By targeting ‘non-issues’, the SAVE Act diverts efforts addressing true voter participation obstacles. Midterm season in the U.S. is approaching, sparking consistent desires by policymakers to reform electoral participation. Despite uneven voter turnout and structural barriers that inhibit equitable participation, lawmakers’ priorities lie elsewhere. The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, commonly known as the SAVE Act, is a federal legislative proposal that would amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require individuals registering to vote to provide documentary proof of U.S. citizenship, such as a birth certificate or passport, to be presented in person to a government office, rather than the current online registration option. While this increased security in fair elections may seem like progress toward election integrity, citizenship has rarely influenced voter accessibility. Proclaiming that substantial reform derives from needless efforts such as the SAVE Act not only creates false confidence in American election reform but also diverts resources from addressing actual issues. Election laws are already very strict; currently, under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, it is a federal crime for noncitizens to register or vote in elections, and it can result in criminal penalties, fines, and deportation. Noncitizen voting isn’t impossible. However, the resources our government dedicates to mitigating this crisis should be proportional to the actual level of danger posed. By creating provisions in this act that target ‘non-issues’, more pressing barriers to voting are instead neglected. For instance, policymakers could recruit more poll workers, diversify language accessibility, or improve ballot curing efficiency. According to the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the number of polling places nationwide decreased by 100,000 between 2018 and 2022. This shift disproportionately affected communities of color, low-income voters, and voters with disabilities; yet the SAVE Act overlooks this barrier entirely. The failure to prioritize what truly prevents civic engagement allows lawmakers to blatantly take credit for mitigating an issue, even as more voting barriers remain in place. The SAVE Act only decreases overall voter turnout by creating more systemic barriers and imposing burdens to address a violation that rarely occurs. The number of registered voters will continue to decline under these stringent regulations, as around 21 million Americans of voting age lack immediate access to documentation proving their citizenship. College students do not regularly carry their passports or birth certificates, often leaving them with their parents. Students who study abroad, change their address, or move frequently are limited by the SAVE Act, as it requires proof of permanent residence for citizens. In rural areas, the nearest government office may be hours away; it’s no surprise if the SAVE Act’s in-person registration requirements deter voters from participating. Despite lawmakers’ claims, noncitizen voting is not a threat. Vote.org describes a Utah study that reviewed over 2 million registered voters to determine the frequency of noncitizen voting. The results indicated that, among this pool, only one confirmed case of noncitizen registration occurred, and none of the cases showed noncitizen voting. The Heritage Foundation has additionally maintained a database of election fraud occurrences across the U.S. since 1992; only 98 cases of ineligible noncitizen voting have been recorded. Lawmakers are developing policies that target fewer than 100 cases of noncitizen voting but sacrifice millions of votes in return. This agenda is irrational and a distraction disguised as policy advancement. It’s easier to proclaim that citizenship is a leading barrier to voting, as the solutions can be solved with simple documentation requirements. With the already-existing regulations and dedication the Trump Administration holds regarding American citizenship, claiming that citizenship extends to voting is an easy scapegoat. Yet developing systemic solutions requires more action, such as opening more polling places, diversifying languages, and ensuring mail-in ballots are received. What this act does instead is foster the appearance of addressing threats to fair elections, while in actuality, there is little reform. We are being misled by lawmakers who are curating the illusion that citizenship is relevant to voter participation. President Trump and other Republican policymakers can now claim they took steps toward voter reform. In reality, this is only preventing actual barriers to voter suppression from being addressed. I won’t dispute that election integrity is an essential priority for policymakers. Yet the irony lies in how the identified gaps preventing equitable voter participation are being neglected in favor of prioritizing such “non-issues”. Before initiating a civic engagement system that requires adherence to rigid regulations, the government must address the true gaps. Let’s not build a system of institutional red tape for voting. Creating more documentation and administrative requirements stalls progress; this has been proposed as a solution to several policy problems, yet increasing bureaucratic procedures only delays progress. We don’t need more documents or more steps. We need lawmakers who care about their constituents and represent the actual desires of Americans. A constitutional right should not be this difficult to exercise. By focusing heavily on managing ineligible votes, lawmakers are preventing more eligible voters from participating in civic engagement measures. The basis of our democracy is strengthened when eligible citizens can exercise their right to vote easily and with accessibility.
By Shruthi Nadathur
NASA recently announced the four astronauts selected for Artemis III, the latest mission in the agency’s ambitious Artemis program, which aims to return humans to the Moon and lay the groundwork for future deep-space exploration. The mission represents another major step in NASA’s long-term goal of establishing a sustained Human presence beyond Earth and eventually sending astronauts to Mars. Artemis III, currently scheduled for 2027, will test critical technologies and systems that could shape the future of space travel. But when NASA revealed the crew, many people noticed something almost immediately: all four astronauts were men. The announcement quickly sparked a debate across social media and the space community, with critics arguing that the decision was disappointing given NASA’s previous emphasis on diversity and representation in spaceflight. Supporters of the selection, however, argued that astronauts should be chosen solely on the basis of mission requirements and qualifications, regardless of gender. The controversy raises a larger question that expands far beyond space exploration: when it comes to historic missions, should representation be a factor in who gets to make history, or should mission-specific qualifications be the only consideration? Part of the reason the announcement generated such strong reactions is that NASA has spent years highlighting the Artemis program as a new chapter in space exploration. Unlike the Apollo era, when every astronaut who traveled to the Moon was a white man, Artemis has often been presented as a symbol of a more diverse and representative future. That vision was perhaps most visible with Artemis II. Earlier this year, astronaut Christina Koch became the first woman to travel beyond low Earth orbit, while Victor Glover became the first Black astronaut to do the same. Their mission was widely celebrated as a milestone not only for NASA, but for the broader effort to make space exploration more reflective of the people it represents. Because of that history, many observers expected Artemis III to continue that trend. When NASA unveiled an all-male crew, critics argued that the agency had missed an opportunity to place a woman on one of the most significant lunar missions since Apollo. Supporters, however, countered that astronauts should be selected based on the mission’s specific needs, not on demographic considerations. The debate is not necessarily about whether the four astronauts chosen are qualified. Few people seriously dispute their credentials. Instead, the disagreement centered on what historic missions are meant to represent. Are they simply scientific endeavors staffed by the most suitable candidates, or do they also serve as powerful symbols that shape how future generations see themselves in exploration and discovery? NASA officials have pushed back against claims that the Artemis III crew selection represents a step backward for representation in spaceflight. Following criticism of the all-male crew announcement, agency leaders emphasized that astronauts are selected based on mission requirements, experience, and the specific needs of each flight. According to NASA, the astronauts selected for Artemis III were chosen because they were the best fit for the mission. Officials have also noted that women continue to play a major role throughout the Artemis program and within NASA’s astronaut corps as a whole. From their perspective, the absence of women on this particular mission does not erase the historic milestone already achieved through Artemis or the opportunities that may come with future missions. Supporters of NASA’s decision argue that focusing too heavily on the crew’s demographic makeup risks overlooking the years of training, expertise, and preparation required to qualify for a mission of this magnitude. In their view, historic missions should be determined by mission readiness rather than symbolic representation. For some, representation is an important part of progress, especially in fields that have historically excluded certain groups. For others, the primary goal of any mission should be selecting the individuals best suited for the job, regardless of the demographic outcome. As humanity prepares to return to the Moon and venture deeper into space than ever before, questions about who gets to participate in those milestones will likely continue. Artemis III may be remembered for its scientific accomplishments, but the discussion surrounding the crew demonstrates that even in the pursuit of exploration, people remain deeply invested in who gets to make history. Acknowledgement: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the individual author, not necessarily Our National Conversation as a whole
By Alan Jimenez
In May of 2023, Cyrus Carmack-Belton entered Rick Chow’s store to purchase a water: Andy [Chow’s son] told jurors he first noticed Carmack-Belton while stocking shelves. His mother asked the teen to leave his bookbag at the front of the store, to which he complied. “He goes to the water cooler, and that’s when I think he pockets the water,” Andy testified. “He starts coming to the front, and I ask him if there’s anything in his pocket, and he says no.” Carmack-Belton was telling the truth. But the Chows pursued him anyway. (Harris, R. J. L. (2026, May 31). In the death of a 14-year-old, Rick Chow’s defense rests | the State. The State. https://www.thestate.com/news/local/crime/article315949118.html) Essentially, Chow’s son was suspicious of 14-year-old Cyrus Carmack-Belton leading to the latter being confronted by the entire family. What possibly occurred is as follows: Belton entered the store; he complied with Chow’s request to leave his belongings at the door; he was confronted by Andy Chow for concealing an 8-ounce water bottle in his pants pocket; he denied the inquiry; there was some altercation with the family attendants inside of the store; Belton attempted to stabilize the volatile situation by leaving; Andy or Rick Chow interpreted this as fleeing; 52-year-old Rick Chow pursued Carmack-Belton, armed and accompanied by Andy Chow for the entire length of a football field -over goal post to goal post- off of the store premises. During the final seconds of Rick Chow’s pursuit, he feared 1. that Carmack-Belton had a gun 2. that he pulled it out 3. and that he aimed it at Andy Chow with the clear intent to harm So, Rick Chow, used tactical-rapid-reaction resulting in the use of deadly force against Carmack-Belton because Chow could confirm that he would pull out a gun and aim it at his son with the intent to harm. How could Rick Chow have processed all these points in a matter of seconds as the aggressor? When did he have time to arm himself? During the in-store engagement; prior to Carmack-Belton’s departure from the store, or in pursuit? When Carmack-Belton de-escalated the situation by leaving the store premises, did Andy Chow pursue him willingly or did Rick Chow abet his son into being an accessory to the pursuit? These questions remain unclear. Regardless, Rick Chow admits to his premeditation, yet a judge rules in favor of a jury’s acquittal verdict, arguing Chow is legally protected by South Carolina’s Stand Your Ground Laws to defend his son. I would like to note that, as far as court records publicly report, police apprehended a 9mm handgun off of the ground, and a 45-calibre handgun from Rick Chow. The “Stand Your Ground” laws are an expansion of “ancient ‘Castle Doctrine’” into The Protection of Persons and Property Act (2026). However, you can be prosecuted by the law despite these statues if a) you were not engaged in unlawful activity and had a right to be in that location, b) you were not at fault and did not provoke the violent encounter, and/or c) you had a reasonable fear of imminent peril, death, or great bodily harm. See the following clarifications on Stand Your Ground Laws, Code Duello, and history around the 2006 Protection of Persons… Act: In antebellum states, Stand Your Ground is protection against someone’s challenge in the event that the person who initiated the duel/challenge is murdered, a ‘no duty to retreat’ burden of proof. In Alabama, before “Stand Your Ground” became law, Alabama enforced an example of antebellum-frontier culture by relying on the “Code Duello” (a strict, unwritten 18th-century set of rules originating in Ireland from a feudal period where there was no law enforcement) to settle personal grievances. However, this does not legalize deadly force to settle a personal grievance in any era in America. In fact, if a person who initiated a duel/challenge murders the person they pursued, they can be tried for murder under the full extent of the law. With all of these dense facts and legislative statutes surrounding the event, how was Rick Chow acquitted of all charges if he was the aggressor and pursuer? You may have figured this article would focus only on the protection of Black Lives and Black-Youth, however, you have heard this narrative 100 times over, and South Carolina v. Rick Chow has brought this debate to a head in measure. We must now accept that black repression is real—not simply a positionality. Rick Chow’s actions may not clearly present as racist towards Carmack-Belton being Black. However, if Carmack-Belton was not the aggressor, complied with the discriminative request upon approaching the storefront, and even de-escalated tension (regardless of Andy Chow’s testimony) by leaving the premises, then how did Chow get acquitted when Carmack-Belton was being chased for 130 yards and fatally shot in the back? Chikei Rick Chow, George Zimmerman, and Soon Ja Du from the L.A. Riots were all protected by outdated laws in favor of “no duty to retreat” despite video evidence, despite 911 calls, and despite irrefutable forensics proving the accused should have served a life sentence. Yet this seems to have been too hopeful an idea. Author’s Note As a Black-Woman who founded her mission to pursue a law career in public interest during the Trayvon Martin case, I, in 2026, am now concerned that the need is not to amend loopholes or modernize the law, but fight against institutionally backed anti-Black exemptions. I am fearful I will have to fight between the lines in the same way my predecessors have, for social justice reform to be humane; despite believing society has progressed past its chattel roots. Acknowledgement: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the individual author, not necessarily Our National Conversation as a whole.
By Raven W. M.
Follow Us