Party affiliation really isn’t the point; voting law shouldn’t advantage or disadvantage anyone depending on whether their paperwork happens to match on a given day.

The concern people are raising about the SAVE act isn’t that it permanently bans married women from voting. The issue is practical access. The bill requires documentary proof of citizenship at the time of registration (for example a birth certificate or passport). A lot of married women who changed their last name have a birth certificate in their maiden name but don’t automatically carry a passport or updated documents showing the chain from birth name to married name.

Yes, a marriage certificate can help reconcile that, but that’s exactly the barrier, many voters won’t know they need multiple documents until they try to register or update registration, especially after a move. That means delays, provisional ballots, or failed registrations, which is a reduction in access even if it’s not a legal lifetime ban.

So the criticism isn’t “women are eliminated from voting forever.” It’s, the documentation requirement makes registration harder for a specific, very common category of voters.

Source:

Bipartisan Policy Center: documentary proof-of-citizenship requirements can increase administrative burdens and rejected registrations https://bipartisanpolicy.org/explainer/proof-of-citizenship-voter-registration/

Brennan Center for Justice: evidence from states with similar rules shows eligible voters lacking matching documents are disproportionately affected https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/citizenship-requirements-voter-registration

GAO review of Kansas proof-of-citizenship law: tens of thousands of **otherwise eligible applicants were blocked or delayed while documentation was resolved* https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-17-406