Dear Pantsuit Politics,
“I’m confused why Beth said she doesn’t think we should compare the SAVE Act to Jim Crow laws, because on a literal level, she went on to describe this as creating a poll tax for some, which I believe was a Jim Crow law. And on a broader level, both Jim Crow laws and this law are trying to disenfranchise certain voters. So how is it wrong to say that?” - Natalie
If you haven’t listened to our episode on the SAVE (Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility) Act, which requires proof of citizenship to register to vote, here’s what Natalie is reacting to:
I said, “I think it’s a bad strategy politically to go to the American public and say, ‘this thing that polls really high, this idea that you need to show proof of citizenship to vote is wrong.’ I think that’s not a good strategy. I think it’s a particularly bad strategy to talk about it as like the new Jim Crow. I think it’s disrespectful to what voters have experienced in the past, and I think it’s just not going to meet a lot of people where they are today.”
I went on to talk about my preferred strategy, which is to say, “if the government wants us to prove we’re citizens to vote, the government should make it easier to prove we’re citizens.” Right now, getting your paperwork together, especially if you’ve ever changed your name for any reason, is a pain. Ordering official documents can be expensive and time-consuming. If you live in a rural area, it might require a long drive to a government office and crossing your fingers that you went to the correct one. We could do a lot about that instead of burdening citizens with new requirements under the dated, inefficient, fragmented status quo.
To get back to Natalie’s points, let’s do a little historical review.
Is it historically accurate to compare the SAVE America Act to Jim Crow?
Between 1877 and the mid-1960s, there was an entire cultural and legal effort to relegate Black people to an inferior status. Laws excluded Black people from public transportation and facilities. Black people could not serve on juries. They could not live in certain neighborhoods. They could not be hired for certain jobs.
Voting restrictions were one piece of these laws. Here’s how the Jim Crow Museum explains it: “Black people were denied the right to vote by poll taxes (fees charged to poor black people), white primaries (only Democrats could vote, only white people could be Democrats), and literacy tests (‘Name all the Vice Presidents and Supreme Court Justices throughout America’s history’).
But Jim Crow laws and so-called “etiquette” touched every part of living in some states. In that sense, I think comparing the SAVE America Act to these laws is reductive.
Additionally, Jim Crow was specifically about degrading Black people. It was inarguably racist, inarguably intended to cement racism as fundamental to American culture. I do not think that every person who believes you should have to show proof of citizenship to vote is racist, nor do I believe the SAVE America Act, as written, is a racist law. I think it’s unnecessary, unwise, irresponsible, and overall bad policy (I’m with Nonprofit Vote: “The SAVE Act is the Wrong Solution for a Non-Problem), but not inherently racist.
If the SAVE America Act passed, would it represent a poll tax?
Most of our laws have origins in English history, and a poll tax is no exception. In English history, a poll tax is “a tax of uniform amount levied on each individual.” The most famous was levied in 1380, which led to the Peasants’ Revolt of 1381. In the late 1800s, Democrats were competing for power with the Populists, a party for poor farmers. When Democrats won, they amended state constitutions to impose poll taxes as prerequisites to voting, which excluded impoverished Black and some poor white Americans (although some states granted exemptions for poor white men). The 24th Amendment and the Voting Rights Act made poll taxes illegal in all states. Federal law now says explicitly that the requirement of the payment of a poll tax as a precondition to voting denies or abridges the rights of citizens to vote.
A number of organizations and politician are describing the SAVE America Act as a poll tax because so many Americans do not have documents proving their citizenship. Here’s Representative Jennifer McClellan’s (D-Va.) argument: “Every document this bill demands cost money—and whether it’s the $2.12 poll tax my father paid in 1947, a $130 passport, or a $1,385 certificate of citizenship, even a cent is too much. The SAVE America Act is a modern-day poll tax that exploits that reality by requiring voters to navigate a costly and time-consuming process just to exercise their constitutional right.”
I respect that argument. I’m not sure how a federal court would receive it. My instinct is that the conservatives on the U.S. Supreme Court would look to that English definition and disagree.
Are these arguments persuasive to people who are persuadable?
Reasonable people can disagree about everything I’ve written, and especially this part. From where I sit, people who pay less attention to politics than probably everyone who reads this note do hear “you have to show proof of citizenship to register to vote,” and think “that sounds like common sense.” It is very, very hard to talk people out of what they believe to be common sense. It is especially hard to open someone’s perspective if you counter, “it’s not common sense; it’s racist.”
There are actors in this administration who I believe are genuinely racist, and there are policies that I believe have been enacted and enforced in genuinely racist ways. It’s possible that there are states or officials in states who would implement the SAVE America Act in racist ways. I’m not trying to avoid talking about race and racism. I’m trying to be precise about it when I do.
The best arguments against the SAVE America Act are universal. All Americans have experience with government bureaucracy. Just about everyone can relate to the experience of showing up at a government office for a license or permit or to pay something and not having exactly what is required to take care of that already-annoying task. If you’ve changed your name (for any of MANY reasons), written your name inconsistently on government forms, or entered your name into a government form with a typo, you know what a pain it can be to straighten that out. If you’ve ever waited for something “in the mail” from a government, you know that when it will come, how it will come, and if it will come can feel like a gamble. Maybe it’s common sense to show proof of citizenship. Common sense also says it should be easy to show proof of citizenship, and it’s not today. Fix that first, members of Congress, then we’ll talk about the burden on citizens when we elect you.
“I am so sorry if I missed it, but I listened to the segment on the SAVE Act twice, and I didn’t hear anything about whether we think it will pass the Senate. I’ve seen some stuff that it won’t because they don’t have the votes there, but I’m curious of your thoughts on that, Sarah & Beth.” - Sophi
I don’t think it will pass. I think the votes are not there in the Senate. Here’s Fox News: “The Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) America Act has earned the backing of 50 Senate Republicans, including Thune, which is enough to break through a key procedural hurdle. Whether it can pass from the Senate to President Donald Trump’s desk is, for now, an unlikely scenario if lawmakers take the traditional path in the upper chamber.” If Fox News is setting this expectation, I think it’s very unlikely to pass.
At the same time, I think it’s very unlikely to go away. There are members of Congress who have convinced themselves that this law is good, necessary, and popular. They’ll keep trying, so I think it’s really important to talk about this precisely and persuasively.
“I’m concerned that your segment today on the SAVE Act included incorrect information.” - Jennifer
Jennifer wrote to point out that, in most states, Real IDs do not qualify as proof of citizenship. Social security cards also do not qualify as proof of citizenship. She said, correctly, “For most people, only a passport or a birth certificate will qualify—and as you discussed, there are a lot of issues with birth certificates as the act also doesn’t specify a remedy for a mismatch of names between a birth certificate and other identification, instead leaving it up to the states to resolve.”
That’s correct. In describing this requirement, I spoke imprecisely, drawing on my personal experience of getting a Real ID, when I presented a driver’s license, passport, birth certificate, social security card, and marriage license and still had to make a trip to a social security office to get a new social security card that used my married name before Kentucky would issue a Real ID to me. All to say again: this law will cause so much hassle and prevent so little fraud — it’s a bad idea.
We plan to answer more listener questions in posts like this one. Email hello@pantsuitpoliticsshow.com to share a question or prompt.
Further Listening:
The SAVE Act and National Voter ID: A Quick Explainer (Crash Course with Casey Burgat)
I love this format of giving a follow up to responses after the episode! While I like the comments feature on Substack, it can be a lot, and I don't always have time to read through responses, etc. I love this round up of some of the big, standout ideas, and then your response to them that won't get lost in a long thread.
I do keep reminding myself that the hurdle to actually pass is high but there have been other things in this administration that looked like they would never pass, and they did. So I thinking sounding all the alarm bells right now is vital.
When Alabama was wanting to pass a very strict photo ID law to vote a few years back, they were going to make it a specific type that you had to get from a specific center that was not near public transit and charge for it. There was so much outrage. They were not going to accept military ids, federally issued photo ids, or school ids. Due to so much coverage and outrage, they were able to block the passing and had to settle on a more broad photo id law. They estimated thousands of poor and elderly voters would not have been allowed to vote due to placing the photo centers in hard to get to places. It was covered on the news and talk radio daily though to get it to sink in how discriminatory and potentially illegal the law could have been. I know media has changed since then but finding the right outlets to keep this in the spot light will be so important.