Last week, the House passed the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act with a large amount of Republican support and four democratic votes. The bill requires all voters to provide proof of U.S. citizenship such as a passport or birth certificate when registering to vote or updating their voter registration. This bill is currently up for review in the Senate, which has not yet been scheduled a vote. Many politicians have voiced their opposition and opinion pertaining to the SAVE act such as Representative Nikema Williams (Georgia’s 5th congressional district) calling the bill “a modern-day tax poll.” Hillary Clinton said it is a “Republican voter suppression measure.” Lastly, Rep. Jennifer McClellan (Virginia’s 4th congressional district) stating, “It is a slap in the face for all of the women generally and Black women specifically who gave blood, sweat, and tears for the right to vote.”
Furthermore, around 69 million married women in America do not have a birth certificate and because documentation would need to be presented in person the legislation would possibly be preventing Americans from being able to register to vote by mail; end voter registration drives nationwide, and cancel online voter registration which 42/50 states rely on. Additionally, getting legal documents can be a challenge for some women. Although marriage certificates are more commonly issued, obtaining one may be especially difficult for women who have been married for a long period of time and may no longer have their marriage certificate readily available.
Polarization is described as “the movement of political views and actions away from the center and toward more extreme politics.” Additionally, “we describe it as a process where the multiplicity of differences in society increasingly align along a single dimension, cross-cutting differences become instead reinforcing, and people increasingly perceive and describe politics and society in terms of ‘Us’ versus ‘Them.’” We also see how polarization and social segmentation intersect. For example, how when views of groups in society become more extreme, society becomes polarized and how shared identities and interests enhance this process – this creates affective ties as well as barriers to learning among groups.
Furthermore, analyzing effective political polarization in the United States. How Americans increasingly do not like and disrupt those from other and differing political parties. Claiming that the opposing party’s members are hypocritical, selfish and close-minded. This creates an unwillingness to associate and converse with party lines and creates more heated conflict and possible violence between people.
We also see how polarization may have some benefits in a democratic state. We see how it can mobilize political participation, can clarify political choice for voters and strengthen political parties. This can cause governments and leaders to decentralize power and take accountability. But we also recognize how polarization can be a threat towards governability and social cohesion.
The article, Political Polarization is Not Unique to the U.S., but its Causes Are by Alex Russell states, countries with a winner-take-all voting system do tend to display higher levels of anger and hostility between parties, and so do countries with bigger gaps between rich and poor. Lastly, how United States cultural debates pertaining to immigration, LGBTQ+ rights, and abortion have fueled cross party anger.
Polarization relates to the SAVE ACT because polarization is described as a prominent division or conflict between two major groups in society that are marked by clustering and the radicalization of views/beliefs that are both very different. When it comes to women’s rights and women’s suffrage it can be a very polarizing topic. There may be a side who believes that women should be able to vote and there may be an opposing side who believes that women should not be able to vote. Women’s rights and feminism can be seen as a very radical topic both internationally and in the United States although women’s rights are human rights and no one should be denied their ordained rights.
Polarization and the Global Crisis of Democracy: Common Patterns, Dynamics, and Pernicious Consequences for Democratic Politics by Jennifer McCoy, Tahmina Rahman, and Murat Somer discusses the “US vs Them” paradigm and how intergroup conflict dynamics can be a main source of possible risks for democracy. For example, the text states “Political polarization benefits democracy by mobilizing political participation, simplifying political choice for voters, and strengthening political parties.” This showcases how polarization can lead to a net good although it causes conflict between two opposing parties it can enact positive change in a democracy.
Although a women’s right to vote can be viewed as a very radical or extreme topic and can relate to the US vs Them notion. Meaning that one side is for a women’s right to vote and the other is not in favor of women voting – this showcases how polarization and conflict can possibly lead to unity or positivity in a democracy which is what we should all ultimately strive for. A peaceful and just democracy.
Sources:
McCoy, J., Rahman, T., & Somer, M. (2018). Polarization and the Global Crisis of Democracy: Common Patterns, Dynamics, and Pernicious Consequences for Democratic Politics. American Behavioral Scientist, 62(1), 16-42. https://doi-org.ezproxy.bu.edu/10.1177/0002764218759576 (Original work published 2018) (https://doi-org.ezproxy.bu.edu/10.1177/000276421875957)
Political Polarization in the United States
Political Polarization is Not Unique to the U.S., but its Causes Are
What the SAVE Act Means for Women
The SAVE Act Would Disenfranchise Millions of Citizens
The SAVE Act could make it harder for married women to vote
Will the SAVE Act make it harder for married women to vote? We ask legal experts
Hi Camille,
Thank you for bringing my attention to this issue, as I had known the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act was drafted, but it’s extremely disheartening to learn it came to fruition. This is a huge contribution to already present voter disenfranchisement in the U.S. It’s even more concerning that this act will target women’s rights to vote, as many married women have different last names on their birth certificates, as you noted. I can’t imagine how women’s suffrage is a polarizing issue in 2025, but it’s appalling to learn so. This is definitely an instance of the “us versus them” concept that you touched on. Great post, thank you for brining awareness to this inherently anti-democratic bill.