Nevada Dem’s Marital Melodrama: Torres Claims SAVE Act Targets Wedded Women, But Facts Say Otherwise

Nevada Assemblywoman Selena Torres-Fossett (D-Las Vegas) took to X this week to lament about how her recent nuptials might—just might—complicate her voting under the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act. 

“As a recently married woman in the process of changing my name, my birth certificate does not match my legal name,” she posted, quoting a clip where she claims Republicans are scheming to suppress 70 million married women by demanding matching docs. “This is common. It’s legal. And it should never be used as a barrier to voting.”

As a recently married woman in the process of changing my name, my birth certificate does not match my legal name.

This is common. It’s legal. And it should never be used as a barrier to voting. https://t.co/fD1NNsNe0Y

— Selena Torres-Fossett (@SelenaTorresNV) February 12, 2026

Cue the eye rolls. 

Torres jumped onto the national bandwagon using scripted talking points, falsely claiming that the SAVE Act is another nefarious right-wing plot to lock out blushing brides from the ballot box. This panic is about as real as a Vegas wedding vow in a drive-thru chapel.  

For those not up on Torres’ track record, she’s a card-carrying progressive who’s spent her time in the Nevada Assembly championing causes that would make California blush. As an educator-turned-legislator, she’s sponsored bills to “empower Nevada’s immigrant community” and eliminate “language barriers to strengthen democracy for new Nevadans,” per her own campaign site.  

She’s also backed expansive paid family leave (vetoed by Gov. Joe Lombardo) and co-sponsored efforts to ditch the Electoral College via the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact—because why let pesky states decide when you can let big blue cities run the show? And don’t forget her low marks from conservative scorecards, clocking in at a measly 26 percent from Nevada Policy and only eight percent from the National Federation of Independent Business, putting her squarely in the progressive camp alongside her Dem colleagues.

Now, onto the SAVE Act hysteria. 

Democrats like Torres love to trot out the line that this bill—requiring proof of U.S. citizenship for federal voter registration—will disenfranchise millions, especially women whose married names don’t match their birth certificates. It’s a classic talking point: voter suppression! Jim Crow 2.0! War against women!

Speaking of hysteria and war, Hillary Clinton weighed in:

They’re getting desperate.

They’re counting on Americans not to read the bill, and see that you can prove your citizenship and ID even if you change your name, and even if you lack the usual documents.

Pages 11-12: https://t.co/6wVdAHJAII https://t.co/Xp2W7kVJO4

— Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) February 13, 2026

But hold your horses (or veils)—Republicans and fact-checkers beg to differ.

First off, non-citizen voting might be “rare,” as left-leaning outlets like the Brennan Center insist, but it’s not nonexistent. The SAVE Act aims to close loopholes that allow it, ensuring only American citizens decide American elections—a “right-wing” concept supported by 83 percent of Americans, per some polls. Contrary to the recycled doom-and-gloom, the bill doesn’t demand a solo birth certificate for married folks. As critics of the Dem narrative point out, you can pair it with a marriage license to prove the name change. Or, get a Real ID, which Nevada already requires for things like flying or entering federal buildings—deadlines enacted last year, and an ID that Torres likely has. 

Replies to Torres’ tweet piled on the reality check: “You have a marriage certificate, right?” one user quipped. Another: “Its not. You can get a real ID with your married name.” And let’s not forget: “Coming from the same people who only a few short years ago wanted us all to show our vaccination records to leave our homes.” Touché.

Democrats scream that 21 million citizens lack easy access to citizenship docs, but ignore that the bill provides alternatives and that non-citizen registration probes happen—why risk it? As President Trump and possible backers like Democratic Senator John Fetterman argue, it’s about integrity, not suppression. Yet here we are, with Torres playing the victim card to shield potential loopholes for, well, non-citizens. Of note, her father fled El Salvador during the Salvadoran civil war (1979-1992) and immigrated to the United States. One of the root causes of the civil war was fraudulent elections in 1972 and 1977. 

El Salvador has required voters to present a national identity document (specifically the Documento Único de Identidad, or DUI) to vote since 2001. The DUI became the mandatory and sole accepted form of voter identification at polling stations for in-person voting, as well as the key document linking citizens to the electoral registry. The DUI is a proof of citizenship and proof of identification.

If Torres is truly worried about her vote, maybe she should update her docs like the rest of us plebs. In the meantime, this marital melodrama smells more like a smokescreen for opposing election security than a genuine bridal blockade. Nevada—and California—deserve better than fearmongering from progressives who’d rather import voters than secure the ballot. If her father’s native El Salvador has a form of the SAVE Act, so should the United States.