Scanning the article, the practical threat (besides crazy ideological stunts) seems to be stealth disenfranchisement of this type:
House Republicans passed a bill (which stalled in the Senate) this session to require citizens to have a passport or birth certificate matching their name to vote. This would be a back-door ban on voting for any woman who took her husband’s last name and doesn’t have a passport, an estimated 69 million women. It would also disproportionately affect Republican women, who are more likely to be married, more likely to have changed their name and less likely to have a passport.
A passport always contains the current last name. If you took on a new one you have to get a new one issued. That’s standard pretty much all over the world.
This is the part that’s mistaken: you don’t need a passport if you don’t travel to foreign lands. As far as I know, Americans usually prove their identity using a driver’s license, rarely using a passport.
No one in my family has a passport. So with this law only the men could vote, unless they spend the money to get a passport despite not aiming to travel.
Some states allow you to update your birth certificate after a legal name change.
This also has a fee attached.
It’s definitely not universal, and much less likely in red states.
Yeah, even just checking, and it looks like Massachusetts doesn’t allow name changes for this purpose, and really only does it to correct mistakes at the time a record was made: "For example, you cannot change your birth record solely for a legal change of name. "
Other than a driver’s license, most of them don’t have any ID.
They don’t have any sort of unique ID number either. They have a social security number, which is not guaranteed to be unique. Two people can have the same SSN. One person can have two SSNs. You’re apparently supposed to keep your SSN secret, but they’re assigned somewhat sequentially and they get leaked a lot. It’s a clusterfuck.
SSNs are guaranteed to be unique upon assignment. The problem is that so many leaks have happened that nearly everyone’s has been stolen and is being used in some type of financial identity theft. The thieves are the people with two (or more) SSNs.
The sad thing is this is kinda solved in the advertising space. Like, they know who I am, uniquely, including emails, phone numbers, and drivers license. The data is available, but banks (the primary users of the SSN) are perpetually stuck with 30yo tech.
It is supposed to to keep your SSN secret and not carry the card with you everywhere but you have to memorize it and everyone and their dog is gonna ask for it. It is kinda scary how many times you have to give it out to random people over the phone or email.
Most citizens in the divided states of southern north america do not have a passport though. And a birth certificate doesn’t have your current last name on it if you took someone else’s in marriage. That’s the point.
Scanning the article, the practical threat (besides crazy ideological stunts) seems to be stealth disenfranchisement of this type:
It won’t affect republican women because the people running those voting stations won’t enforce the rule for “their own”.
Dam I never thought about it
A passport always contains the current last name. If you took on a new one you have to get a new one issued. That’s standard pretty much all over the world.
This is the part that’s mistaken: you don’t need a passport if you don’t travel to foreign lands. As far as I know, Americans usually prove their identity using a driver’s license, rarely using a passport.
No one in my family has a passport. So with this law only the men could vote, unless they spend the money to get a passport despite not aiming to travel.
Birth certificates can’t be changed and need to match, and that’s one of the forms of ID listed.
Passports aren’t free, and not everyone has one to begin with. This blatantly stonewalls women, especially underprivileged women.
Some states allow you to update your birth certificate after a legal name change. It’s definitely not universal, and much less likely in red states.
This also has a fee attached.
Yeah, even just checking, and it looks like Massachusetts doesn’t allow name changes for this purpose, and really only does it to correct mistakes at the time a record was made: "For example, you cannot change your birth record solely for a legal change of name. "
Did they even think any of this through? LOL
Americans are pretty weird about their ID things.
Other than a driver’s license, most of them don’t have any ID.
They don’t have any sort of unique ID number either. They have a social security number, which is not guaranteed to be unique. Two people can have the same SSN. One person can have two SSNs. You’re apparently supposed to keep your SSN secret, but they’re assigned somewhat sequentially and they get leaked a lot. It’s a clusterfuck.
SSNs are guaranteed to be unique upon assignment. The problem is that so many leaks have happened that nearly everyone’s has been stolen and is being used in some type of financial identity theft. The thieves are the people with two (or more) SSNs.
The sad thing is this is kinda solved in the advertising space. Like, they know who I am, uniquely, including emails, phone numbers, and drivers license. The data is available, but banks (the primary users of the SSN) are perpetually stuck with 30yo tech.
It is supposed to to keep your SSN secret and not carry the card with you everywhere but you have to memorize it and everyone and their dog is gonna ask for it. It is kinda scary how many times you have to give it out to random people over the phone or email.
Most citizens in the divided states of southern north america do not have a passport though. And a birth certificate doesn’t have your current last name on it if you took someone else’s in marriage. That’s the point.