Because we expect that from Republicans. It’s the democrats defecting that is the worrisome part.
The fact that Republicans want to take away peoples' ability to vote isn't really news, but the fact that any Democrats supported it is.
- the fact that any Democrats supported it is
  No one paying attention would have expected anything different. Its been 13 years since the VRA was struck down and democrats have done nothing meaningful, other than fundraise, off protecting voting rights. Doing nothing is worse than taking rights.
Try to primary them and see how fast the Democratic establishment is to come to their defense. "Democrats" is fair. Not all Democrats, but the party establishment is rotten.
- Try to primary them and see how fast the Democratic establishment is to come to their defense
  Who fucking cares what the establishment says. The nominees is whoever won the primary vote.
Republicans wanting to ban women from voting isn't really news.
- It really shouldn't be news, but remember....there are most likely a lot of morons out there who would still be shocked to hear about it. The ones who don't like to talk or read about politics, the uninformed voter. These are Americans we're talking about.
Republicans tell us who they are, so theres no need to point out what theyve already told us. Democrats however always claim to hold the high ground as if they are not collaborators in regressive legislation.
- This explains it so well.
Honest question, if those four hadn't voted for it, would the bill have failed?
- It passed 220-208, so no it wouldn't have changed anything.
When are you doing to hold these fucking pro-Trump Democrats accountable? So such of the constant whining and crying every time the Democrats are called out on their bullshit.
- What's Anyone doing to hold Republicans accountable?
  The headline should read 216 Republicans ensured passage of this bill.
  My God, part of everything we deal with these days is no one holds Republicans accountable. Media, voters, commenters, etc. Maybe try that for once instead of focusing on 4 Democrats who DON'T MATTER.
- They never will. They will defend them because even when they vote in agreement with stripping the rights of Americans because of Trump, they're on the blue team, so it's always valid and justified.
I was thinking the same. Like what? 6 dudes didn't pass the bill, half of your representatives did.
They did pass it.

IANAL but in my reading of the text of the bill the only way for a married woman that took her partner's last name (that wasn't in the military with her married name) to be able to vote if this becomes law is for them to spend at least $30 to get a USA Passport card. This would tick all the boxes the bill requires for these women:

Government ID
Shows citizenship status (by nature of it being a Passport)
Shows place of birth
Shows the married last name

...or as I'm calling it:

This is violation of the 24th Amendment banning poll Taxes.

In this case, its a required fee married women must pay to be able to use their Constitutional guaranteed right to vote granted by the 19th Amendment. How is this not a poll tax by another name on married women?

Worse getting the card is a major pita with the documentation and photo and having to mail it for first time.
At this point the constitution is more of a guideline.
- To the GOP it's just rough paper to wipe their asses.
It always seems to me that this wouldn't be such a big problem if the US had a working bureaucracy. I know $30 can be a significant sum (plus the pictures and other expenses) but it would be less of a hurdle if
relevant offices were within reasonable distance
they were sufficiently manned
all or part of the process could be done online
the government actually strives to make these processes as user-friendly as possible
This is something Americans rarely talk about because it's just assumed that everybody knows? Maybe somebody could explain to a EU dweller.
edit: maybe I didn't phrase this properly. I'm fully aware that preventing people from voting has a long "tradition" in the US; my question was more general I guess, and meant as an "in addition to the points already mentioned".
- Those in power absolutely know these things but making things more difficult is the actual point. Voter fraud is extremely rare. The justification is all bull shit.
  It's ultimately about preventing people who might vote Democrat from voting. If it affects a ton of Republican voters that's fine so long as it hits disproportionately more Democrats.
- It always seems to me that this wouldn’t be such a big problem if the US had a working bureaucracy.
  As a European I have no expectation you'd had this nugget of US history, but I can fill in the gap. After slavery was outlawed in the entire USA in the 1850s (post civil war) racist bigots enacted laws preventing black Americans from using their newly gained Constitutional rights. There were lots of examples of this. In many of the southern state local leaders instituted poll taxes, which was a required fee that someone would have to pay before being able to vote, but these same laws gave exemptions to anyone whose grandfather had voted in a prior election. Because whites had a long history of voting they were exempt from these taxes. Because newly freed slaves whose grandfathers had not been allowed to vote hadn't, the poll tax applied only to blacks. This disenfranchisement was deliberate on the part of white leaders with the intent to suppress black voting.
  This is obviously fairly fucked up way to run a country, so the people of the USA passed an amendment to the US Constitution banning poll taxes on everyone. This is the 24th Amendment (passed in 1964). Better late than never.
  So this new requirement on married women to pay at least $30 to get a passport card is a de facto poll tax which is outlawed by our Constitution (24th Amendment) also because it violates the 19th Amendment (the one that gave women the right to vote) as this law specifically targets married women (and not married men).
Consider this too. A woman has all of her ducks in a row with her married last name, and then divorces her POS republican husband. Now she needs to re-establish her identity all over again.
For the ladies out there (or anyone getting married) keep your last name. My partner kept theirs, and it tickles them pink when the systemic chauvinism gets reversed and I get called by their last name.
- My partner kept theirs, and it tickles them pink when the systemic chauvinism gets reversed and I get called by their last name.
  Same here. :)
- But doesn't this mean you now have to get a passport card if you took their last name?
here's the issue.
There's been a tax on the second amendment for decades. Having to pay the fees for licensing, and the classes, means there's a cost to exercise the right. Since people with no knowledge about the subject made sure to make it as expensive as possible to enjoy a right, the psychopaths in office now have precedent.
one cannot tax one right and hand wave another. So . which do you think will fall first?
- Is there an amendment that bans a tax on gun ownership?
  If not, then your argument has no standing
- Dont stop! I'm playing sad violin music to back you up! keep typing, think of the children who wont get to fire guns without your continued effort.
- How does the 2nd amendment stop taxes on guns?
  You're being an idiot, and you should shut up.
- So which amendment bans taxes on gun ownership. Must have missed that one.
- There’s been a tax on the second amendment for decades. Having to pay the fees for licensing, and the classes, means there’s a cost to exercise the right.
  I looked at the receipt for a recent gun purchase, a rifle, and there are zero taxes or fees on it except sales tax which applies to nearly all items (such as video games or automobiles) for sale. There were no required licenses or classes to purchase or own this firearm.
- I have multiple guns. Never paid for a class, don't need a license. Only cost was in the guns and ammo. Now, I WAS taught at an early age how to handle guns safely, and am damn near brainwashed to handle them thusly (I never leave a bullet in chamber and I still clear my weapons every time I even touch them.) That said, I do need to stop being a lazy ass and finish building my ak47 instead of leaving it half assembled. Still needs a couple of American parts and I will not risk being dinged with an illegally built firearm.
They could waive the fee as part of it?
- They could do that but besides still being shitty, it may not satisfy the 19th Amendment. The text of the Amendment read:
  The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
  source
  Making married women jump through the arduous hoops of obtaining a passport card (and indirect costs associated with it such as postage and photography costs) could still be possibly considered "abridged" in violation of this Constitutional Amendment. This is especially true when this new bill effectively singles out married women. Married men don't have to do any of this so it could also still be a violation on the "on account of sex" portion of the Amendment.
- How about making Bubba from bumble-fuck Arkansas have to drive to some major city to register for his right to vote?
  See how that can be seen as an undue burden on voting?

Everyone already knows all the republicans supported it; anything under their jurisdiction is already a lost cause. What I want to know is how many people from the "left" party can't even keep their own votes on the right side of history. It's not news when villains are villains - it's news when the people who say they're here to fight back against the villains are caught supporting them, and it's important not to drown out that important detail among a bunch of already-known regressives. People need to see that the current democratic party isn't a viable defense against conservativism, and that we need to do something more to get things moving in the right direction again than simply trusting democrats to fix everything.
People expect the representative they voted for to vote how they want. Conservatives' representative voted as they wanted. Whereas Democrats' representative voted against their wishes. Hence the outrage.
This is a simplistic explanation, 4 Democratic representative might have voted as their constituents have demanded.
- I'd bet most conservative women didn't vote to have their ability to vote taken away as well. Having to have a "real ID" license accepted in every state not be accepted to vote is pure ridiculousness.
- Based on what I hear on local news, Perez at least probably is doing what her constituents want. She won a very red district as a Democrat by appealing to the people in her district. I don't like her vote, but I get it.
My initial reaction to this headline was: "what now?", and my first reaction on reading the article was "oh, it's a continuation of the horror show that calls itself US government - not actually something that four democrats are responsible for"
So I'm totally with you. Stop the sanewashing of the continued and systematic madness rising to ever new heights of depravity, should be the headline.
Republicans built the foundation for what's happening now for decades, and it was always like you said in your other comment: "Conservatives have survived on their ability to never be held accountable for what they do." Well, slightly more differentiated.
This bill is yet another voter supression tool. This is what they ultimately want: you have to be rich, male, of a certain ethic, and "white" to have a say. And they're almost there. If voting was really made easy for everyone, do you really think the GOP would still win?
This is yet another piece of codified and systemic racism, misogyny, homo- and transphobia, richism.
The hollowing out of what was once a working, relatively democratic system to a point where even the empty shell is starting to break up.
All that said, Democrats should start wielding what power they have (both in the government and in media, public opinion etc.) way more decisively. Between elections we must talk about how fucked up both parties are.
This comment (from this post) puts it best imho:
https://lemmy.world/comment/16414382
https://feddit.org/post/10702307/6001640
Four centrists centrist-ing.
"man bites dog" vs "dog bites man"
We all know what the Republicans unanimously stand for. Apparently some democrats do too, and that's worth noting.

Jared Golden, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, Henry Cuellar, and Ed Case

Marie Gluesenkamp Perez sold out the US on another important vote at some point in the recent past. Her name was unique enough to remember. Are the other three also habitual free agents?
- Yep she’s a piece of shit and it’s pissing me off. I get the alternative would have been voting the same but now I have disappointment as well.
- Yeah, they all suck. Ed Case is a world class piece of shit as he's representing urban Honolulu, in a SOLIDLY blue district.
This is why democrats worked so hard to keep coathager cuellar in office. They need people like him to vote how they want.

No Democrat should vote for a single Nazi bill, ever.

Scratch a liberal...

they are called collaborators. Nazi Collaborators..

IT FUCKING PASSED?

We have long crossed the Rubicon.

It passed the house a few days ago, from my understanding it is less likely to pass the Senate
- If this is likely to pass its not just the Republicans who are compromised.
What's the difference there won't be an election
- If everyone that said this pulled together we could probably stop the Silicon Valley coupe on our own.

Time to vote with guns.

Or at least vote for the progressive in the primary first.
- Nah, people running under the progressive name need to know we're done fucking around.
- Pretty obvious from the election they want progressives kept of the ballots by all means, and mostly by the dems.
  Can't challenge the uniparty monopoly.
- Been doing that since 2002. Doesn't seem to do anything.

Pretending to be a democrat seems to be more and more common. We need a way to vet them.

Fuck vetting. We need a way for citizens to recall these lying fuckers.
Unfortunately, if you try to vet them you'll be attacked for not voting for the lesser evil.
- Yeah, at this point it's beyond clear that it goes beyond "a few bad apples". Any attempt to primary these fuckers will have to overcome a tidal wave of Democratic establishment and AIPAC money.
More people need to vote in the primaries.
DINOS, alot of them had to make deals with the DNC, because otherwise they get outed in a red district, or state. much like manchin is, since he wont be winning against a maga anytime soon.

But that means something like 204 democrats voted against. Maybe if those 4 hadn't of supported the bill, it might have failed, but you can't blame the democrats for a shitty bill when 97% voted against.

Someone doesn't know abaut the rotating villain system.
yeah you can because they need to all be united on this I bet you all the Republicans voted yes all the Democrats should have voted no not that it matters anyways because it would have still passed it's just a matter of principle I don't get why you guys don't understand that it's quite simple

im not surprised these DINOs are here, theres like 10 in then senate and probably just as many in the house.

This headline is horseshit so I've only read enough to establish that much and am ignoring the rest of the article. Someone post a different one.

Here's all you need to know from the article:

Republicans, and apparently some Democrats

many have warned that it could even make it harder for married women to vote.

The only conclusion you should draw is this: Marin Scotten of the New Republic is full of shit and shall not be trusted ever. You may conclude as you wish about all other matters based on other sources.

You're being extreme. I suppose headline is misleading because the bill would have passed without Democrat support, and it doesn't directly restrict the voting of married women. But four house democrats did vote for this (presumably because they're in swing districts or border towns?), and the premise (requiring proof of citizenship is soft voter supression) appears to be true.
But you are touching on something I feel. Lots of really sensationalist sources float to the top of Lemmy's front page.
- New Republic is the worst. The Trump administration already does a lot of really awful, shitty, terrible things that deserve sunlight without sensationalizing shit, but they make a lot of sensationalist articles and a lot of "Oh Boy this ONE maga voter is really sorry now!" pieces. It's got big institutional Democrat energy.
  That said, yes, the headline is indirectly correct.
This headline is horseshit
The legislation fucks with the ability for women who change their last name after marriage to obtain the IDs necessary to cast a ballot, which are increasingly fixated on tying everything back to your Birth Certificate. Four Democrats supported this bill, ostensibly in order to fuck over Transgender people.
Incidentally, one of the four - Henry Cuellar - is indicted on charges of bribery, unlawful foreign influence, and money laundering, allegedly accepting nearly $600,000 in bribes from foreign entities in exchange for political favors. Crazy that Dem megadonors continue to back him in election after election.
Marin Scotten of the New Republic is full of shit and shall not be trusted ever.
My guy, you're the one spewing horseshit here.
- right I thought I was waking up in crazy town. many women change their names and do not update their birth certificate My therapist was literally telling me about her issues with doing it because she's been divorced a couple times this legislation directly impacts women and trans people specifically. It is intentionally written to make it harder for people in these groups to vote me personally I'm in the middle of getting my birth certificate updated so I'm hoping it won't be a problem by the time midterms come up, but overall this bill is a bad bill it's not needed there's no need for this bill it's absolutely pointless and pathetic attempt at voter manipulation
I'm going to conclude blue MAGA is angry and can't take criticism.
Attacking the source when NPR and plenty of media report the same thing.
- Focusing direct attention on 4 out of 220 people and wording it as if those were the only people who did it isn't a critisism, it's a manipulation. It's the same manipulation that was around for months before the election which lead to all this bullshit in the first place. For a median voter it makes this regular "both sides" bullshit, when in reality it's 216 vs 4 people.

Democratic leadership is a joke. Jefferies and Schumer need to step down. This is pathetic.

Wonder how much they’re getting paid?

It's not these four cowardly DINOs that make me lose faith in this country. It's the people continuing to defend them.

I don't think anyone defends them.

Ok whew, we are truly almost back to the 1890's, Trumpublicans apparently favored era of America.

19th Ammendment was passed back in... 1920.

Basically this undoes women's suffrage, so married women either just can't vote, or will face massive uneccesarry hurdles voting.

And of course transfolk as well, they're now pretty much ~~formerly~~ formally (ducking autocorrect) disenfranchised.

I wonder, do we have bootleggers (smugglers) for abortifacients, birth control, horomone therapy drugs yet?

I guess that'll be the 'growth market'.

I wonder how the republicans voted?

You can currently vote in the US without ID?

I don't understand what the controversy is, providing ID along with your voting card seems normal to me.

What am I missing? I scimmed the article.

We make people pay to get an ID partially because it's outsourced in many states to private companies.
I live in Canada, I can vote using my free government issued healthcard or I can bring a friend to vouch for me, or i can bring a student id and a bill. While most people probably vote with their drivers license or photo ID this enables people who are homeless, very old, or in my case in 2021, just moved. (Here's what's needed for the curious). You'll notice in that link there are special exemptions for people who live in long term care homes, for whom it is much more common to have no form of id.
People who don't have easy access to id are societies most vulnerable people and I think it is especially important that they have access to voting.
America does not have a free form of id (in most states anyway) and does not allow someone to vouch as a form of identification.
- I'm Swedish. Don't know if someone can vouch for me. Never tried. Pretty sure I need an ID.
  Everyone (18+) get a voting card in their mail sent to their adress. You bring the voting card and ID, like passport or drivers license. Someone ticks your name off a list and you can vote. (No registrering to vote or anything)
  ID isn't free, but a passport costs like $40-50.
  You can also get a national ID card. But that's even more expensive and I still don't quite understand why you would want one rather than just getting a passport.
You can vote in a lot of countries without ID dude.
A birth certificate is a static document. In my case it was issued 47 fckn years ago. Why should i pay to update a half century document to match my current legal ID (passport, license , etc) I shouldn't and it's ridiculous
A friend changed her surname after being adopted by her stepfather. She's fucked by this as well. Anyone who's ever changed a stupid name, broken from a bad parent, been adopted, anglicised, or even had a fat fingered nurse typo is now fucked....because idiots are hysterical over 0.6% of the population.
- Oh hey, that's me! Nurse swapped my vowels around. Literally hasn't been an issue for 37 years and now, it just might be.
- Could you name these "a lot of countries"? Since it's a lot of them, shouldn't be too difficult to mention 20 right?
  They say it's to prove citizenship, a passport is proof of citizenship isn't it? So that is enough no?
Imagine a woman being born a Smith. She marries a Jones and changes her name and license. Her birth certificate is still Smith. She will be required to have the same name on her BC and License. She will have to choose and change one of them at her expense.
- I don't quite follow the last part. "She will have to choose and change one of them at her expense"
  Obviously you need to update your license if you change your name.
  So she can update her BC to match her new name? Or is that impossible, thus making her unable to vote because of it.
I think many states require you already to provide an ID to vote. ID/Drivers license aren’t free.
I believe what they passed now, the SAVE Act, results in additional identification like a Birth Certificate or Passport. You have to prove citizenship in some manner. If you got married your last name won’t match your birth certificate, I’ve read of that being used as an example for reason to deny voting access.
I personally feel this is a waste of time and money to implement and will just be used for voter suppression.
Among the most notable changes outlined in the bill is the requirement to prove U.S. citizenship before registering to vote. Acceptable documents will include a birth certificate, U.S. passport, naturalization paperwork and certain versions of the Real ID that indicate citizenship.
(https://www.npr.org/2024/10/11/nx-s1-5147732/voter-fraud-explainer)

Hopefully republicans are still more religious, more often married and therefore more affected by this stupid bill...

What has this country become, requiring ID to vote? What is this Germany, Switzerland, Belgium, Denmark, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Finland, France, Mexico, or Canada, most of Europe, most of South America, or Most of Asia?

And these countries have compulsory voter registration and the onus of verifying a prerson's ability to vote is on the government, not the individual.
Don't try to pretend that Republicans here are like Europe here buddy, if these assholes want to follow European style voter ID and government then by all means, do it. Otherwise take your disingenuous argument elsewhere.
These comments and reactions are so interesting to me. Like, who are you? If you're a progressive, you don't want more blocking for a citizen to vote. If you're a conservative, you don't want laws being passed that aren't necessary and add to the government's control.
There is absolutely no on-going problem with voter fraud. There is absolutely no reason for this to be a problem for any legislative body to be focusing on. But, you and other commenters always have the same response, "Well, country (A,B,C) do it, what's the big deal?"
Like wtf is the big deal to begin with? It never starts with that, it's "what problem do you have with this extra legislation that isn't needed?"
EVEN ONE PERSON NOT BEING ABLE TO VOTE BECAUSE OF THIS IS A PROBLEM TO ME! ONE PERSON BEING DISENFRANCHISED FROM RUNNING DOWN TO THEIR LOCAL ELECTIONS TO VOTE BECAUSE OF A REQUIREMENT THEY CAN'T REACH IS A FUCKING PROBLEM FOR ME!
I have never once shown any form of ID to vote in Denmark in my 10 years of voting. Kindly fuck way off.