On Thursday, failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton faced blowback for claiming a GOP bill "threatens" voting access for millions of married women.

Clinton, who is also a former United States senator and first lady, reacted
to the House passing the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act,
which aims to require individuals to show proof of U.S. citizenship to
register to vote in elections for federal office.

"Update: The House just passed the Republican voter suppression measure that threatens voting access for millions of Americans, including 69 million women whose married names don't match their birth certificates," Clinton said.
"Make sure your senators know you expect them to stand against it."

Update: The House just passed the Republican voter suppression
measure that threatens voting access for millions of Americans,
including 69 million women whose married names don't match their
birth certificates.

Make sure your senators know you expect them to stand against it.
https://t.co/cYTismZC4U

-- Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) April 10, 2025

The bill, introduced by Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX), seeks to "amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require proof of United States citizenship
to register an individual to vote in elections for Federal office." It also instructs states to remove noncitizens from voter rolls and establish a
process for applicants lacking documentary proof to submit alternative
evidence to verify U.S. citizenship.

Republican lawmakers responded to Clinton on X, via "quote" because she has replies turned off, by saying that her post was untrue.

"Stop. You are lying. Read the bill. And for the love of God, stop treating women like they are incapable or idiots," said Rep. Kat Cammack (R-FL).

Stop. You are lying. Read the bill. And for the love of God, stop
treating women like they are incapable or idiots.
https://t.co/7PYl361FyX

-- Kat Cammack (@Kat_Cammack) April 10, 2025

"Hillary Clinton argues that the SAVE Act 'threatens voting access' for '69 million women whose married names don't match their birth certificates,'"
said Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), who introduced a companion version of the bill in the Senate.

Hillary Clinton argues that the SAVE Act "threatens voting access"
for "69 million women whose married names don't match their birth
certificates"

If that were true--and it's definitely not--the same women would be
unemployable as they'd be unable to complete an I-9, which...
https://t.co/UzC6XgismP

-- Mike Lee (@BasedMikeLee) April 10, 2025

"If that were true -- and it's definitely not -- the same women would be unemployable as they'd be unable to complete an I-9, which requires proof of citizenship," he added. "Her argument proves too much, is refuted by the
plain text of the bill, and cannot withstand review."

With a post of his own, Roy alluded to how four Democrats voted in support of the bill and said, "Just show an ID. Why would you not want to verify citizenship?"

"This is a nasty lie," Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) said to Clinton, while Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) employed a "clown face" emoji.

Other Democrats, beyond Clinton, have perpetuated the claim that the bill creates an undue burden on legitimate voters -- in particular, married women.

"House Republicans just passed a bill that would disenfranchise 70 million married American women," said Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY). "Under
the SAVE Act, women who took their spouse's last name and don't have an
updated passport or birth certificate would be turned away at the polls."

House Republicans just passed a bill that would disenfranchise 70
million married American women.

Under the SAVE Act, women who took their spouse's last name and
don't have an updated passport or birth certificate would be turned
away at the polls.

-- Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@RepAOC) April 10, 2025

Rep. Chuck Edwards (R-NC) shared a post that addressed the claim that the
SAVE Act restricted married women's right to vote.

"FACT: The SAVE Act directs states to establish a process for discrepancies, such as a name change, so that individuals can still register to vote," the post said. "This bill lists forms of identification that a voter could
provide when registering to vote, but that voter only needs to provide one document, including a driver's license or any valid government-issued ID
card."

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 04:30:43 -0400, Ubiquitous <[email protected]>
wrote:

"FACT: The SAVE Act directs states to establish a process for discrepancies, >such as a name change, so that individuals can still register to vote," the >post said. "This bill lists forms of identification that a voter could >provide when registering to vote, but that voter only needs to provide one >document, including a driver's license or any valid government-issued ID >card."

Way back when (1984) we had a Canadian federal election a month and a
day after our wedding and my wife had no difficulty voting even though
she was both using my name and had relocated from Ontario to Manitoba.
And we spent half of that time on honeymoon so were only home for 2
weeks of the period. She took her wedding licence to the polls and her
Ontario drivers licence with a (Manitoba) phone bill and had no
difficulty.

Now to be fair she had personally visited the local offices of the
candidate she intended to vote for asking for advice (despite the fact
she had an uncle who was an elected representative of the other party
who had attended our reception - he wasn't at the church as he was on
the hustings earlier in the day) and had been told what specific ID
she needed to have with her.

She and I never missed an election except for one that was taking
place 3 weeks before a 1500 mile move where both of us decided that
voting for someone who would never be our representative (since we
would have relocated by the time he was sworn in) wasn't fair to our
soon to be ex-neighbors.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)