this post was submitted on 24 Feb 2026
1112 points (98.9% liked)

Microblog Memes

10966 readers
2814 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

RULES:

  1. Your post must be a screen capture of a microblog-type post that includes the UI of the site it came from, preferably also including the avatar and username of the original poster. Including relevant comments made to the original post is encouraged.
  2. Your post, included comments, or your title/comment should include some kind of commentary or remark on the subject of the screen capture. Your title must include at least one word relevant to your post.
  3. You are encouraged to provide a link back to the source of your screen capture in the body of your post.
  4. Current politics and news are allowed, but discouraged. There MUST be some kind of human commentary/reaction included (either by the original poster or you). Just news articles or headlines will be deleted.
  5. Doctored posts/images and AI are allowed, but discouraged. You MUST indicate this in your post (even if you didn't originally know). If an image is found to be fabricated or edited in any way and it is not properly labeled, it will be deleted.
  6. Absolutely no NSFL content.
  7. Be nice. Don't take anything personally. Take political debates to the appropriate communities. Take personal disagreements & arguments to private messages.
  8. No advertising, brand promotion, or guerrilla marketing.

RELATED COMMUNITIES:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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?

By Hadleigh Zinsner

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.

FULL ANSWER

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] P1k1e@lemmy.world 2 points 42 minutes ago

How funny that they constantly provide more incentive to NOT get married

[–] Yeller_king@reddthat.com 8 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

I think it'll disenfranchise more Republicans than Democrats.

First, while women are generally Democrats, the married demographic is more right wing. Especially the ones who changed their names

Second, Dems will be way more motivated that Republicans and will be more willing to jump over a hurdle to vote.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 1 points 14 minutes ago

Second, Dems will be way more motivated that Republicans and will be more willing to jump over a hurdle to vote.

See I think that's not the case - although I agree more R women would be affected they're willing to take that hit to disenfranchise all the women who might vote Democratic that either aren't able to, or can't, or just don't want to get a ride to the DMV and get a special permission slip to vote which they used to be able to do with just their name.

I think they're banking on that taking a big bite out of D votes and I think they're right. Rs will vote in a bloc every time, and so reliably they can essentially burn everything down and still get those votes. Ds are way less organized. Which is how most of us prefer it.

[–] nightlily@leminal.space 11 points 3 hours ago

Cis women, trans people, and abuse victims. Their favourite targets.

[–] Lucky_777@lemmy.world 11 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

It won't stop married women from voting but it just creates a huge pain in the ass plus basically a poll tax. Since you'll have to pay for copies of your birth certificate, plus getting your marriage license, and of course an ID.

Unconstitutional, but this admin wipes it's ass with that document anyways.

[–] bingrazer@lemmy.world 6 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (2 children)

It may stop them from voting depending on the requirements surrounding the birth certificate. The format of certain features or seals are not consistent across the US. Local laws in one place may require something which is not done in the place a person was born. My mother deals with that frequently and I had some issues with that previously. Even of she purchased a replacement birth certificate it would still follow the "wrong" format.

[–] Lucky_777@lemmy.world 1 points 49 minutes ago

I could see this as a huge problem as well. Plus, you usually have to go in person to pick up those birth certificates. So you live in Florida but born in California. Now you're making a 2k mile trip to vote. I'm sure there are Mail alternatives, but that's just another barrier to add in.

[–] CascadianGiraffe@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

Yeah, I couldn't even get photo ID because the state I was born in used a "certificate of birth" and the state I was living in required a "birth certificate".

It took months to resolve the issue and I only got it fixed by doing a surprise 3 way phone call between offices in both states and had to listen to them argue about it for nearly 20mins. Even then I think I only got my ID because the person in my state was fed up and just wanted to go home for the day.

[–] MuskyMelon@lemmy.world 6 points 10 hours ago

Oh happy day when MAGA Karens learn this when they try to vote.

No ma'am, hyphenating your name isn't what's on your birth certificate.

[–] TemplaerDude@sh.itjust.works 25 points 19 hours ago (1 children)
[–] Xylian@lemmy.world 5 points 5 hours ago

and Patriarchy

[–] fibojoly@sh.itjust.works 39 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Does that mean Alabama women are safe?

[–] lobut@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 hour ago

(☞ ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)☞

[–] Cantaloupe877@lemmy.world 14 points 20 hours ago

Every day that passes, I hate these people more and more.

[–] IEatDaFeesh@lemmy.world 1 points 11 hours ago

They've managed to antagonize straight marriages, bravo. This is quite possibly the most effective way to get people to think twice before getting married.

[–] flandish@lemmy.world 12 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

why would a married name match a birth certificate name? or are they saying they only marry relatives? do women change birth certs when married? I am not a woman.

but funny story i adoped my stepson after his mom died. he was 14 or so. he was issued a new birth certificate and the “mother” area is … blank.

[–] mirshafie@europe.pub 10 points 20 hours ago

When you're married, you give up your voting privileges. Your husband will vote for you. Oh, he only gets one vote of course.

Also, if you're not married, you've clearly shown that you're not mature enough to vote. A public servant will be designated to vote on your behalf.

[–] myfunnyaccountname@lemmy.zip 18 points 1 day ago

Won’t matter when he cancels elections cause we are in multiple wars.

[–] ReluctantlyZen@ani.social 50 points 1 day ago (6 children)

Why on earth is a birth certificate used at all for identification?

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 44 points 1 day ago (17 children)

It's proof of citizenship. But also, here it's a convenient and plausibly deniable way to disenfranchise people who vote differently than them.

load more comments (17 replies)
[–] Doomsider@lemmy.world 2 points 18 hours ago

Long form or short form? Lol

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] confused_polarbear@slrpnk.net 5 points 20 hours ago

If I’m not married can I vote twice?

[–] altphoto@lemmy.today 4 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

So we're all getting two last names like Christian people of other countries? Because this is how you get two last names.

[–] matlag@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 hours ago

You'd better not change your last name at all when you marry.

[–] leopardpuncher@feddit.dk 62 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Seems to me that if your birth name and married name match, this will disproportionately favor people who marry their siblings or other relatives. I wonder what political leaning that particular segment has 🤔

[–] Quill7513@slrpnk.net 38 points 1 day ago (2 children)

while i get the joke, i just want to make sure it's clear to anyone coming across this understnds that women who elect to change their name in the merital tradition of erasure are more likely to be conservative, and the women who have the documents to prove their identity (like a passport) are more likely to be progressive.

all that said, the focus on how this will impact women, specifically, is frustrating because it's ignoring the biggest groups of people who will be impacted: immigrants and working poor people. we shouldn't tolerate the disenfranchisement of ~30% of women, so we are clear, but we are positioned to disenfranchise ~80% of immigrants and working poor and no one is talking about it. these are people who are less likely to have ANY of the acceptable documents proposed in the SAVE act.

for context, people experiencing poverty are far less likely to be born in a hospital and have a birth certificate, usually depending on a baptism certificate to establish their government name. meanwhile, immigrants may have a passport, but if it's expired that's unacceptable, and a lot of the nations around the world that issued the birth certificates being required by this law in place of a passport can no longer certify birth certificates simply because they aren't existing anymore. i have multiple friends who can't get their birth certificates right now because that would put them at risk of government retribution because they are asylum seekers. for example, my siberian neighbor isn't going to be getting in touch with the Russian government any time soon.

so in conclusion. the aim is to disenfranchise women and minorities. the majority of the women disenfranchised will be conservative. however, the majority of people disenfranchised will be progressive.

and that's no accident.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 11 points 1 day ago (13 children)

Does SAVE require documentary proof of citizenship to vote, or just to register? As I understand it, documentary proof of citizenship is the specific requirement that's hard for anyone who has had a change of name to meet short of a passport or an EDL in the 5 states that offer one.

[–] DrivebyHaiku@lemmy.ca 7 points 23 hours ago (7 children)

Basically it changes the types of id that are accepted at voting booths.

When you vote you already have to have registered with appropriate ID to be counted federally. When you show up at the poll this act will change so that only federally issued ID types will be valid. Birth certificates are the most common but if your current name is different than what you were born with for any reason it won't count.

Of these federal id types most of them are opt in varieties and as such are actually more expensive types of specific ID like passports and "REAL ID". A regular old drivers licence as issued by your state won't be good enough anymore even though your name and listed address were verified by the state and already match the name on the voter registration.

Since these id types are more expensive it can make voting the preserve of those who can afford the time and extra money making it a way to disenfranchise economically disadvantaged voters of all stripes .

[–] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

SAVE calls for "documentary proof of United States citizenship", which it defines in the act itself. A RealID that also verifies citizenship counts (normal RealID doesn't, and only 5 states that offer an "enhanced driver's license" do), so does a passport, a military ID combined with a record of service indicating you were born in the US, a federal, state, or tribal photo ID showing your place of birth was in the US or a federal, state or tribal photo ID combined with a birth or naturalization record.

Most people will fall in that last category. And most valid birth records explicitly require the record be of the same name. The big question I'm not sure of is if in all the small changes amended to the law by SAVE if documentary proof of United States Citizenship is required to vote or merely to register.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Bassman1805@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago

Proof of citizenship is already required to register, bringing proof to the voting booth is the extra hurdle this act brings.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 53 points 1 day ago (4 children)

20-30% of women keep their maiden name after marriage.

Liberal women are roughly twice as likely as conservative women to keep their maiden name.

So yeah, conservative women screwing themselves and also handing a minor edge to liberal women.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›