The League of Women Voters of Yolo County strongly opposes the federal SAVE America Act currently in the U.S. Senate and hopes local voters will contact their state senators to share their opposition.
The League’s position follows a century of nonpartisan support for ballot access and voting rights. National League CEO, Celina Stewart, issued this statement: “Make no mistake: the SAVE America Act is one of the most brazen attacks on women’s voting rights in the League’s 106-year history. This bill doesn’t secure our elections: it architects exclusion. Democracy must invite voters in, not lock them out. Reject this legislation.”
If signed into law, the SAVE America Act will have significant, immediate voter suppression consequences for voter registration and election participation, impacting all voters in California’s 2026 elections. Voting rights supporters can act now to stop its passage. The Yolo County League urges contacting our Senators today to oppose the S.A.V.E America Act.
To learn more and contact our Senators, go to https://www.lwv.org/save-act or write directly to California Senator Adam Schiff at: https://www.schiff.senate.gov/contact/ or Senator Alex Padilla at: https://www.padilla.senate.gov/contact/
Michelle Famula, President
League of Women Voters of Yolo County
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
The League of Women Voters of Yolo County opposes the federal SAVE America Act which is against the will of the American people with recent polls showing 80% of the country are in favor of showing photo ID to vote. Even Democrats are 65% in favor, with GOP 95% and Independents at 79% in favor.
Source on your poll numbers Keith?
Do you have to show ID when you drive through a toll booth or on a toll road? Y
You do have to show photo ID when you register to vote, just like you do when you get your drivers license. After that your activity is tracked in the Elections database.
Do you agree that the goal of elections is to grt 100% of all citizens to vote?
“Do you have to show ID when you drive through a toll booth or on a toll road?”
What a hilarious analogy.
“Do you agree that the goal of elections is to grt 100% of all citizens to vote?”
No, the goal should be to make sure the vote is legit.
BY THE NUMBERS: Who lacks a valid, accurate driver’s license?
8% of white people
21% of people ages 70+
12% of all U.S. adults
23% of Hispanic people
21% of Black people
68% of transgender people
Sources: American National Election Studies 2020; U.S. Transgender Survey 2015; Sivak and Schoettle 2014.
An estimated 6-7% of U.S. adults, or 15-18 million people, do not have access to documents proving their birth or citizenship. -The Brennan Center for Justice, with 2020 American Community Survey population estimates
…. the numerous documents required to get or update an ID often cost money. For example, getting a certified copy of a court order, marriage license, or adoption papers all typically cost money, even before any costs related to the new or updated ID itself.
….
For people with lower income or limited resources, the costs of required documents alone can be prohibitive, let alone when combined with the cost of the actual identity document(s).
Limited Availability of ID Services
Another systems-level failure is the limited availability of ID-issuing services.c Despite the clear importance of IDs for virtually every aspect of day-to-day life, the government offices and agencies that provide ID related services often have limited availability, whether due to limited open hours, long wait times, or locations that are too few in number or too far away for many people. As a result, getting or updating an ID often takes considerable time and/or travel, posing additional financial costs and further roadblocks.
In 2021, Texas passed SB1, a law that dramatically altered many aspects of voting and elections in the state.
Among other provisions, the law creates criminal penalties for people who help others get to the polls or while at the polls, and it bans drive-through voting and extended voting hours—which are especially important for communities of color and low-income people who may have less flexible work schedules or other challenges to voting. The law also added new, stricter ID requirements for those voting by mail—a practice especially important to seniors, people with disabilities, and others who may have difficulties getting to the polls, not to mention a practice that became a vital safety measure amid the COVID-19 pandemic.
In March 2022, the first election after the law went into effect, thousands and thousands of ballots were rejected due to ID-related issues, and at rates much higher than in previous elections. Houston’s Harris County, for example, reported rejecting nearly 38% of ballots due to ID issues, and Austin’s Travis County reported rejecting as many as 50% of ballots.
https://www.mapresearch.org/file/MAP-Identity-Documents-report-2022.pdf
I asked A.I. to check these numbers for credibility and here’s the response:
BY THE NUMBERS: Who lacks a valid, accurate driver’s license?
8% of white people
21% of people ages 70+
12% of all U.S. adults
23% of Hispanic people
21% of Black people
68% of transgender people
1) No single credible source reports all these together
A legitimate statistic set should come from a clearly defined survey or dataset (e.g., Census, DMV studies, peer-reviewed research). These numbers:
Mix race (White, Black, Hispanic)
Age (70+)
Entire population (all adults)
Gender identity (transgender people)
Those categories usually come from different studies with different methods, so presenting them as one unified list is a red flag.
2) The definitions are unclear (and likely inconsistent)
“Lacks a valid, accurate driver’s license” is ambiguous. It could mean:
No license at all
Expired license
Suspended/revoked license
License with outdated information (e.g., address or name)
Different studies measure different things, so combining them makes the numbers misleading.
3) The numbers don’t align logically
A. The “overall” number doesn’t fit the subgroups
Claim: 12% of all U.S. adults
But several subgroups are much higher:
21% Black
23% Hispanic
68% transgender
If large groups truly had rates above 20%, the overall average would likely be higher than 12%, unless:
Those groups are very small (which doesn’t apply to Black and Hispanic populations), or
Other groups are extremely low (which isn’t shown)
This suggests inconsistency.
B. The 68% figure is especially implausible
68% would mean more than 2 out of 3 transgender people lack a valid license
That would imply a massive systemic gap far beyond what most transportation or ID-access studies report
Existing research on ID access barriers for transgender people does show challenges, but numbers that high are typically:
Based on very narrow definitions (like mismatched gender markers)
Or drawn from small, non-representative samples
So presenting 68% as a general population statistic is likely misleading.
C. Age 70+ at 21% raises questions
Many older adults still maintain licenses (though some stop driving)
If 21% truly lacked valid licenses, we’d expect:
A much higher overall rate than 12%, given population size
Again, possible—but needs a specific source and definition.
4) Likely mixing apples and oranges
This list probably combines:
Survey data
Advocacy reports
Different definitions of “invalid”
…and presents them as if they are directly comparable, which they are not.
Bottom line
These numbers are likely incorrect or misleading because:
They lack a single verifiable source
They use inconsistent definitions
They don’t add up mathematically
At least one figure (68%) is statistically implausible in general form
I asked my friend Chad G. Peetie about all your comments. “Chad, these are some comments regarding voter id. Who is right and who is exaggerating?”
Chad say:
Short answer: all are partly right, all exaggerate.
Keith Olsen
Mostly right (but overstated): Polling consistently shows strong support for some form of voter ID, often in the 70–80% range. His numbers are plausible but he gives no source and likely cherry-picks the high end.
Exaggeration: Treats that support as blanket approval for the specific federal SAVE Act. That leap is not supported—support drops when details or tradeoffs are included.
Matt Williams
Partly wrong / misleading:
You generally do NOT universally show photo ID to register to vote; requirements vary by state, and many allow alternatives (SSN, affidavit, etc.).
The “toll booth” analogy is weak and irrelevant.
Partly fair: Asking for sources is legitimate.
Don Shor
Substantively grounded but selective framing:
The point that ID access is uneven and can be a barrier is well-supported by research (e.g., Brennan Center).
The Texas ballot rejection example is real, though the very high percentages cited (38–50%) were early-cycle anomalies and later declined—so presented in a somewhat alarmist way.
Exaggeration: Some stats (e.g., 68% of transgender people lacking ID) come from older or niche surveys and may not generalize cleanly.
Bottom line
Public support for voter ID is real but often shallow and sensitive to details.
ID requirements can create barriers for some groups, but the scale and impact are often framed in the most dramatic terms by opponents.
Neither side here is fully precise; both are arguing past each other using selective facts.
———————-
Thanks, Chad!
Note: I am using A.I. here. I never said I wasn’t. I fact I said I did.
Sounds more like a problem related to voluntary name changes (but without yet changing official documents).
Hence, Don’s citations regarding 68% of transgender people.
But the bigger issue is women who change their last names, upon marriage. What a dumb idea/tradition that is. Even worse when they keep their existing name and “hyphen-on” their husband’s last name.
If you’re really not happy with your name – pick a new one, update your documents, and stop changing it throughout your life. Either that, or accept that you’re going to be creating problems for yourself (and notaries, for example) throughout your life.
Think of it like a social security number.
Your name is what other people use to IDENTIFY you. It’s not intended to be a reflection of your perceived self-identity.
It’s bad enough when people have a relatively common name (though I’m not sure if I ever actually met a John Smith).
Of course, there are people like John Wayne who pretty much “had to” change their birth name.
Americans also strongly agree that all ballots should be received by Election Day:
As the Supreme Court weighs the legality of counting of mail ballots received after Election Day, new polling on
behalf of Honest Elections Project shows Americans demand Election Day deadlines, despite Democrats’ claims.
Americans Overwhelmingly Support Election Day Ballot Deadlines
• 83% agree—and 57% strongly agree—that ballots should be received by Election Day, including:
o Republicans: 93%
o Independents: 83%
o Democrats: 74%
• 60% agree that mail-in ballots received after polls close on Election Day should not be counted,
including:
o Republicans: 80%
o Independents: 59%
o Democrats: 42%
Late Ballot Laws Endanger Public Trust in Elections
• 78% say that requiring ballots to be received by election officials by the end of Election Day makes
elections more secure, including:
o Republicans: 90%
o Independents: 77%
o Democrats: 68%
• 60% think that counting ballots received after polls close on Election Day makes it easier to cheat,
including:
o Republicans: 79%
o Independents: 58%
o Democrats: 44%
• 59% would not trust the results of an election that counts ballots received after polls close on
Election Day. Democrats are evenly split (45% agree vs 48% disagree), showing deep bipartisan
distrust:
o Republicans: 76%
o Independents: 56%
o Democrats: 45%
Methodology
Survey conducted by CRC Research for Honest Elections Project. Online survey among 1,600 likely voters
nationwide conducted March 12-17, 2026. Respondents were selected randomly from opt-in panel
participants. Sampling controls were used to ensure that a proportional and representative number of
respondents were interviewed from such demographic groups as age, gender, race, and geographic region.
Gender breakdown: 48% men – 52% women. Party ID breakdown: 33% Republican, 34% Independent, 32%
Democrat. ± 2.45% overall margin of error at the 95% confidence interval for overall survey. M.O.E.s for
subgroups are larger.