this post was submitted on 24 Feb 2026
1133 points (98.9% liked)

Microblog Memes

11223 readers
3305 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

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Formfiller@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago

I’d be willing to bet this will disenfranchise more republican women than democrat women. Democrats are way more likely to have a passport

[–] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 11 points 1 month 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 8 points 1 month 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 6 points 1 month 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 month 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)
[–] apftwb@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Last I checked the federal government cannot tell the states how to run their elections?

[–] nwtreeoctopus@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 month ago

Watch them try to tie it to the 15th or some dumb bullshit.

Hell, they just need it in place long enough to bork a single election, right? All it takes is a slow judicial and they can achieve the goal.

[–] oxideseven@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I have nothing to back this up but it feels like this would hurt conservative women more than Democratic women? Like it feel more conservative to change to the husband's name, and liberal women usually keep theirs, no?

Not to mention like unmarried women are probably more common in the liberal side? Right?

[–] Trainguyrom@reddthat.com 11 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I suspect its more about creating extra paperwork hurdles to voting. More paperwork means it takes more time investment to be able to vote at all, thereby disenfranchising voters with less free time and Republicans have already done the math on that and enacted voter ID laws in many states because the math works out for them

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Yeller_king@reddthat.com 8 points 1 month 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] MuskyMelon@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month 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.

[–] kingofras@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] RebekahWSD@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

This being on the horizon stopped me from changing my name from my father's to my mother's last name. A shame. She has a much cooler name.

[–] 0_o7@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 month ago

Baboon butt face pedophiles.

[–] AlexLost@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

I thought incest was illegal?

[–] P1k1e@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

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

[–] daannii@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

It's just the first step in taking women's and trans right to vote away. There are other steps too. This is just the start.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

And here I thought I was clicking on a post where some MAGA 2nd amendment woman shot themselves in the foot with a gun, not once, but twice.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

So are they advocating for child marriage this time? Can a birth certificate be changed to reflect a married name? Somebody ain't thinking straight

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 month ago (3 children)

They want all conservative women to change back to their maiden name apparently lol.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (5 children)

Do most Americans actually change their names to match the man's last name?

Is this the same in all western countries?

What happens in same-sex marriage? 🤔

My mom's legal last name is still the same as her father's last name, and we're from China... which is kinda weird since the west is supposed to be more progressive in most areas...

I remember my teacher was like writing a note to my mom for some reason and wrote "Mrs.[My Last Name]" and I was like no, that's wrong... that's the first time I learn of this whole... "change last name to match the man's last name" was apparantly a thing.

[–] javiwhite@feddit.uk 9 points 1 month ago

Can't speak for the entirety of the West ofc but here in the UK It's traditionally the norm that the woman takes the man's surname; but it's definitely become less common in the last 50 years or so.

It's not uncommon to see double-barrelled names; which are both surnames added together (IE: Mr Smith marrying Miss Jones could become the Smith-Jones') or as you say, retaining their family surname post marriage.

Same sex tend to go down the double barrel or retention routes from what I've experienced. I've met same sex couples where one elected to take the others name, but I'd be surprised if it was the most popular option in SSM, primarily because of where I believe this tradition stems from.

My theory is that the less theocratical a country is, the less prominent this situation is. Religion eh. Helluva drug.

[–] RunawayFixer@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Not the same in all western countries. Afaik it was tradition in most countries for the wife to take the husband's surname, except in Italy and Spain. Regular people also often didn't have surnames, instead they were "son of ..." or named after their or their parents' occupation. Edit with more musings: surnames could also be their place of birth, their farm, ... Names which would then get made hereditary in the early 19th century, but many people still kept using the old changing forms for generations longer. During his life, my great grandfather wasn't known by his official surname in his village, only the state called him that.

In the last few decades, most western countries (afaik again) are allowing the woman to chose if see wants to change her surname or not. Or to use both surnames. They also allow the man to change his name to that of his wife. Equality.

And that recent development is also why it's not a problem for same sex marriage. Back when the wife had to take the husband's name, same sex marriage wasn't allowed so there was no naming problem. Countries that allow official same sex marriages are typically also countries that will already have equality for surnames.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›