Women’s voting rights impacted due to stricter voting requirements
By Ella Torres, April 21, 2026
The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, which aims to impose stricter voter identification requirements, is under debate in the Senate this week, potentially impacting millions of married women who changed their last name.
The bill aims to reduce voter fraud in elections by requiring voters to present proof of citizenship, such as a birth certificate or passport, and a matching form of government-issued ID. However, married women who changed their last name no longer have matching birth certificates and IDs.
A study by Pew Research found nearly 85% of women change their last names post-marriage, roughly 58 million American women in total.
Data from Congress.gov shows only 0.000008% of voting is found to be fraudulent.
According to the SAVE Act, without matching identification, most women would have to resort to buying a passport as a valid form of ID to vote, which on average costs $165.
Porscia Enriquez, a recently married public relations student at Cal Poly Pomona, shared her disdain for the bill, questioning why a REAL ID would not satisfy voting requirements.
“I could see how a lot of married women might run into issues trying to vote” Enriquez said.
Danielle Torres, an animal science student, alternatively expressed her comfort in the SAVE Act’s stricter requirements. Torres was married last December and is currently changing her last name, but also she noted a cultural decline in women changing their last names.
“In the future, it won’t be as much of an issue with women specifically,” Torres said.
According to the Center of American Progress, 50% of Americans hold a valid U.S. passport. Given the financial luxury of international travel, passport holders tend to be middle to upper class citizens, subsequently leaving the burden of the SAVE Act on marginalised and low-income communities.
Political Science Department Chair Mario Guerrero said explained women and low-income citizens tend to vote liberal in elections. He theorised the SAVE Act was purposefully introduced before the November midterm elections to impede some of these votes.
“That is sort of like the design that’s not being said out loud when talking about a legislative act like this,” Guerrero said. “It is designed to hurt (them).”
Republican senators currently lack the 60 votes needed to overcome a Democratic filibuster, according to the British Broadcasting Company. However, both Republican and Democratic senators remain under pressure from President Donald Trump.
In a Truth Social post March 8, Trump stated the SAVE Act, “MUST GO TO THE FRONT OF THE LINE. I, as President, will not sign other Bills until this is passed, AND NOT THE WATERED DOWN VERSION – GO FOR THE GOLD.”
As the Senate prepares to vote, the uncertainty surrounding the SAVE Act widens. Lawmakers on both sides continue to debate, leaving the final outcome and impact of the bill yet to be determined. The Poly Post will continue to report on the SAVE Act and any advancements made.
Feature image courtesy of Ella Torres
