IIUC, based on years of my mother being a “challenger”, my state already does signature matching . . . so what exactly should NJ Democrats be advocating for? More signatures?
Mostly true. Politifact shows trump & co with lots of “Pants on Fire” “False” and “Mostly False” while Democrats do get a number of “Mostly true” “Half True” etc. So, yeah all politicians lie- by the Dems tend to tell things that arent entirely true, and the MAGS go for the out right lie.
I don’t know how it works in other states, but here in Kansas (where I am an election worker) there are a LOT of people who are carried on the voting rolls under a name that is close to but not quite the same as the name on their photo ID. James David Wilson becomes Jim Wilson, Maggie Porter Cable becomes Mary Margaret Cable, apostrophes and hyphens appear and disappear, middle names become initials or are missing entirely, etc., etc., etc.
My county’s elections commissioner (the guy in charge of elections) takes the position that consistency is the name of the game: if I as an election worker am satisfied that “D’Andre NMN Smith” is the same person as “Dandre Smith,” for example by matching birth date and address, then that’s good enough. Dave, David, and Davey are all consistent with each other; Pat is consistent with both Patrick and Patricia, and O’Reilly is consistent with OReilly and Oreilly. (There must have been a period when the state didn’t put apostrophes in surnames on your driver’s license, because I’ve seen too many Irish and French names that lack the usual punctuation.)
(If the names are totally different or I am not satisfied, then the voter has to vote a provisional ballot and come to the Election Office in the week after the election with additional documentation to re-register under a more correct name.)
All it would take, though, is somebody in authority deciding that the names have to match EXACTLY and a whole bunch of people are going to have to re-register. Mostly, these are people who have been registered for awhile and did not go through the “motor voter” process at the DMV. They’re not exactly changing their name; they’re just using slightly different forms in different parts of their lives, or at different times in their lives.
Then there’s the man in my usual precinct who has a different birth date on the roll versus his ID. The two dates are exactly ten years apart (think March 4, 1949, and March 4, 1959). The photo on the ID clearly matches the face in front of me, the address is right, and through multiple elections he has declined to fix whichever record is wrong. (He’s told me which clerk made the typo, but I don’t remember.) If we need an exact match, he’s going to have to take action.
Kansas does allow voters over 65 to used an expired ID. This can create its own problems. For example, some years ago I had a gentleman (or a smart-ass, depending on your point of view) who was in his 80s and presented his military ID from when he’d been a young draftee. Legally that was his right, but how am I supposed to compare his face to a 60+ year-old photo? (Another election worker present knew him personally and vouched for his identity.)
The last time I voted, I left my Driver’s license at the post office, and the post office, trying to be helpful, put it on a mail truck to deliver to me at home. In the meantime, I had to vote, so I went without my driver’s license. I was told I couldn’t vote, which I helpfully pointed out was false, and eventually they checked their rulebooks and let me vote.
When this ID stuff comes up, I think about that a lot.
I haven’t had to vote in person since I moved here from California in 2004.
But back then, it was just a simple matter of showing up at the right polling place, telling them my name, and having them check their paperwork of voters assigned to that precinct to determine that I was in the right place and that nobody else had already voted in my name.
It seems to me that that’s security enough. You can’t just show up and say “Hi can I vote please” and they say “Ok”. Voter impersonation is extremely rare and it’s unlikely that you could swing the results of an election that way.
I did a bit more research and the law recently passed by the House on February 11, 2026 is actually a revised SAVE Act, called the “SAVE America Act”, H.R. 7296, S. 1383.
Differences from the old SAVE Act:
- Minnesota, Wisconsin, and New Hampshire are no longer exempt from voter roll transparency provisions in the NVRA unless they set up a system for election officials to verify each voter’s citizenship. (The NVRA, also known as the “Motor Voter” act, requires states to allow voters to register when they apply for a driver’s license, but broadly exempts states that do not require voter registration or allow same-day voter registration.)
- New voter ID requirements.
- Valid photo ID must:
- have a photo of the individual;
- be issued by the state’s motor vehicle agency, a state/local election office, a federally recognized Tribe, the federal State Department (i.e. passports), the Dept. of War (a.k.a. Dept. of Defense), or the military; and
- indicate citizenship and either an ID number or last 4 of SSN.
- In-person voters must present a physical (not digital) photo ID at the polls. If the photo ID lacks citizenship/number requirements, the voter must present additional documentation proving citizenship at the polls.
- Absentee voters must include a copy of the above required photo ID / citizenship document both when requesting and submitting ballots.
- If a state submits its voter rolls to the federal government every 90 days, its citizens are exempt from having to present photo IDs that indicate citizenship/number.
- Valid photo ID must:
~Max
The new SAVE America Act does:
Requirement in cases of name discrepancies in documentation.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a State shall accept and process an application to register to vote in an election for Federal office if the applicant-- ``(A) presents with the application documentation that would constitute documentary proof of United States citizenship, except that the name on the documentation is not the name of the applicant; and ``(B) provides, through a process established by the State (which shall be subject to any relevant guidance adopted by the Election Assistance Commission)-- ``(i) additional documentation as necessary to establish that the name on the documentation is a previous name of the applicant; or ``(ii) an affidavit signed by the applicant attesting that the name on the documentation is a previous name of the applicant.
~Max
I do not find that text in the version of the bill currently online (https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/7296/text ); where are you getting that?
Does the billl as you’ve quoted leave it up to the state to decide whether to accept (i) or (ii) or both? It looks like it does, but I am open to correction. If the state decides not to accept affidavits, then we’re right back at unspecified “additional documentation as necessary.”
Also, that bill is limited to election officials; I see nothing requiring the keeper of vital records to accept an affidavit. If you can’t prove to the satisfaction of the Office of Vital Statistics that Mary Larson is legally entitled to a copy of the birth certificate of Mary Wilson, AND the state election office won’t take an affidavit, then what?
I cannot speak to all 50 states but poking around a bit online it does not appear to be an impossibility to get another copy of one’s birth certificate, as some posters previously implied.
In my personal experience it was a very simple process of contacting the Bureau of Records/County Clerk’s Office in the county where I was born. I did this to get a passport in 2006 and I was born in Texas. It was very simple and only required filling out a form, providing a copy of my state issued driver’s license and paying a $15 fee. I checked again today and it appears the process has not changed. I have poked around online with a number of other states and it seems the process is similar in the US.
I don’t want to hijack this thread with this subject but I honestly feel it is easier to get a copy of your birth certificate than some claim. If anyone feels the need I would recommend doing an online search for something like “how do I get a copy of my birth certificate in ______ state” to check it out.
See this thread and see how hard it was for @Czarcasm to get a birth certificate from Guam:
Brian
I am not saying it will always be super easy to get a copy of one’s birth certificate, just that it is possible. After checking that thread, the problems Czarcasm had to deal with were many but at the end of the day they did get a copy of it. And the situations with name changes and a fire destroying military id, etc are not ones most are likely to encounter.
What do you do when you can’t provide a “state-issued driver’s license” in a name matching the name on the record? That’s the problem, and you’re simply skipping past it.
In Texas, only the person named on the record, their immediate family members (parents, siblings, children, spouses, grandparents), or legal guardians/representatives are eligible to order a birth certificate, and yes, they do request documentation of that relationship. If the name on your photo ID is “Kolak_of_Twilo” and the name on the birth record is “Kolak_of_Twilo,” this is dead simple.
If the name on the birth record is “Kolak_of_Twilo” and the name on your photo ID is “Kolak_Rachmaninoff,” however, how are you going to convince them that those two names refer to the same person?
If you’re in Loving County (population 64 in the 2020 census), where everybody knows everybody else’s grandfather’s complete genealogy, this may not be a problem. In Harris County (population 4,731,145 that same year), the clerk has no idea who you are. Maybe they decide there can’t be that many people named Kolak born on the same date, so you’re good to go. Maybe they decide they have to see a complete chain of documents proving how and when your name changed before they give you the certificate. If that chain happens to run through three marriages and two divorces spanning five counties in four different states, do you have all of those documents readily accessible?
Now, what group of people are most likely to have changed their name through marriage or divorce?
And you’re skipping past the part where they list a large number of other acceptable IDs.
I know you are suggesting it is more difficult for females and that appears it would be the case if the SAVE Act is passed. But currently, that is not the case. I checked with my sister who uses her married name. When she got her first passport in 2017 she didn’t run into any difficulty getting a copy of her birth certificate when she needed it. She did send a copy of her marriage license. I don’t see that being insurmountable.
And as I’ve stated, it took 7 months to get mine, due to the married name change, and a misspelling at the county clerk’s office. Required getting a notarized affidavit from someone who knew me before and after, 3 long visits to the neighborhood center attached to the library (the ones they’re trying to eliminate), and hours on the phone with the Passport agency.
People also need to be aware that the birth certificate has to come from the state office. What I thought was my birth certificate - the one issued at the hospital, with my footprint, parents’ info, etc, is not the official birth certicate.
My mistake, I forgot to remove the reference to H.R. 7296. H.R. 7296 was parked in favor of the companion Senate bill, S. 1383, for procedural convenience. S. 1383 was amended (including the name discrepancy section I quoted) and then passed by the House, not H.R. 7296.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/1383
~Max
That sounds like a royal pain. But you are talking about your passport. I am only addressing the idea it is impossible for a person to get a copy of their birth certificate.
In your follow up post you make the same point I have been making - the official birth certificate is not the one given to parents or the one sent when it is requested. It is a copy.
I also acknowledge passage of the SAVE Act will likely make it more difficult to do any of this and most of this will impact people who have changed names at some point since birth. Making it more difficult for any of us to vote is exactly what MAGA wants.
Oh, right my mistake. I’m still testy about that.
As you should be. 7 months is beyond ridiculous.
The next step is to lawyer up and ask the local court to order the release of your records. You get to show the judge evidence that you’re you, including affidavits and such. You should also probably ask to amend the vital documents while you’re at it. Your elected officials are usually a good resource for these kinds of problems–one thing that is still bipartisan is getting out the vote.
~Max