Rep. Hillary Scholten of Michigan has raised concerns about Republican voter integrity legislation, arguing that the proposed changes could hinder married women from voting. She claims that nearly 70 million such women in the U.S. may find themselves unable to register unless they amend their birth certificates to match their current names on government-issued IDs. “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,” Scholten stated during a press event.
However, the factual foundation of Scholten’s argument comes into question when one examines Michigan’s birth certificate laws. According to the state’s Department of Health and Human Services, the only permissible reasons for changing a birth certificate are to correct a birth record, change a sex designation, amend a place of birth, or rectify a parental record. Notably, marriage does not qualify as a legitimate reason for alteration.
Beyond the state specifics, Scholten’s objections echo those of many Democrats opposing the SAVE America Act, which mandates that federal voter registrants present government-issued photo IDs to vote. Democrats argue that such requirements create unnecessary barriers for citizens wishing to exercise their right to vote. “Republicans are trying to sell the SAVE Act as a way to stop non-citizens from voting, but we know that’s already illegal,” Scholten stated. “What this bill really does is make it harder for citizens to vote, especially women.”
Despite her assertions, the SAVE Act includes no stipulation requiring a last-name match between birth certificates and IDs as Scholten describes. Instead, the legislation allows voters to submit a “certified birth certificate issued by a state in which the applicant was born” that contains essential details like the applicant’s full name, date of birth, and place of birth. Voters can also present a range of other identification, such as passports or military IDs.
A senior GOP staff member dismissed Scholten’s claims as misrepresentations. “That is not right at all and simply another Democrat propaganda talking point,” they said, suggesting that every married woman should possess a marriage license. Furthermore, Rep. Keith Self, a champion of the SAVE Act, underscored that the legislation anticipates name changes due to marriage and incorporates protections to ensure that no citizen, including those who have changed names, is disenfranchised.
The Federalist Society, a conservative legal organization, commented on the bill, claiming that it includes provisions to facilitate participation in elections for those who have changed their names. “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 organization stated. Such assertions challenge the narrative presented by critics like Scholten.
In conclusion, while Scholten’s intentions to protect voters’ rights may stem from a place of concern, her statements merit scrutiny against the text of the legislation. The SAVE Act incorporates measures aimed at ensuring that individuals, particularly married women who may have changed their names, can still secure their right to vote without facing undue obstacles. It remains essential for legislative discourse to focus on factual representation over fear-based arguments.
"*" indicates required fields
