In a display of political theater at the Aspen Ideas Festival, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) unleashed a torrent of easily debunked claims against the proposed SAVE Act, attempting to paint a common-sense election integrity bill as a tool for widespread voter disenfranchisement.
Gillibrand conjured a chilling narrative, suggesting the legislation would empower the federal government to target individuals with "Hispanic last names" for voter registration denials. "Are they just going to say if you have a Latin last name, if you’re a Latino, and it’s Diaz or Alvarez, that you are not allowed to vote because there’s a question about whether you’re a citizen?" Gillibrand questioned. "That is how they’re going to disenfranchise people. Like it’s the amount of harm they would do to access to the ballot is unknowable."
Yet, the truth, as always, is far less sensational. Contrary to Gillibrand's alarmist rhetoric, the SAVE Act contains no provision whatsoever directing election officials to consider a person’s surname or ethnicity when determining voter eligibility. Apparently, basic facts were optional for her presentation.
The New York Senator continued her spree of misrepresentations, claiming the SAVE Act would mandate a passport for voter registration, rendering everyday IDs like driver’s licenses or even REAL IDs insufficient. "Well, what the SAVE Act does — don’t let him fool you — it’s not about having ID. The IDs that are in our wallet today are not sufficient for the SAVE Act," Gillibrand argued. "So you couldn’t use a driver’s license, you couldn’t even use a real ID driver’s license, you would need to have a passport. If you had to register to vote today, I think only 50 percent of Americans have passports."
Once again, the facts demolish her argument. The SAVE Act explicitly does not require every voter to present a passport. Instead, it provides a list of multiple acceptable forms of documentary proof of U.S. citizenship, including qualifying REAL IDs that denote citizenship, various government-issued IDs supported by additional documents, birth certificates, naturalization certificates, Consular Reports of Birth Abroad, and specific military documentation. This seems rather straightforward for anyone genuinely interested in securing the vote.
Gillibrand further broadened her claims of mass disenfranchisement to include married women and military personnel, asserting that name changes would complicate registration for women and that military IDs simply "don’t count." "If your passport doesn’t match your birth certificate because you got married, you don’t get to register to vote, you have to go change your birth certificate to your new married name. So that’s going to disenfranchise a lot of women. So many things, and so, and military IDs don’t count," Gillibrand continued. "So all those veterans, all those military members serving all across the world, they couldn’t register to vote either. So it was written intentionally to subvert access to the ballot, written intentionally so less people will vote."
Her final contention is equally baseless. The SAVE Act expressly includes an official U.S. military identification card as valid proof when presented with a military record showing the applicant's U.S. birth. The narrative of intentional disenfranchisement for America's heroes is not only false but borders on offensive.
This pattern of egregious misrepresentation by Senator Gillibrand isn't just political gamesmanship; it's a deliberate attempt to sow fear and mistrust in common-sense efforts to safeguard the integrity of our elections. While the radical left attempts to create imaginary barriers, the America First movement remains committed to ensuring every legal vote counts, without resorting to fictional narratives or attacking the very fabric of our democratic process.
