When a Missing Hyphen Becomes a Voting Barrier

Small bureaucratic hurdles can silence real voters. Here’s why the SAVE America Act risks doing just that.

During my undergraduate and graduate studies, I learned that something as small as a missing hyphen could create outsized consequences.

In college, my surname reflected both my father’s and my mother’s last names—unhyphenated, as is customary in my native Mexico. My university’s system could not reconcile what it did not recognize. Instead of one student record, there were two. I received duplicate notices and duplicate invoices for the same tuition, the same student ID, the same degree plan—me. The registrar’s solution was not to fix the error but to duplicate everything, just in case one file failed to reach me.

Eventually, I walked into the office to clarify my legal name and merge the records. It was a simple fix, once someone took the time to see me as a whole person rather than a formatting anomaly.

Around that same time, mi abuela, whose name I carry, passed away. I returned from our border town after her funeral to find her mail arriving at my address, alongside the duplicate mail from my university. Two identities. Two records. One human being navigating systems that could not quite comprehend her.

In graduate school, I married. Rather than follow Mexican custom and add my husband’s surname to my two maiden names, I tried to simplify my life. I dropped my mother’s surname and adopted my husband’s last name. What I thought would reduce confusion only created more. Once again, two student files appeared. Once again, administrators struggled, not with my identity, but with its documentation. The absence of a tiny hyphen became an institutional and software stumbling block.

Why share this story?

Because when systems are rigid, people pay the price.

I believe the proposed SAVE America Act of 2026 risks creating barriers where no meaningful problem exists. The Act would require documentary proof of U.S. citizenship, such as a passport, birth certificate, and/or naturalization certificate, when registering to vote, and it would impose stricter voter identification requirements.

On its surface, that may sound reasonable. But policy should respond to real, measurable problems. Evidence consistently shows that instances of noncitizens registering or voting are exceedingly rare and are already addressed through existing safeguards. We should be wary of sweeping solutions in search of a crisis.

The voter turnout rate, the percentage of eligible voters who actually cast a ballot, offers a clearer picture of our democratic health. It is calculated by dividing the total number of ballots cast by the total number of eligible voters in a given jurisdiction. In recent national elections from 2020 to 2024, average turnout has hovered around 58.6 percent. That means only a little over half of eligible U.S. citizens are participating in our democracy.

Our challenge is not rampant fraud. It is participation.

The SAVE America Act would likely further reduce participation. Requiring documentary proof of citizenship places a disproportionate burden on eligible voters who may not have ready access to these documents. Millions of citizens lack valid passports. Birth certificates can be costly or complicated to replace. Naturalization certificates are expensive to reissue.

For individuals who have changed their names through marriage, divorce, or court order, the burden multiplies. A voter whose current legal name does not exactly match the name on their birth certificate would need additional documentation to bridge that gap. As my own experience shows, even well-resourced institutions struggle with name variations. Imagine navigating those complexities under strict legal deadlines, with your vote at stake.

Communities most affected would likely include younger voters, communities of color, and married or divorced women, particularly those whose documentation reflects life transitions that systems often fail to anticipate. When acceptable forms of government-issued photo ID are narrowly defined, eligible citizens without those IDs may simply stay home.

That is not election security. That is voter suppression by administrative design.

If lawmakers are genuinely committed to strengthening voter verification, there are better, more efficient, and more cost-effective approaches, methods that modernize databases, improve interagency coordination, and maintain safeguards without erecting new barriers for eligible citizens. Election integrity and voter access are not mutually exclusive goals. We can protect both.

A democracy should not hinge on a hyphen.

When bureaucratic rigidity collides with human complexity, people get lost in the paperwork. My experience with duplicate student files was inconvenient. Inconvenience in voting, however, becomes disenfranchisement.

At a time when only slightly more than half of eligible citizens participate in elections, our focus should be on expanding access, increasing trust, and strengthening civic engagement, not adding layers of documentation that risk silencing lawful voters.

Democracy works best when it welcomes its citizens as they are, fully, accurately, and without unnecessary obstacles.

U.S. Senators gave up on the original SAVE Act of 2025 when their constituents loudly opposed it. We can stop it again. Call your senators and tell them to do whatever it takes to block the SAVE America Act.

Sources:

1. Bipartisanpolicy.org. https://bipartisanpolicy.org/article/five-things-to-know-about-the-save-act/.
2. Ballotpedia.org. https://ballotpedia.org/Voter_turnout_in_United_States_elections.
3. Brennancenter.org. https://secure.brennancenter.org/content/call-your-senators-reject-save-act-0%20?utm_medium=EML&utm_source=advocacy&utm_content=SAVE-Act-2&cid=701Vy00001KFBFMIA5&ms=EML_advocacy_SAVE-Act-2