Saving us from the SAVE Act

The bill takes a page out of Jim Crow, shaping the electorate by disenfranchising people.

I sure am enjoying the unleashed Thom Tillis. I wish he had shown up earlier. Of course, if he had, he might well be on his way to re-election, something I definitely would not enjoy.

Yesterday, he missed the vote to open debate on the SAVE Act, though he said earlier he would oppose it. Tillis knows what’s right and he’s doing it, despite Donald Trump. It’s refreshing to see his candor and watch him embrace principles instead of bungling politics.

The SAVE Act is an anti-democratic and deeply flawed voter suppression bill. Republicans claim it will prevent illegal immigrants from voting, though they’ve never been able to prove it’s a problem. States already do a good job of reserving access to the ballot box to citizens. We don’t need a heavy-handed federal bill that will probably disenfranchise a lot of citizens.

The act would require voters to bring either a birth certificate or passport to the polls to vote. That’s an undue burden for people who have already proven their citizenship when they registered in the first place. Only about half of Americans hold passports. Birth certificates can be burdensome to obtain.

The bill requires the information on the birth certificate or passport to match a photo ID like a driver’s license. In a blog post yesterday, former North Carolina Republican House Majority Leader Skip Stam explained the problem.

Many constituents don’t have a copy of their birth certificate and will need to get it right now. Think of the married constituent whose name on her photo ID doesn’t match whatever birth certificate she has. Many women (and a few men) have four names. Some include last names from prior marriages.

I pulled out my three government-issued photo IDs: my passport, driver’s license and my military ID from 1974. None of them are identical to what is on my birth certificate. None are identical to the name on my Board of Election voter card.

Stam says tens of thousands of people could be denied the right to vote, far more than the tiny number of non-citizens who might be voting.

About ten years ago or so, I needed to get a birth certificate. I had to go to the Anson County Register of Deeds office to pick up a notarized copy. For me, that was about a two-hour drive. For my friend in Colorado, that’s a much longer trip. I’m not sure those rules still apply but I doubt seriously there’s any uniformity in getting birth certificates across all fifty states.

Growing up I knew an African American woman born before World War II who chose her own birthday. She did it because she didn’t know exactly when she was born. She didn’t even know her exact age. She would be unable to produce a birth certificate because there wasn’t one. I’m sure she doesn’t have a passport.

In her case, she was born into the Jim Crow South where she was systematically denied the right to vote. Because of the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act she gained the opportunity to enjoy her citizenship. In the twilight of her life, Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress would disenfranchise her again. I’m sure she, more than the “illegals,” is their real target.

Which gets to a broader point. The Roberts Court has been whittling away at the Voting Rights Act for more than a decade. John Roberts, despite all evidence to the contrary, wants to believe we live in a post-racial America. Republicans in North Carolina and now in control of Congress and the White House have shown how wrong he is. As soon as the court strips a protection, the GOP exploits it.

The MAGA form of the Republican Party is following the playbook of the populists who disenfranchised African Americans for most of the 20th century. They are trying to shape the electorate by eliminating access to the ballot box for people who might vote against them. They aren’t interested in winning the battle of ideas. They want to rig the system so they can impose their point of view. In North Carolina, they’ve done a pretty good job already.

Republicans are trying to cast the SAVE Act as a simple voter ID bill. It’s not that at all. I’m not opposed to requiring voters to show an ID at the polls, but I think it needs to be broad to protect people’s right to vote. The SAVE Act is designed to prevent people who should be able to vote from voting. Fortunately, it will almost certainly fail.

Thom Tillis and Skip Stam are standing up for democracy. I appreciate that. They are telling because more Republicans probably think like them than are willing to admit it. They know the act is wrong. They just aren’t willing to do what’s right.