No, Requiring Voter ID is Not Sexist

There are two similar bills causing the controversy du jour on Capitol Hill – the SAVE Act and the SAVE America Act. Both would better protect the integrity of elections in the U.S. by ensuring voter ID and requiring proof of citizenship. But opponents are arguing that, among other claims, these bills are sexist and disenfranchise women. The truly sexist claim here? The idea that women cannot, in the year 2026, get a valid ID.

The Safeguard American Voting Eligibility, or SAVE, Act, introduced by Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas 21st) would ban noncitizens from voting in federal elections and require photo ID, a proposal that should be completely commonsense. The House of Representatives has passed the bill twice. The SAVE America Act, which was passed in the House this week, is nearly identical to the SAVE Act but adds a provision for a national voter ID requirement.

Both bills have been denounced as legislation that would disenfranchise voters. U.S. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries decried that this was tantamount to “voter suppression.” Sen. Chuck Schmuer (D-Illinois), the Senate minority leader, went so far as to call it “Jim Crow 2.0.”

But the most outlandish argument came when Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Maryland 8th) said that the SAVE Act might violate the 19^th Amendment because women won’t be able to vote.

He and other opponents base this claim that Voter ID legislation is sexist on the idea that these bills will make it more difficult for married women to vote. They argue that documents required to prove citizenship, such as a birth certificate, may not match the legal name of a married woman and thus bar her from participating in an election.

It is nonsense. Even if this claim had merit, it would not violate the 19^th Amendment. While it guarantees the right to vote to women, it does not preclude women from having to show her eligibility to exercise that right, just as every other citizen may be asked to do. But the idea that the documentation requirement in the bill may disenfranchise women is simply false, and frankly, insulting. According to both bills, the documents that can be used to prove citizenship include, but are not limited to, a valid U.S. passport, a military ID card, or a government issued photo-ID such as a driver’s license. There is nothing in the bill that would require a woman to show up to the polling place with her birth certificate in hand.

Sure, a married woman may have to go through the hassle of ensuring her driver’s license matches her new legal name, but every single one of us has to make the occasional trip to the DMV to update our licenses. This is not an unreasonable or burdensome task. For a newly married woman taking her husband’s last name, it is no surprise that she has to update her various legal documents. All this legislation would require is that in the months after she marries, she updates her license with her new name.

And even if that is too much of a burden, the bill itself ensures that states have a process in place for Americans whose legal name does not match their proof of citizenship. In section 2(B) of the SAVE Act, under “Process in case of certain discrepancies in documentation,” the bill tasks states with establishing “a process under which an applicant can provide such additional documentation … in the event of a discrepancy with respect to the applicant’s documentary proof of United States citizenship.” That means the SAVE Act expects states to ask for marriage certificates or other supplementary documents in such cases.

It is very easy to provide proof of citizenship. And yet, the side that claims to care about women and their rights offers an argument that only demeans and lies about the capabilities of women. They say we cannot have Voter ID laws because then it would simply be too difficult for women to vote, as if they are incapable of doing the fairly simple and ordinary task of updating a legal document.

If Raskin and his compatriots truly cared about women, they would be talking about what actually harms their right to vote–allowing foreign immigrants, who are not citizens, to have the same electoral power as American citizens. Every illegal vote waters down the legitimate votes of those who live and work in this country as legal residents. For those who say that illegal immigrants do not vote, over 2,700 illegal immigrants were found on the voter rolls in Texas alone. Imagine what the number may be in states with less secure election laws. Rewarding those who do not respect our laws enough to come here legally with the opportunity to elect our representatives is a far greater disenfranchisement than requiring an updated driver’s license.

The idea that election security is somehow sexist is a blatant fear mongering attempt against a popular and commonsense policy. A Pew Research poll released in August 2025 revealed that 83% of Americans support requiring voter ID. Most Americans of all political persuasions understand that if you need an ID to board a plane or go to a doctor’s appointment, you should have to show one in order to exercise one of our most important civic duties.

The real roadblock for these bills is not that it threatens anyone’s rights, but that there is a Democratic political class that ignores its own base that strongly supports voter ID and is willing to abuse the Senate’s cloture rules, which requires a 60-vote threshold for passage. Senate Republicans will have to employ creative procedural tactics if they want to pass Voter ID legislation.

One thing is certain – they should completely ignore silly arguments invoking women’s rights for political gamesmanship. Most women, as the rest of the country, support voter ID laws.

The country is united on this. Americans want voter ID laws. The reality is that a very small group of Democratic members of the U.S. Senate is the only thing standing in the way.