and that’s their choice.
Do you still agree with this statement?
I’m not familiar with what hoops gun owners have to jump through. It seems reasonable that there should be some restrictions on gun ownership…always with the realization that those with ill intent can usually get a gun, regardless.
Why would you want to make people who have the legal right to vote “jump through hoops” that other legal voters don’t have to?
It actually may be true that every law that seeks to prevent something will adversely affect certain people.That’s
what lawsuits are for…for instance, the “stop and frisk” laws.
I’m very sorry about the married women issue but there’s a fix for that. Don’t change your name or keep your records handy.
The question I asked, and you dodged, was simple.
This is what you said:
“I like the legislation. If women don’t want to jump through hoops, then voting probably isn’t that important to them and that’s their choice.”
Why do you like it, and why should they have to “jump through hoops” you and I don’t?
As I said, I was reiterating what someone else said about “jumping through hoops” but that’s not important to you.
I have always favored voter ID and one that “insures” citizenship, is better still. You won’t agree but the influx of millions of illegal migrants is very troubling because there are many people who facilitate signing these people up for all kinds of benefits.
So that’s why I like it.
As far as making someone who is eligible do more than you or I do…what about the twenty one year old who has to show ID when she buys beer and she forgot her ID and has to forgo buying, as opposed to me who would laugh (and have) if someone asked me. So unfair!
As usual, you’re as spineless as you are disingenous.
We’re not talking about “illegals”, or underage people trying to buy beer.
We’re talking about women who are American citizens, that you deem unworthy of the same rights you have. I’m sure we can all guess why.
Meanwhile and ironically, Arizona is poised to remove fifty thousand non-citizens from voter rolls.
That’s the “vanishingly small” number of illegal registrations in just one state.
I wonder if this accounts for Arizona going democrat in recent years.