To put it simply, the party of small government wants to implement requirements that are more burdensome to some than to others, in order to solve a problem that a large swath of the public believes is manufactured.
OK, let's take this from the top.
1) “What if you don’t live where you were born?”
The SAVE Act doesn’t require a road trip to your birthplace. You request your birth certificate by mail or online like millions of Americans already do. We’ve had this technology for a while, did you not know that?
2) “What if it doesn’t cost $15… what if you don’t have $15?”
If you can’t scrape together $15 once in your life for a foundational identity document, that’s a broader life-admin problem.
$15 bucks? Are you serious?
We’re talking about federal elections, arguably the most important civic act in the country, and your argument is that a one-time document fee is an insurmountable wall?
Be serious.
Also: MANY places have fee waivers/reductions.
3) “What if you don’t have $165 for a passport?”
Then… don’t use a passport. The SAVE Act does not require a passport specifically. A birth certificate 100% qualifies.
“What if you don’t have a vehicle or reliable transport?”
I know this is crazy, but your phone can do this. You can just order the documents. By mail. Or online. Like people do for Social Security cards, tax records, and everything else.
4) “What if you live 30 miles from the DMV?”
...then don't go?
The SAVE Act doesn’t mandate a DMV visit, here's an example of how this works:
- You were born in the U.S.
- You already have a certified copy of your birth certificate at home (or you order one online from your state’s vital records office).
- You register to vote through your county election office, either by mail or through the state’s voter registration portal.
- You submit a copy of your qualifying citizenship document with your registration
Done. No DMV trip.
BUT EVEN IF YOU DID HAVE TO GO TO THE DMV
If your argument is “I can’t possibly travel 30 miles one time to prove I’m eligible,”
...now we’re supposed to pretend 30 miles is an impossible trek only when the task is confirming you’re eligible to vote in federal elections?
Give me a break.
5) “What if you live with an abusive man who doesn’t allow this?”
If someone is under such extreme coercive control that they cannot access mail, use their phone, leave the house, or go to any government office
Please explain how this person is going to vote AT ALL.
You can’t simultaneously argue:
“She’s too controlled to obtain paperwork,”
AND
“But she’s fully autonomous to participate in elections without interference.”
That’s logically inconsistent.
Your argument only works by pretending a tyrant at home magically disappears on Election Day...
6) “What if your names don’t match?”
Then you do what people already do every day: you use the freaking legal paper trail (marriage certificate, court order, etc.). Name changes are INSANELY common, this is not a new concept.
Treating this like some rare unsolvable problem is stupidity.