Voter ID's biggest target? Women.

[pnwmom]

Women are more than half of the population, and most women over 18 are married or divorced or widowed. And most married women change their names -- sometimes more than once, if they get divorced.

That means they're much more likely than most men to have a birth certificate that doesn't match their current name, and they need more paperwork to prove who they are.

It is no accident that VoterID is such a big thing. It's an effort to throw up more hurdles to prevent women from voting, because they know that women are more likely to be Democrats.

Related to this: my state has postponed Real ID more than once, and I'm among the majority of women here who don't have it yet -- it's just one more annoying thing to have to do. Men don't have to find their decades old marriage certificates to prove who they are -- or else pay for ordering them online. Most married women do.

So Real ID is also part of Voter Suppression. The states that are enforcing it require women to jump over an extra hurdle in order to prove who they are. It isn't enough that you've had a driver's license in your married name, ever since you first brought your birth certificate and old driver's license and wedding certificate to the DMV. It isn't enough that you've been filing taxes to the IRS using this name, for decades. Now you have to prove AGAIN who you are and where you were born, and that you're the same person even though your last name is different.

This article is about the League of Women Voters' work on Voter ID issues. It was written in 2014, but since then the problem's only gotten worse.

https://www.lwv.org/blog/how-voter-id-laws-disproportionately-impact-women-and-what-were-doing-about-it?fbclid=IwAR1iFuMvySNk7ROSugPkSXuu_U1cLMFNeLyenLen248SqUDKTNR7c1sqRqM

Prior to the November elections, media attention began to focus on an often overlooked population impacted by voter suppression measures: women. Voting rights advocates raised grave concerns over new evidence regarding how photo voter ID laws – which are increasingly being rolled out across the country – restrict women’s access to the polls. This adds women to the long list of populations –including low-income, minority and elderly voters – that are disproportionately affected by voter photo ID laws.

Voter photo ID laws are particularly costly and burdensome for women in part because roughly 90 percent of women change their legal name upon marriage or divorce. According to the Brennan Center, 11 percent of eligible voters do not have a government-issued photo ID, and only 48 percent of voting-age women have a birth certificate that accurately reflects their current name.

SNIP

Bubbling concerns over the effect of voter photo ID laws on women’s voting rights are largely a result of the push by states to implement voter photo ID requirements – a move closely related to the Supreme Court’s move to gut the Voting Rights Act this past June. Fortunately, Leagues across the country are taking action. Earlier this year, the League of Women Voters of North Carolina (LWVNC) filed suit to stop the state from enforcing its newly passed voter photo ID law. Called the most suppressive voting law in decades, the League, and Alberta Currie are among the suits plaintiffs. This past election cycle, League members across the country spent countless hours helping voters understand voting requirements and obtain the documentation they needed to cast their ballots. And Leagues advocates in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania remain dedicated to combatting voter photo ID bills in court.

At the same time, a broad coalition – including voting rights advocates, women’s rights activists, legal scholars and civil rights experts – is speaking out against voter photo ID laws and their negative impacts on women, seniors, students and minorities. Advocates like President Bill Clinton and Representative John Lewis continually point out the many similarities between voter photo ID laws and America’s dark history of discriminatory Jim Crow laws. Luckily, some decision makers are seeing the light. Earlier this fall, a federal judge in Indiana made headlines when he said that he made a grave “mistake” in upholding a state voter photo ID law that could be used to prevent or discourage voting.

[Trailrider1951]

1. Here's how I got around that, not only for voting, but for my passport as well

I'm a former resident of Texas and I am very familiar with the hoops red state residents need to jump through. I was born Sadie Jones (made up names). My birth certificate says I'm Sadie Ann Jones. When I married Mr. Smith, I legally became Sadie Ann Jones Smith. I dropped the Ann and called myself Sadie Jones Smith. That's what has been on my driver's license since my marriage. That name is on my passport as well. I sign all legal documents, including passport, driver's license, checks and voter registration Sadie J. Smith. If someone lacks a driver's license, a copy of the birth certificate and a copy of the marriage license should suffice for voter registration. Certified copies of these documents are readily available through the records offices of the various states.

[pnwmom]

3. I also am Sadie Jones Smith. But I have a hurdle that Saul J. Smith doesn't have.

In order to get a WA driver's license as Sadie Jones Smith, I had to provide my old driver's license, and my birth certificate, and my marriage certificate.

It's true that a copy of our marriage certificate, along with my birth certificate, would suffice for voter registration. But these things aren't free. Men don't usually have to pay for a marriage certificate . . . because they haven't added a new last name.

So that means that most married women have one more hurdle to voting than most men have.

[Skittles]

2. I really wish women would stop changing their names

it is ridiculous

[pnwmom]

4. I like having a family name, but I don't tell anyone else their preference is ridiculous. n/t

[Skittles]

5. why are only women expected to change their name?

sexist bullshit

[pnwmom]

14. Custom. But I know a guy who changed his name.

And I don't judge anyone for their personal choices in something like this.

[Skittles]

16. I judge when I see sexism in action

DONE here

[pnwmom]

17. Well, aren't you special!

Here you are, in a thread about Republican voter suppression, choosing to focus on criticizing women for changing their names.

[Dream Girl]

6. I'm always disappointed when someone I respect gets married and changes their name.

Why?

[Skittles]

7. why are you disappointed or why do they change their name

I just think nothing says unequal more than the assumption a woman will take the man's name but then, I have always found the idea of being "given away" by the dad to the groom quite disturbing.

on edit: turns out, they are related:

the tradition of women changing their last names to match their husbands' has its origins in the property transfer that took place upon marriage. Essentially, women went from being part of their parents' family to becoming their husbands' property.

well well

[Dream Girl]

11. Why do they do it? I never 3ven considered it.

I’m most disappointed when younger women do it, particularly if they’ve already established a career

[Skittles]

13. tradition, I guess

I agree it is disappointing.

[wnylib]

21. Well, children have two parents.

Which surname will children use when each parent has a separate surname?

Our society is patrilineal, but it could just as well be matrilineal. In either case, a family using the same surname provides some uniformity for identifying relatives, even beyond the immediate family to extended family.

Agree on brides bring given away in marriage. It is anachronistic and patronizing. For the same reason, I refused to wear a veil in my wedding. (Would have been a ludicrous symbol anyway, since we lived together for 2 years before getting married.)

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

25. That is a trivial problem.

I didn't change my name when I got married (I am a woman, despite this male screen name) and we gave our two sons four names: one first, two middle, and his surname.

So my husband is Reginald Warburton (not his actual name) and our two sons are:

Frederick Samuel Oglethorpe Warburton and
Terence Wilbur Oglethorpe Warburton.

Again, not their real names. And not hyphenated.

I also point out that if there's a divorce and a remarriage, and children are involved, not matter whether the mom changes her surname to her new husband's, there's going to be someone in the house with a different last name. Very common.

[smirkymonkey]

24. It's funny, but I am too.

I don't know why, but it's like I lose a little respect for them. It's not even something I really think about. It's just an automatic reaction.

[Blue Owl]

8. But of course!

What would you expect from the party of men's rights?

[KentuckyWoman]

9. Huge kick and recommend

[Hekate]

10. KnR

[bucolic_frolic]

12. Therefore, these laws are discriminatory on the basis of gender

I do wish someone could figure out a way to go after the GOP for its attempt to monopolize itself in politics. We bust up monopolies and trusts at various points in history, don't we?

[pnwmom]

15. Yes, intentionally. n/t

[FakeNoose]

18. I'm facing this issue for claiming Social Security benefits

Voting registration, passport, and drivers license were never a problem. A long time ago I was divorced and changed my name back to my maiden name, and I've lived in 3 or 4 different states since my marriage. HOWEVER, now that I'm retired and applying for social security, suddenly it's a big issue that the name on my SS account doesn't match my maiden name on my birth certificate. I paid into that SS# account for almost 40 years, and it was never disputed, until I tried to claim my benefits.

I blamed this attitude mostly on Chump because I don't believe the SSA ever had this adversarial attitude before he was in the White House. I may be wrong, but I don't think so.

No state has blocked me from voting or getting a drivers license, it's the federal government that's doing this. I have to hire a lawyer now and it really irks me.

[pnwmom]

19. Right. They were happy to take all your tax returns and checks with that name on it,

but suddenly they want you to prove who you are.

That's crazy that you have to hire a lawyer about this. Are you sure you've exhausted every other avenue? Good luck!

[FakeNoose]

22. I can prove who I am

The problem is they're saying I'm someone else - a name I haven't used for 35 years.

The agency that pays the benefits says they can't access the same records as the agency that collects the payroll taxes. And that's just bullshit. It's their mistake but they've denied me benefits for over 3 years.

Like I said, Chump's Social Security Agency was going out of their way to delay and deny.

[pnwmom]

33. You're right. It IS bullshit and of course they can!

What a pain. I'm sorry, FakeNoose.

[questionseverything]

37. That ss jerk was just fired, it might go better now

Gl

[niyad]

20. and the WAR ON WOMEN. continues apace. Thank you for bringing this to us, Would

you consider cross-posting this incredibly important information in Women's Rights And Issues? Thanks in advance.

[BumRushDaShow]

23. We went through this in PA back in 2012 - 2014

with a ridiculous "Voter ID" law that the GOP-controlled legislature rammed through with the then-GOP governor's signature. It also resulted in the famous (but infamous) remarks from the then-PA House Speaker Mike Turzai -

Suits were filed and the courts put a hold on implementation of the law and it didn't go into effect for the 2012 or 2013 elections.

Finally in 2014, a lower court (Commonwealth) judge struck down the law as unconstitutional.

One of the plaintiffs in that particular ACLU case was 92-year old Vivette Applewhite (who made the rounds on TV), who I believe had been born in SC but lived in PA, and she could not get a copy of her birth certificate from the state of SC (who apparently had no record of it) and that had originally been required for the state-issued "Voter ID" card (assuming you had no driver's license, passport, etc). In addition, in most states, there is a cost associated with obtaining a copy of a birth certificate, so that then would impose a cost for the Voter ID (or any of the IDs the law originally required for proof of identification), essentially implementing an unconstitutional "poll tax". So the state legislature kept adjusting provisions to try to get around how illegal their bullshit was, and removed things that would require some cost.

After that lower court did its deed, the state chose not to appeal, and abandoned the effort.

Of course here we are 7 years later and they decided to try again. Fortunately this time we have a Democratic governor who vetoed their latest mess just a couple weeks ago (and they don't have a super-majority to override).

[dianaredwing]

26. I hadn't really thought about this

But it certainly is a salient issue. What someone calls oneself, comment vous-appellez vous? is often different from what is on the original documentation. Not everyone goes to court to legally change their name and we are identified by a social security NUMBER, not a NAME so why should a name even be in question? Maybe we should vote by SSN. Everyone gets a SSN and a voter ID at birth. that would seem to solve the problem and then we could call ourselves whatever the fuck we want to.

[BumRushDaShow]

32. "Everyone gets a SSN and a voter ID at birth."

Not quite. That opportunity didn't start until recently, after the passage of the Tax Reform Act of 1986, where beginning in 1987, parents would need to obtain a SS number for their children only IF they wanted to claim them as dependents on their federal income tax forms - https://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/planning-to-retire/2011/05/06/why-we-assign-social-security-numbers-at-birth

And even then, it's still optional and originally (by statue) was directed to children at least 5 years old (although most parents just go ahead and do it after the birth of the child).

So there may be quite a few born before 1987 who had (and still have) no SS number and who never filed any federal income tax forms. And this might include people whose jobs never required a SS number and/or they made too little to file and/or worked "under the table" (which was often the case for a number of undocumented immigrants). And even today, it's not required (some religions refuse it), although if they are filing taxes, they would need some type of TIN (Tax Identification Number).

When it came time for the various stimulus checks the past year, there was quite a bit of scrambling to deal with so many people who had never filed income taxes and thus weren't "in the system" to even receive a check, and I expect a number of them might not have even had a SS number either.

[pnwmom]

34. All true, but people who DO have SS #'s and have paid into the system for decades

shouldn't have trouble proving who they are. That SS card should be good enough, but it isn't.

[BumRushDaShow]

38. True - although there would be a whole subset of young people who might not have that work history

I know you mentioned the issue with getting a Real ID and I did so a couple years ago here in PA. One of the pieces of documentation that can be presented is the Social Security Card - but they wanted an "original" one.

My originals (2 copies were issued) were obtained by my mom for me and my sisters back in the mid-70s after my dad died, since he had worked for the federal government, and SS numbers were required for us to get our share of his Survivor's annuity (and SS Survivor's benefit, since he had also paid into that with enough quarters), although back then such had not yet been required, as it is today, to declare us as dependents on tax forms.

We signed those cards ourselves back then but damned if the signatures then are anything remotely close to our current signatures. One of my concerns getting the Real ID and presenting an "original" SS card, was some kind of "signature check", and rejection of it as "fake". Fortunately that didn't happen (the PA DMV state worker who processed my Real ID application was chuckling when I presented it and explained about when it was first obtained). But I was ready to defend a card (with its obviously different signature from my driver's license that would be replaced with a Real ID version) that was obtained some 45 years prior.

This is why the whole bullshit of "signature checks" strain credibility as people's signatures change over the years - whether just from variations that occur over time or that are changed on purpose, for those who choose to adopt a signature that would be unique and difficult for someone else to falsify (for their own security).

I know that when the State Department offered "passport cards", the last time I renewed my passport, I went on and got the passport card too just in case there was some issue with getting a Real ID (and the passport card would qualify as a Real ID and would negate needing to carry an actual passport around as "valid" ID for access to federal buildings, at airports, etc).

But all of this is ridiculous when it comes to voting and requiring any type of ID that has a cost associated in order to vote, is effectively an unconstitutional "poll tax".

It's remarkable how the GOP obsesses over the 2nd Amendment (and the 1st Amendment when they want to cherry-pick which Amendment could apply to justify their craven behavior), but they ignore the 4 Constitutional Amendments that deal with the right to vote.

[smirkymonkey]

27. My regular MA ID expired last July and I didn't get it renewed due to Covid, because now I need to

get a MA Real ID in case I need to fly once we are back at work in the office PT in Sept (my Passport is also expired), but you need to collect a lot of identifying paperwork to get one, including a birth certificate.

However it took me almost 3 months to get my birth certificate and cost about $85 (including FedEx) from New York. So it's not something that is quick and easy, or inexpensive, for most people to do.

I am not sure how it is in other states, but it's definitely something to make people aware of in the upcoming elections.

[pnwmom]

35. Yes. And if you had a married name, you'd have to pay for a marriage certificate also,

proving you'd gotten married. That's nuts in the case of someone who'd been filing joint returns for decades (after proving back then that you were married), but that's what they make women do.

[BadgerMom]

28. K & R

Thanks for this.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

29. I likewise don't understand why women still routinely change their last names when they marry.

I'm a woman who never changed my name when I married in 1980. So my whole life I've always been "Poindexter Oglethorpe".

I was astonished when a niece, who got married in 2010 changed her name. She told me it was easier that way. Not, it's not. I've heard some real horror stories in recent years from women who change their names upon marriage and have to go through incredible hoops to get things like drivers license and Social Security card changed.

I can also tell you that in 25 years of marriage (since divorced) once and only once was having a different surname a problem. What happened was, we'd gone out to dinner and my husband left his credit card behind at the restaurant. The next day, when he realized it was missing, he called them and they said they had it. "Great," he said. "Can my wife pick it up?" Of course, was the reply.

When I went to the restaurant they understandably wanted to see my ID. Well, I'm "Poindexter Oglethorpe" and he's "Reginald Warburton." I wasn't going to try too hard to make them give me the card, but I needed to prove we were connected. Luckily, I had my checkbook with me, and since it was a joint account it had both names on it. Problem solved.

Having a different last name from my children was never an issue at any school they attended or doctor's office. As I said above, so many people marry, have kids, divorce, then remarry, someone in the new household is going to have a different last name. Happens all the time.

Oh, and I've long despised the "giving away in marriage" thing. When I got married in 1980, I was 32 years old, had lived on my own since I was 17. My father was long dead, and no one gave me away.

Women need to do a better job of behaving like independent human beings.

[speak easy]

30. Disagree - the biggest targets are people of color

and will be for the foreseeable future.

[pnwmom]

36. In numbers, women are the largest affected group, since we're the MAJORITY.

Which minority group is a larger proportion of the population than women who have been married and/or divorced?

[speak easy]

39. 'women are the largest affected group' - agreed, but POC are the Targets

because they skew Dem (the most).

[pnwmom]

40. Women voted for Biden 57 to 45. THat's not as huge a margin

as for Black people, but considering the numbers involved, women's votes made the biggest difference.

[Mr.Bill]

31. My wife has been married three times

and when she got her recent Real ID, she had no such problem. Maybe it was because she had a current passport with her current name on it.

[pnwmom]

41. Of course it was because of her passport. But I bet she had

to jump through a couple more hoops to get that.