The debate over the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, or SAVE Act, has been framed by the left as a dire threat to voting rights, yet the evidence suggests it is a modest, common-sense requirement that responsible adults can easily meet.
According to Western Journal, critics insist that the SAVE Act would impose undue burdens on Americans by requiring documentation to prove citizenship before voting in federal elections. Progressive activists and Democratic politicians have leaned heavily on the familiar narrative that minorities, the poor, and other marginalized groups supposedly lack the ability or resources to obtain basic identification, a claim that manages to be both patronizing and politically convenient.
The argument has not evolved much from the old, condescending trope that minorities are somehow incapable of navigating the same bureaucratic processes everyone else uses to drive, work, bank, travel, or receive government benefits. As the original writer dryly observed, Im low-key surprised theyre still spamming the hey black people, youre too dumb to get a state ID, vote Democrat and well make sure you dont have to argument, and Im also surprised Im still surprised.
Opponents of the SAVE Act now insist that if a voter cannot immediately locate a birth certificate, a Social Security card, or proof of a name change, that citizen is effectively disenfranchised. The rhetoric is stark and melodramatic: If you dont know where your birth certificate is? No vote for you. Changed your name after your marriage? No vote for you. Lost your Social Security card? No vote for you.
To test how realistic these horror stories actually are, one editor at the conservative site Twitchy, writing under the pseudonym The Foo, decided to see how difficult it would be to obtain the necessary documents. While her experience is anecdotal and, as she acknowledged, your mileage may vary, it offers a useful snapshot of what the process looks like for ordinary Americans.
She began with the most fundamental record, her birth certificate, and contacted the health department in the county where she was born. Contacted the health department of the county where I was born. They OVERNIGHTED a certified copy to me the next day total cost, $14.
Next came the Social Security card, which critics of voter ID laws often portray as a bureaucratic nightmare to replace. Contacted Social Security on their site. They asked if I was sure I needed the card, since I wont likely be asked for it. I went ahead and got it took five business days to arrive total cost, $0.
The left has also warned that married women who changed their names are especially vulnerable under stricter voter verification rules, as if marriage certificates were rare artifacts locked in some distant vault. Yet The Foo found that this, too, was a straightforward process: Went to the vital docs site of the county where we were hitched. Filled everything out online, arrived in three days total cost, $5.
Her conclusion was blunt and undermines the narrative of insurmountable barriers. It cost less than $20 to obtain all three certified/legal documents, and it took less than five business days to receive them, she wrote, adding if I had lived where I was born or married, it would have been a day. Tops.
Even if her experience represents a relatively efficient case, it is far closer to reality than the apocalyptic scenarios Democrats are selling to the public. The notion that Americans are being asked to perform herculean feats to secure basic documents simply does not withstand scrutiny in an era of online forms, overnight shipping, and standardized procedures.
As USA Today has explained in its own explainer, the process for obtaining vital records does vary somewhat from state to state and county to county. However, the basic steps are consistent: contact the vital records office in the state where you were born and follow the established methods for requesting a certified copy.
Typically, applicants must provide their birth name, date and place of birth, and their parents full legal names, along with a valid photo ID. If a person has changed his or her name through marriage or other legal means, documentation of that change is also required, which is hardly an unreasonable expectation in a country that depends on accurate records for everything from banking to national security.
Marriage certificates are obtained through a similar process, usually by contacting the states vital records department or the county office where the marriage was recorded. Many jurisdictions now provide online portals that allow residents to request certified copies without ever setting foot in a government building.
The Social Security Administration, for its part, requires a birth certificate and either a state-issued ID or a passport to issue a replacement card. However, the agency explicitly notes that [i]f you do not have one of these specific documents or you cannot get a replacement for one of them within 10 days, we will ask to see other documents such as an employee or school identification card or a health insurance card, and replacement cards can be requested online in many cases.
To further streamline the process, numerous counties and states now partner with VitalChek, an official government-authorized service that allows citizens to order certified copies of vital records online. This kind of public-private cooperation reflects a basic conservative principle: government functions can be made more efficient when they embrace modern tools and market-based solutions.
In practical terms, there is almost always a workable path to obtaining the necessary documents, and it rarely involves extraordinary effort. Agencies routinely accept alternative forms of documentation when primary records are temporarily unavailable, undermining the claim that voters will be locked out of the system over minor paperwork issues.
The author of the original piece even conducted his own informal check of the process in his home jurisdictions. For $15, he found he could obtain a certified copy of his birth certificate by mail using a simple form, a daytime phone number, and a photo copy of a photo ID OR two (2) other forms of non-photo ID of the person making the request . (An example is a phone bill or bank statement.).
The only real inconvenience was the method of payment, which had to be by check or money order. Morristown, New Jersey is apparently very analogue, he quipped, highlighting that the biggest obstacle was not systemic oppression but outdated payment preferences.
New York City, where he was married, offered a similarly straightforward process for a marriage record. Residents can download a request for marriage record along with a copy of valid identification on the form, with the biggest annoyance again being the requirement of a money order and a cost of $15.
The Social Security process, as he noted, is standardized nationwide and mirrors what The Foo experienced. For those who truly lack any state ID and are starting from scratch, a state identification card in New Jersey runs about $24, a modest one-time expense for a document that is indispensable in modern life.
Moreover, some states provide additional flexibility for those who lack traditional identification. As USA Today points out, certain jurisdictions allow applicants to submit a sworn statement of identity or a notarized letter and a copy of a parents photo ID (from a parent listed on the birth certificate), ensuring that even those with unusual circumstances are not left without options.
When all of these costs are added together, the total outlay for someone who has somehow misplaced every vital document is still relatively modest. But the most I am out is $54 for documents you should probably have as an American, the writer observed, noting that he personally already possesses a state drivers license, passport, Social Security card, two copies of his birth certificate, and his marriage certificate.
He contrasted the ease of holding onto vital records with the many valuable items he has lost over the years. For context, Ive lost, in the course of my lifetime: a laptop, a Ricky Henderson rookie card, an entire video game system and its game library now worth thousands because of its rarity (the TurboGrafx-16 with Super-CD drive and Japanese game converter, for our mega-geeky audience), several sets of car keys, virtually every textbook I ever had in high school, an iPhone, two iPods back when those were really things, and a Nespresso machine.
The anecdote about the missing coffee maker underscores the point that even absent-minded people can manage to safeguard a few critical documents. Like, literally, the whole machine. Its huge and I put it aside one day to clean the kitchen, one thing led to another, and its gone. I didnt even like, move or anything, or have anyone in the house who could or would steal it. Poof. Brewed coffee for me.
Yet despite this history of misplacing expensive items, he still has his essential paperwork. But I have my vital documents because theyre vital in more ways than one something you should know, dummy. Alas, if you didnt, they make it easy for you to get them. States will likely make it more streamlined if the SAVE Act passes to facilitate morons who cant keep them.
This is the broader context in which Democrats are warning that the SAVE Act will literally strip Americans of their right to vote. The scare tactics rest on the assumption that basic adult responsibilities like knowing where your birth certificate is or being willing to spend a modest fee to replace it are too much to ask in exchange for participating in the most important civic act in a constitutional republic.
The reality is that there are, at most, three rough scenarios for how burdensome this process might be, even in the worst cases. So basically, there are three different versions of what this would take in the worst-case scenario: Again: Your mileage will vary, but Im going with one of the first two.
For conservatives, the core issue is not whether government should make it impossible to vote it should not but whether the integrity of elections is worth minimal, reasonable safeguards that every responsible citizen can meet. The SAVE Acts requirement that voters prove they are actually American citizens before casting ballots in federal elections is not radical; it is a basic protection for self-government, especially at a time when illegal immigration is at historic levels and the political left is increasingly hostile to any form of verification.
Rather than treating minority and low-income voters as helpless wards of the state, a serious policy debate would acknowledge their agency and capacity to navigate the same systems everyone else uses. If anything, the evidence from real-world experiences, from The Foo to the authors own checks, shows that states and federal agencies already provide multiple avenues to obtain vital records, and they can be further streamlined if Congress decides to tighten voter eligibility rules.
The question, then, is not whether Americans can get the documents they need, but whether political leaders are willing to prioritize election integrity over partisan advantage. For those who believe in the rule of law, equal treatment, and the sanctity of the ballot box, modest documentation requirements like those envisioned in the SAVE Act are not instruments of oppression but tools to ensure that every legitimate vote counts and that it is cast by a citizen who has taken the basic responsibility of proving who they are.
Login