An argument for the unconstitutionality of the SAVE Act (H.R. 22) under the 19th Amendment focuses on the bill’s disproportionate impact on women, particularly regarding name changes following marriage or divorce.

The 19th Amendment states that the right of citizens to vote "shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex." A legal case against the SAVE Act would argue that its requirements create a unique, sex-based hurdle that effectively abridges women's access to the ballot.

1. Disproportionate Burden of Name Changes

The SAVE Act requires "documentary proof of United States citizenship" for voter registration. For many citizens, this means providing a birth certificate.

• The Mismatch Problem: Because of traditional naming conventions, an estimated 90% of women change their names upon marriage, while only a small fraction of men do.
• Abridgment Based on Sex: A woman whose current government-issued photo ID (like a driver's license) does not match the name on her birth certificate would be required to produce additional legal documentation—such as marriage licenses or divorce decrees—to "bridge" the name gap.
• Unique Hurdles: Men, who rarely change their names, can typically present a matching ID and birth certificate with no further steps. Requiring women to undergo a more complex, multi-document verification process solely because of a life event (marriage) that primarily affects their sex could be viewed as an unconstitutional abridgment "on account of sex."

2. Financial Costs Linked to Gender

If a woman does not have the necessary "bridge" documents to link her current name to her birth name, she may be forced to pay for certified copies of marriage licenses or court orders.

• Secondary Fees: These documents are not free and often carry state-level fees.
• Gendered Financial Barrier: Because women are overwhelmingly the ones who must pay these additional fees to satisfy the "documentary proof" requirement, the Act imposes a financial cost for voting that falls almost exclusively on one sex.

3. Obstacles to In-Person Verification

The Act mandates that individuals who register by mail must eventually present their documentary proof in person to an election official.

• Administrative Burden: A woman with a name discrepancy may face repeated challenges if local officials interpret name-matching requirements strictly or inconsistently.
• Deterrent Effect: The added time, travel, and administrative labor required for a woman to prove her identity—steps not required for the vast majority of men—acts as a deterrent that abridges her right to vote.

4. Violation of the "Equal Footing" Principle

The 19th Amendment was intended to place men and women on equal footing regarding the franchise.

• Functional Inequality: By establishing a registration system where the primary document (a birth certificate) is functionally "broken" for tens of millions of women but remains valid for nearly all men, the SAVE Act creates a system of functional inequality.
• Legal Precedent: Opponents would argue that any law that makes the path to the ballot box significantly more arduous and expensive for one sex than the other is a per se violation of the 19th Amendment’s mandate that sex shall not be a factor in the ability to vote.