Representative Pocan Criticizes SAVE America Act
Representative Mark Pocan from Wisconsin took to X to voice his concerns about the SAVE America Act (HR 22), which mandates that individuals provide proof of U.S. citizenship for federal voter registration. He implied that this legislation undermines the intelligence and capabilities of many American women, framing everyday situations as if they were almost insurmountable challenges.
Pocan highlighted possible obstacles that married women might face, like financial costs and name discrepancies. It seems he aimed to stir up frustration among Democratic voters by suggesting that this law would prevent women from voting. Yet, he neglects crucial facts and, more alarmingly, suggests that women are incapable of obtaining essential documents like passports or birth certificates, which are necessary for ID verification during registration.
“There’s a misunderstanding about the SAVE America Act. If this becomes law, you can’t just vote with your driver’s license,” he explained, listing what would be required: “1. A passport, which over half of Americans lack and costs at least $130, or 2. A photo ID that matches your birth certificate—a problem for nearly 70 million married women.” He concluded, “I vote NO.”
It’s key to recognize that the act calls for proof of citizenship at the time of voter registration and not when casting a ballot, where a driver’s license would suffice. While there’s a significant divide in opinion, many Americans, regardless of political affiliation, support requiring proof of citizenship for voting—similar to existing ID requirements for passports, driver’s licenses, and even opening bank accounts.
Pocan’s seemingly dismissive attitude toward women, particularly those who have changed their names post-marriage, may not have been deliberate. He likely intended to convince the left that the Republican Party seeks to suppress women’s votes in the upcoming midterms. But suggesting that birth certificates with maiden names aren’t enough indicates a belief that women are somehow too overwhelmed to address these issues. In truth, countless women successfully manage more complex tasks every day, and left-leaning women voters can certainly navigate this as well.
It’s worth noting, perhaps controversially, that women have been updating legal documents, like taxes and ID, after marriage for decades. Courts and election offices routinely handle name discrepancies, and this process is often no more complicated than renewing a driver’s license.
Pocan’s push to paint the Republican Party as sexist ironically reveals an issue within his own party—namely, an alarmingly negative perception of women’s capabilities. This might be referred to as “low expectations bias.” Does he really think women struggle with basic voter registration? They can manage complex careers and family responsibilities, yet name discrepancies are too daunting?
“If they weren’t seen as vulnerable victims of bureaucracy, they could even aspire to be president,” he seemed to imply.
His party appears to be caught in a contradiction: demanding to hear women’s voices while also suggesting that ID requirements are too challenging for them to understand.
