Fun fact: there's no such thing as a legal name in most states. There's names you use, names assigned at birth, but no legal name.
this post was submitted on 12 Apr 2025
654 points (94.7% liked)
politics
22874 readers
5645 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
Rawstory is pretty bad too. Blogs/tweets that float up can be even worse.
I get it, people have their regular sources and well we should do something about it and post better ones if we don't like it, but still.
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
load more comments
(3 replies)
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.
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
It still would have passed. 208-212
Someone doesn't know abaut the rotating villain system.
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.
Time to vote with guns.
Or at least vote for the progressive in the primary first.
Been doing that since 2002. Doesn't seem to do anything.
load more comments
(8 replies)
I wonder how the republicans voted?
For freedom from having to deal with all the pesky women who vote democrat.
Although more and more women aren't changing their name because it's a stupid tradition, but obviously that skews liberal, so it may be hurting republican women more... Which actually checks out, since republicans generally hurt their own (voting) constituents in favor of their true, rich constituency.
Wonder how much they’re getting paid?
view more: next ›