Donald Trump has threatened to veto important, and in the current Congress, extremely rare bipartisan legislation, unless Congress passes the “Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) America Act.” The bill would require in-person voting by providing documented proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections. It either severely curtails or totally eliminates online and mail-in registration.
Though the bill has passed the House with a simple majority, it has virtually no chance of clearing the Senate due to insufficient support to overcome the 60-vote filibuster threshold. Trump warned that until it clears both houses of Congress, he will not sign a bill focused on the construction and availability of affordable housing, supported by a majority of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents.
Related
The bill mandates documented proof of U.S. citizenship through either a U.S. passport or a valid birth certificate. It also requires potential voters to present a very narrow set of government-issued IDs when attempting to cast a ballot. In addition, it directs all states to identify and remove all people considered non-citizens from the voting rolls using only federal data such as the Department of Homeland Security’s SAVE database.
An absentee ballot is allowed only for individuals who submit a copy of their identification document with both a request for an absentee ballot and its submission.
Dive deeper every day
Join our newsletter for thought-provoking commentary that goes beyond the surface of LGBTQ+ issues
Opponents claim that this is actually a “voter suppression” bill and that fraudulent voting occurs so rarely that it has never influenced the final results of any election in the 250 years of our democratic experiment. They also assert that the bill will negatively impact low-income and elderly voters who may not have a passport, access to their birth certificate, or available transportation to their in-person registration and voting precincts.
Supporters, such as the president, claim that the bill will ensure safe and reliable voting results free from fraud and deception. He disputes the charge that it will disenfranchise people who have changed their names from what appears on their birth certificate or even on their passports, such as anyone who marries and takes the name of their spouse or who changes their birth name to match their gender identity.
The president and other MAGA sycophants claim the bill is free of all bias since everyone will be held to the same standards.
This is what they call true equality. But while everyone is, indeed, treated equally under the terms of the bill, they’re not being treated equitably. If team MAGA understands the very real differences, it is certainly not admitting it.
Why the Golden Rule is selfish
Toward the beginning of each semester, I conduct an interactive exercise in my university classes for pre-service teachers. While students are seated in a circular configuration, I ask everyone to take off their left shoes and hand them to me.
Following some giggles of excitement, they each follow the direction. I place the shoes in a pile in the middle of the circle. I then redistribute the shoes at random so that each student again has a left shoe, and I ask them to imagine placing it on their foot.
I begin the exercise by stating, “Now, everyone should be happy. You all have a pair of shoes.”
After some laughter and grumbling, I ask students what they are thinking. Common remarks range from, “I wouldn’t have put it on my foot if you had told us to. I don’t know where it’s been” to “Yeah, but I don’t have a matching pair” to “But it wouldn’t have fit the size of my foot.”
“But I treated you all fairly and equally by regarding you all in the same way. I played no favorites,” I respond.
After a few seconds of reflection, students react with, “Yes, it might have been fair, but I can’t use this shoe,” or “How fair is it when some of us can’t walk this way?”
“Yes, you are correct,” I interject. “So then, what is the point or the learning that can be derived from this exercise?”
Some student responses include: “That being treated equally is not always fair,” or “That one size doesn’t fit all.”
“Yes, and how does this relate specifically to teaching and learning and to people’s lives in general?”
“We will have students with different needs, interests, background experiences, cultural and social identities, strengths, and weaknesses, and we need to learn to teach to and accommodate these differences. And the same is true for how we treat people in our communities.”
“Yes,” I continue, “So how would you differentiate between the concepts of equality and equity”?
“Equality,” one student usually begins, “is treating people the same way, while equity is treating people according to their needs.”
“Yes,” I add, “and in terms of this particular exercise, ‘equality’ means treating everyone the same by providing everyone with a pair of shoes. While ‘equity’ means treating everyone according to their interests, needs, identities, and wants, or providing everyone with a pair of shoes that fit them.”
I learned this definition and exercise from my friend and social justice educator, Vernon Wall.
“And now I would like to close the exercise,” I conclude, “with another contrast. Would someone tell me what the ‘Golden Rule’ means to them?”
“Well, I learned that it is treating others how you would like to be treated,” answers a student.
“Yes,” I respond. “That is also what I learned. But I try never to follow this ‘Golden Rule.’”
And now many students are aghast.
“I see looks of surprise and even disbelief appearing on your faces,” I say. “So, please tell me where these expressions are coming from. What is on your mind?”
“How can you not treat others how you, yourself, would want to be treated?” someone usually asks.
“Thank you for asking that great question,” I reply. “Does anyone know how I would address that question?”
Usually, I am answered with complete silence.
Following a few tense moments, I say something that I know they will consider quite controversial at best. “To be quite honest,” I begin, “I have always thought that the ‘Golden Rule’ is coming from a place of selfishness. What if the other person doesn’t want to be treated as I want to be treated? What if the other person wants to be treated differently from how I want to be treated?”
Faces around the circle begin to soften, transforming into reflective gazes.
After a relatively short time, a student will often ask, “So how will we know when they don’t want to be treated as we want to be treated?”
And then another student: “And if we find that out, then how should we treat them?”
“Would anyone like to respond to one or both of these questions?” I inquire.
A student will eventually reply here, “Well, you find out how they want to be treated, and then you treat them that way. In other words, you treat them how they want to be treated!”
Sighs of relief come from most students by this time.
“Yes, thank you,” I say. “The ‘Golden Rule’ tells us to treat others how we want to be treated. Does anyone know of a ‘rule’ that asks us to treat others how they want to be treated?”
Usually, there is no response.
“It’s known as the ‘Platinum Rule,’ and as we know, platinum is worth more than gold.”
“Any questions?” I conclude. “Okay, class dismissed.”
Subscribe to the LGBTQ Nation newsletter and be the first to know about the latest headlines shaping LGBTQ+ communities worldwide.