Leah Litman

But that's not how you usually interpret federal statutes.

Under our constitutional system, states are supposed to be able to be the primary rule setters on elections.

And they seemed willing to kind of abandon federalism, to abandon textualism in favor of something like whataboutism.

That's what I heard.

I think that's what other Supreme Court watchers also heard.

And just to pick up on one thing you said, you know, of course, the fact that states take so long to count ballots, that's not a good thing.

But the reality is invalidating these state rules that allow the counting of absentee ballots, that's not going to fix the problem because it still takes states a lot of time to count ballots that are received on or before Election Day.

You know, we need to be able to invest more resources in

in order to give states the ability to process the counting of ballots.

You know, some states don't even allow officials to begin counting ballots until a certain point.

And so this decision is not going to address all of the bogeyman and the fears they're trotting out.

It is just straight up voter suppression.

Yeah, I mean, happy Women's History Month, ladies.

You might not be able to vote very soon.

But yes, so, you know, various provisions of the law require you to be able to present an identification, you know, that matches your name when you go to vote.

And so married women who change their names when they get married might have an identification where their birth certificate or their passport doesn't align with their married name.

And so they would be prevented from voting under the SAVE Act.

But it's not just married women.

A lot of people change their names for a variety of reasons.

Same-sex couples, they change their names when they get married.