By Rachel Michelle Gunter

On April 10, 2025, the House of Representatives passed the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act on a largely party-line vote. Republicans hailed the bill as a way to safeguard American elections from undocumented migrants voting.

Critics, by contrast, warn it could make voting more difficult—if not impossible—for legally eligible voters. That’s especially true for tens of millions of married women, who may not be able to provide the required documentation to prove their citizenship to register to vote. Presenting a birth certificate remains the easiest way to do so under the Act. However, many married women take their husband’s surnames and therefore don’t have birth certificates that match their current legal names.

If the Senate passes the SAVE Act and President Donald Trump signs it into law, it will mean that millions of American women could find themselves in the shoes of Ethel Mackenzie, an early 20th century suffragist. Like McKenzie, they might see their ability to register and vote inhibited due to a congressional effort to prevent non-citizens from voting.

When Mackenzie tried to register to vote after California adopted woman suffrage in 1911, she was shocked to find out she couldn’t—despite being born in the Golden State. The culprit: the 1907 Expatriation Act, a federal law that stripped American women of their citizenship when they married non-citizens. Mackenzie’s case exposed how nativist policies could harm not just immigrants, but also the rights of American women. Now, the Save Act threatens to do the same.

In 1855, Congress passed the Naturalization Act. The law made any immigrant woman who married a citizen man into a citizen herself, as long as she met the racial requirements for citizenship. In 1868, the 14th Amendment established birthright citizenship for all people born in the U.S., except for American Indians and the children of foreign diplomats.

In the last three decades of the 19th century, however, nativist sentiment surged. In 1882, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, banning Chinese laborers from immigrating to the U.S. In 1892, Congress extended and expanded the ban in the Geary Act. And in 1907, President Theodore Roosevelt negotiated the Gentleman’s Agreement with Japan restricting Japanese immigration to the U.S.

That same year, the State Department pressured Congress to pass the Expatriation Act. Officials argued that marriages between citizens and non-citizens were handled differently by different nations and without a uniform rule in the U.S., the department couldn’t determine who was entitled to an American passport and protection while outside of the country.

Advocates for women’s suffrage thought the bill wasn’t a good idea and expected the courts to find it unconstitutional. They believed it was was wildly out of step with the ongoing erosion of coverture, a set of legal practices that the State Department had specifically used to justify their recommendation to Congress. Coverture derived from English common law and dictated that women suffered “civil death” upon marriage. They ceased to have a legal identity, and instead became covered by their husband’s legal identity. This left them unable to sign contracts or own property.

Suffragists fought to curtail coverture. But they also pushed another agenda item—one that helped propel the passage of the Expatriation Act—disfranchising non-citizens.

In the colonial era and the Early Republic, voting eligibility was often tied to property ownership and residency, rather than citizenship. As such, non-citizen voting was often legal and common. The practice surged again in the midwest in the 1830s, and was added to several state constitutions in the Deep South as a Reconstruction reform after the Civil War to counter the votes of unreconstructed white southerners.

But in the nativist climate of the early 20th century, the practice had fallen out of favor, and suffragists and other progressives fought to end it. Some suffragists argued that immigrants opposed suffrage for women and prohibition, and therefore immigrant voting posed a threat to their agenda. Reflecting how the two concepts became intertwined, South Dakota, Texas, and Arkansas put amendments on their ballots to enfranchise women while simultaneously ending non-citizen voting. The amendments passed in South Dakota and Arkansas.

As adoption of the Expatriation Act proved, the push to end non-citizen voting proved too powerful for suffragists to control. The new law made married women dependent citizens; their citizenship status was now entirely derived from that of their husbands.

When McKenzie discovered that the new law prevented her from voting, she filed suit, arguing that Congress could not take away by law what the Constitution granted her by birthright. While suffragists expected the courts would overturn the Expatriation Act, the nativist sentiments of the day were stronger than the trend towards women’s rights.

In 1915, the Supreme Court ruled against Mackenzie. As Ohio Representative John Cable summarized, the Court found that citizenship “was not such a right, privilege, or immunity that it could not be taken away by an act of Congress.” The justices found that Mackenzie’s decision to marry a non-citizen amounted to “voluntary expatriation.” She was now stateless and unprotected in her own country.

The decision left suffragists concerned that without married women’ independent citizenship, suffrage would be an impossibility.

Such fears proved wrong: in 1920 the ratification of the 19th Amendment prohibited states from barring women from voting on account of sex. Passage of the suffrage amendment encouraged Congress to revisit married women’s independent citizenship, because it meant that immigrant women naturalized through marriage could vote, while American women denaturalized by marriage were disfranchised. The League of Women Voters, formed out of the National American Woman Suffrage Association, lobbied Congress for married women’s independent citizenship.

In 1922, they scored a partial victory when Congress passed the Cable Act, which ended automatic denaturalization for American women if their spouse was an immigrant racially eligible for citizenship. The law also provided a pathway for denaturalized women to reclaim their citizenship. But it still excluded women who married Asian immigrants.

Some politicians used this period of denaturalization strategically to their own advantage. In 1928, Ruth Bryan Owen, daughter of William Jennings Bryan, became the first woman to win election to the U.S. House of Representatives from a former Confederate state. But upon her victory, her opponent sued arguing that her period of denaturalization after marrying a British serviceman during WWI meant that she hadn’t been a citizen for the previous seven years—a constitutional requirement to serve.

The challenge forced Owen, a native born citizen; daughter of a three-time presidential candidate, congressman, and Secretary of State; and a duly elected official from Florida to plead her case before Congress. Her fellow lawmakers chose to seat Owen, rejecting the challenge that threatened to undo the will of her constituents.

During the 1920s, Congress amended the Cable Act several times. Then, in 1933 the Senate voted to adopt the convention of the Pan American Conference, which argued that differences in nationality laws based on sex should be eliminated. The next year, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Equal Nationality Act, through which American women achieved full, independent citizenship.

Sixty years later, a new round of concerns of undocumented migration prompted Congress to make it a crime for non-citizens to vote in federal elections. Lawmakers did so even though it hadn’t been legal for non-citizens to vote in either state or federal elections in any state since Arkansas’s ban went into effect in 1926.

Republicans allege that the SAVE Act will help enforce this existing law. But instead, it threatens to disenfranchise millions of married American women.

The law stipulates that people can prove citizenship either by presenting a REAL ID or a military identification card, if they confirm a person’s citizenship status. But many can not, which leaves people registering to vote with the option of presenting a state identification card or driver’s license in conjunction with a certified birth certificate that includes the “full name” of the applicant. It’s this last provision which poses a problem for up to 69 million women who took their husband’s name upon getting married. That means their birth certificates no longer include their full legal names.

The law makes no allowances for such situations. It does leave room for states to decide which secondary documents to accept, but this would still be an additional burden on married women, could be applied unevenly across the country, and may open the door for challenges to election results—like the one faced by Ruth Bryan Owen—on the grounds that states didn’t meet these onerous requirements.

A century after the suffrage movement, the SAVE Act threatens to echo the harms of the Expatriation Act. While it’s supporters claim it will target non-citizen voters, instead it could prevent American women from voting.

HURRAY! IT’S THE 41ST EDITION OF DIASPORA WATCH.

Get your copy of Diaspora Watch 41st edition today and stay informed about the news that matters!

Diaspora Watch FREE Digital View:
https://diasporawatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/flipbookvol41/index.html

Subscribe to Diaspora Watch now on the below link!!!
https://diasporawatch.com/subscribe-to-diaspora-watch-newspaper/

Get ready for the most explosive edition yet! Diaspora Watch 41 is packed with breaking news, shocking revelations, and in-depth analysis of the events shaping our world.

Mnangagwa faces his biggest threat yet as a fierce succession battle rages on in Zimbabwe, while US stocks plummet after Trump announces tariffs on most countries.

South Africa’s unity government teeters on the brink as the DA rejects the national budget, and Norway shuts down its embassy in South Sudan as violence escalates.

In other news, the DR Congo commutes the death sentences of three Americans to life imprisonment, sparking widespread relief.

In the world of sports, Nigerian boxer Segun Olanrewaju tragically dies after collapsing during a match in Ghana, while Ola Aina emerges as the most prolific dribbler in the FA Cup.

A Nigerian doctor is embroiled in a UK visa scandal, sparking outrage and concern. Nigeria’s foreign reserves decline by $2.55 billion in Q1 2025, while Africa’s exports hit a record $682 billion in 2024.

CARICOM and Afreximbank launch a groundbreaking ceremony for the African Trade Centre.

In entertainment news, Kanye West hints at a split from his wife Bianca Censori in his latest song.

Get your copy of Diaspora Watch 41st edition today and stay informed about the news that matters!

 The persistent conflict between herders and farming communities in Nigeria has resulted in the loss of thousands of lives over the past decade. This crisis has primarily affected the Middle Belt and Northern regions, but it is now spreading into the South.

The urgency to end the herder-related killings cannot be overstated. It is not only a humanitarian imperative but also essential for Nigeria’s national stability and economic development.

According to the United Nations, desertification affects more than 60% of Nigeria’s land area, forcing pastoralists primarily Fulani herders to migrate south- ward in search of pasture. This migration often leads to clashes with farming communities over land and resources. With Nigeria’s population currently exceeding 220 mil- lion and projected to double by 2050, competition for land and resources will only intensify.

Weak state institutions, the proliferation of small arms, ethnic and religious tensions, and the failure of law enforcement to hold perpetrators accountable have all exacerbated the crisis. A 2022 Small Arms Survey estimated that Time To End Herders’ Killings In Nigeria Is Now over 6 million small arms are in civilian hands in Nigeria, further fueling the violence.

The killings have devastated rural communities. Nigerians in the diaspora, many of whom have roots in the affected areas, are heartbroken as they witness their kinsmen slaughtered by rampaging criminals and armed herd- ers in states such as Benue, Plateau, and Enugu. Despite repeated government assurances, there appears to be little real progress in addressing the insecurity.

According to the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED), over 8,000 people have been killed in herder-farmer related violence between 2011 and 2023. In 2018 alone, more than 1,600 lives were lost in such clashes surpassing the number of deaths caused by Boko Ha- ram that year.

A report by the SBM intelligence titled “A National Emergency: The Escalating Crisis of Pastoral Violence in Nigeria, reads in part:

The geographical pattern of pastoral violence in Nigeria paints a troubling picture of relentless expansion. Between 2019 and 2025, the North-Central zone remained the most severely affected region, with Benue State enduring over 200 documented attacks, cementng its grim reputation as the epicenter of the crisis.”

“Neighbor- ing Plateau State followed closely with 150 incidents. Their shared border has transformed into a deadly conflict zone, exemplified by the May 2023 massacre in Mangu, which left 80 people dead, followed seven months later by the Christmas Eve atrocity in Bokkos, which claimed 140 lives.”

“The violence spread out- ward along predictable path- ways. Kaduna in the North- west recorded concerning numbers of attacks, while Adamawa in the Northeast displayed increasing vulnerability.”

The International Crisis Group reports that the violence has displaced hundreds of thousands of people, while a 2020 World Bank report estimated that Nigeria loses $13.7 billion annually due to agricultural disruptions caused by the conflict.

Despite widespread media coverage and public outcry, the Nigerian government has been slow and ineffective in addressing the crisis. Be- yond a lack of accountability, the country’s security forces are overstretched. With a police-to-citizen ratio of ap- proximately 1:540—below the UN’s recommended 1:450— there is an urgent need to strengthen local policing. Establishing mobile courts in conflict-prone areas could also enhance justice delivery and deter future violence.

Political neutrality is critical in resolving this crisis. The weaponization of ethnic identities and politicization of security issues only worsen the situation. National unity and strong political will are essential.

The killings must stop. Nigeria cannot continue to lose lives, homes, and futures to a crisis that is both prevent- able and solvable. With the right mix of policy, enforcement, empathy, and account- ability, peace is achievable. The cost of inaction is sim- ply too high.

Even remittances from Nigerians abroad thrive better in a stable environment. The Nigerian government must demonstrate that it is ready and able to fulfill its primary responsibility: protecting the lives and property of its citizens. The time to act is now for the sake of unity, stability, and the future of Nigeria.