Tag: SAVE America Act

Books I read (or attempted to read) in July 2026

I guess I was in worse shape in June and early July than I realized. I have stated in at least one blog that I enjoyed the novels I read in June because I hadn’t read a novel since January. I was surprised a couple of weeks ago to find a list of the books I read in May: The Creek, The Crone, and The Crow, by Leah Weiss; The Immigrant and the Outlaw, by Joy Neal Kidney; and The Astral Library, by Kate Quinn. It had slipped my mind that I enjoyed all three of those books in May, so I apologize to the three authors for my memory failure.

After having a very good month of reading in June, I had high hopes for July, but sometimes our reading experiences don’t meet our expectations on all counts. July turned out to be a mixed bag.

The River Knows My Name, by Kelly Mustian

Photo of a front book cover for The River Knows My Name, by Kelly Mustian. a blue river flowing between walls of bright green trees.
The River Knows My Name,
by Kelly Mustian

After reading The Girls in the Stilt House, Kelly Mustian’s debut novel in 2021, I kept hoping she would write another historical novel. She came through for us last year with The River Knows My Name. I finally got around to reading it in July.

As the blurb on Amazon states, it is “a haunting Southern story about memory, family secrets, and fierce and fragile love.” Set in the early 1930s in Mississippi and 1971 in North Carolina and Mississippi, Mustian has woven a story of intrigue, family loss and love, and how one decision can affect generations to come.

Why did Evie appear at Nell’s house when they were young children and Evie never left? What did Evie’s hidden birth certificate reveal?

This is a dual timeline novel, which you know is not my favorite format, but I stayed with it because the characters and the plot drew me in from the beginning. Mustian did a masterful job of telling a complicated story of secrets, the passage of time, “where there’s a will there’s a way” perseverance, the love a mother has for her child, and how family isn’t necessarily based on biology.

I highly recommend The River Knows My Name, and I hope Kelly Mustian will gift historical novel fans with many more novels.

John of John, by Douglas Stuart

Photo of the front cover of John of John, by Douglas Stuart. Title and author name are in large print in front of a sunset background.
John of John, by Douglas Stuart

After watching an online interview of Douglas Stuart, I eagerly awaited my name reaching the top of the waitlist for John of John at the public library.

I have had the privilege of visiting the Outer Hebrides of Scotland. I have spent some time on the Isle of Lewis and visited the Isle of Harris. They are wild and stark and incredibly beautiful!

John of John, by Douglas Stuart is set on Harris. The author does a great job of giving you the setting. The moon-like starkness, the incessant wind coming off the Atlantic, the sometimes-rough ferry crossing of The Minch – the body of water between the mainland and the Outer Hebrides. The houses, the crofts, the weavers of Harris Tweed (which is also made in cottages on Lewis), the single-track roads, the sheep, the Gaelic native language, and the conservatism of the Free Presbyterian denomination (which is quite different from the Church of Scotland) are all brought to light in this novel.

The setting is almost a character in the book because to give the landscape and climate justice, one has to be immersed in it to truly appreciate the story.

The protagonist is John MacLeod, son of John MacLeod, son of Iain (John in Gaelic), son of Iain MacLeod. Young John has left the island to go to art school. He has gotten caught up in the fast life (life everywhere is “fast” compared to life in the Outer Hebrides) in Edinburgh. His father calls him home to care for his ailing maternal grandmother.

The younger John is not keen on the idea. The life he has lived on the mainland as a gay young man will surely upset his devout Free Presbyterian father to the point that he expects his father will disown him. How long can he keep his homosexuality a secret from his father.

But his father also has a secret.

If you are sensitive to “F-bombs,” you might not enjoy this book. I accepted them as apparently being part of the homosexual scene in which the younger John lived. Not that all homosexuals casually use this language, but it was part of the make up of the younger John – probably as part of his rebellion against the strict religious home in which he had been raised.

I tired of the story after 150 pages. There were other books I wanted to read, so I returned John of John to the public library. Kudos to the author for transporting me to the Outer Hebrides for a few hours.

Roses and Radicals: The Epic Story of How American Women Won the Right to Vote, by Susan Zimet

Photo of front cover of Roses and Radicals with the head of the Statue of Liberty under the title.

This book caught my eye when I was at the public library the week of July 4th. It was part of a display the librarians had assembled of books pertaining to the 250th birthday of the United States Declaration of Independence and related patriotic books and history books.

The book prompted me to pause and contemplate the incredible sacrifices the women (and a few men) made throughout the first fourteen decades of our country’s history to work toward the passage of a Constitutional Amendment that would make it unlawful for any state in the union to prohibit anyone from voting based on their sex.

I will write more about the 19th Amendment to the United States Constitution in my blog post on August 26 – the 126th anniversary of the ratification of that amendment.

Roses and Radicals is a relatively small book of barely 150 pages, including the bibliography and index. I thought it would be a quick read.

Sprinkled throughout the book are sidebar-like sections within chapters that tell the stories of individual including Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Anne Marbury Hutchinson, Lucretia Mott, Mary Wollstonecraft, Sisters Sarah and Angelina Grimké, Sojourner Truth, Lucy Stone, Victoria Woodhull, Matilda Joslyn Gage, Ida B. Wells, and Edith Wilson. A book could be written about each on of them.

Roses and Radicals begins with the World Anti-Slavery Convention in London in 1840. Elizabeth Cady Stanton accompanied her husband, who was a convention delegate. But her story began when she was five years old and her last brother died. Her father said to her, “Oh my daughter, I wish you were a boy.”

In response to that remark, she was determined to be the son her father had lost. That path served to show her how difficult it would be for a woman to fulfill the burden her father had placed on her because women were so restricted by law and society norms. Fathers held legal rights over daughters and husbands held legal rights over their wives and children.

But, getting back to the anti-slavery convention in 1840… The wives of delegates and the women delegates were not allowed on the main floor. They were relegated to a balcony. The women were so incensed that they began laying plans during the convention. If people from around the world could meet to work for the abolition of the slavery of Africans, the women concluded that they could organize themselves and fight for the rights of women.

The book tells how each of the women I named in an above paragraph worked for the equality of women, women’s rights in the eyes of the law in the United States, and ultimately for women to have the right to vote. It gives little-known details of how women worked behind-the-scenes as well as marching in the streets to secure women the right to vote.

Janet

Too many books. Not enough time. Not enough bookcases. Never take your right to read – or your right to vote — for granted.

#OnThisDay: 15th Amendment Ratified, 1870

It was on this date 156 years ago that African American men were given the right to vote when the 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified.

Against a background of the American flag, the words of Section 1 of the 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude—"
Section 1 of the 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

You might be surprised to know that it was the Republicans who pushed for this amendment. Yes, the same party which today turns itself into a pretzel dreaming up ways to make it more difficult for citizens to vote is the party that fought to give black American men the right to vote in 1870. The irony!

The 15th Amendment did not address the fact that women of any skin color did not have the right to vote.

Section 1 of the 15th Amendment states: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude–.”

Although ratified in 1870, it would take the Voting Rights Act of 1965 before many black people were registered to vote. Laws varied by state and state legislatures – much like today – resorted to creative ways and wording in laws to restrict voting rights.

Popular opinion is that it was only southern states that restricted voting to white people, so I decided to do a little research into state laws prior to 1870. (Keep in mind that women were not given the right to vote by the U.S. Constitution until the 19th Amendment was ratified in 1920.)  

I wanted to know if black men were allowed to vote in states outside the South before passage of the 15th Amendment in 1870. Out of curiosity, I randomly looked at New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey.

In the State of New York, there was a mish-mash of voting rights for black men. In the 1820’s it was unlawful for a black person who did not own property valued at $250 or more to vote. Slave owners along the Hudson River (yes, even New Yorkers owned slaves!) did not let their slaves vote. Some black men in the state’s cities were able to vote.

Although the “Black Laws” in the state of Ohio were repealed in 1849, African Americans were still not allowed to vote. An informative article about the history of laws regarding African Americans in Ohio can be found here: https://eji.org/news/ohios-black-laws/.

What about Pennsylvania? Quoting from “The Disenfranchisement of Black Pennsylvanians in the 1838 State Constitution: Racism, Politics, or Economics? – A Statistical Analysis,” by David A. Latzko of Pennsylvania State University’s York campus, as found at https//:tupjournals.temple.edu: “In 1838, Pennsylvania’s voters approved a state constitution that restricted the right to vote to ‘white freemen.’ Blacks had voted for many years in some parts of the state, but under the new constitution Pennsylvania’s black males could no longer vote.”

I found the following information on https://libguides.njstatelib.org/votesforwomen/timeline: In 1807, a new law restricting voting was passed by the New Jersey General Assembly: “Whereas doubts have been raised, and Great diversities in practice obtained through-out the state in regard to the admission of aliens, females and persons of color, or negroes to vote in elections… Sec. 1. Be it enacted …That … no person shall vote in any state or county election… unless such person be a free, white, male … of the age of twenty-one years, worth fifty pounds proclamation money….”

New Jersey adopted a new State Constitution in 1844, and people of color were still not allowed to vote.

In the decades after the ratification of the 15th Amendment, racists in various states passed laws to make it hard for minorities to vote. Such things as poll taxes and literacy tests were codified.

This was still in the decades of Reconstruction following the Civil War. Most of the former slaves had not been allowed to learn how to read or write, so the passage of literacy laws was a not-so-subtle way to prevent many black people from voting.

My conclusion is that people of color have been discriminated against in every state in the United States of America. Our nation has a long and sorted history of dividing ourselves based on the color of our skin.

It is that 250-year history that has brought us to 2026 – a year in which the U.S. Constitution gives all citizens — regardless of skin color or gender – the right to vote. But women and people of color must remain vigilant in every State to guard our right to vote.

In 2026, various State legislatures and even the United States Congress are working behind the scenes as well as blatantly in public to make it more difficult for all citizens to exercise their right to vote. The so-called SAVE America Act is currently being batted back and forth between the U.S. House and U.S. Senate.

A segment of our society has been convinced by Conservatives that there is rampant voting by undocumented immigrants. Under the guise of putting an end to that problem — which has been proven not to exist — through passage of the SAVE America Act the Conservatives in Congress are working very hard to codify wording that will once again make it more difficult for many women and many people of color to vote.

The more things change, the more they stay the same. White men in America continue to be afraid of losing their power. It is a history much older and more widespread than the United States of America.

Janet

The government should be afraid of its citizens, not the other way around.

Let’s have the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, Dear Congressman

I have written about my Congressman before, and it has never been complimentary. It is not positive in today’s post. I try to keep an open mind, but I will be surprised if I ever have anything good to say about him.

What is my latest criticism of him? He doesn’t quite tell the truth when it comes to the SAVE America Act. The SAVE America Act passed in the U.S. House of Representatives and has gone to the U.S. Senate.

U.S. Capitol
Photo by Caleb Perez on Unsplash

When my Congressman and most of the champions of the SAVE America Act try to summarize it, they say it is “just” voter ID. There is more there than meets the eye, though.

The SAVE America Act, if passed by the U.S. Senate as written for the House and, subsequently, signed into law by the President (which is a given), will require voters to show proof of U.S. citizenship.

My Congressman is proud to be a co-sponsor of the SAVE America Act. And now, to get to the title of today’s blog post, I will quote from Representative Mark Harris’ weekly email from February 14, 2026:

“Americans are required to show ID to board an airplane, open a bank account, and even enter Costco. So why are Democrats making a fuss over applying the same standard to federal elections?” He went on to call this “common sense.”

Photo by Marcus Reubenstein on Unsplash

There is simply something wrong with Mr. Harris’ paragraph: He is conflating a birth certificate with a Costco membership card. I have a Costco membership card, and I did not have to prove I was born in the United States to get it.

Mr. Harris made a serious mistake when he wrote, “applying the same standard to federal elections.” The examples he gave do not require the same standard (proof of U.S. citizenship) but we are heading toward a national requirement to have proof of citizenship in order to vote.

There is nothing wrong with that on the surface. I do not think non-citizens should vote. I also do not think more than a handful of non-citizens try to vote in the U.S. The proponents of the SAVE America Act are wielding it as a solution to a problem that does not exist.

The SAVE America Act is its proponents’ way of making it more difficult for poor and disabled people to vote. It adds unnecessary “hoops” for voters to jump through. For instance, if your current name does not match your birth certificate you must provide additional documentation to prove that you are the individual named on your birth certificate. If you don’t have easy access to transportation, gathering all your documentation and taking it to designated government offices is a burden.

I’ll let you in on a little secret… this requirement that you need to prove why you no longer go by your birth name is primarily a problem for married women. How many married women do you know who did not change their name when they got married? How many married men do you know who changed their name when they got married? I rest my case.

This will also cause anyone who was adopted to have to produce additional documentation.

To quote one of my Facebook friends, “this fuss the Democrats are making about the SAVE America Act is much ado about nothing.”  She went on to explain that “it only costs $165 to get a passport.” She obviously trusts the Trump Regime. I don’t.

I was born in the United States to American citizens. At one time, I had a U.S. passport. A passport proves citizenship. I let my passport expire and have had no reason to spend $165 to apply for a new one. That amount of money is not easy for me to come by. I am not alone in that situation. It is impossible for wealthy members of Congress and wealthy citizens to imagine that.

I recently had to renew my driver’s license. To get a “Real ID,” I had to take my birth certificate, my expiring driver’s license, and two utility bills addressed to me at my current address to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV).

I tried to get an appointment at the DMV in October, but the first available appointment within 100 miles of my home was on December 31. True story. Perhaps it isn’t like that in your state, but that was my experience. My only option was to go to a DMV office, stand in line for hours, and be seen after everyone with an appointment had been seen – or be told to try again the next day. My health does not allow me to stand outside for hours, especially in the winter.

Photo by Element5 Digital on Unsplash

It remains to be seen if my “Real ID” will suffice to prove that I am qualified to vote in November 2026 or November 2028. This is an issue every American needs to pay close attention to as it works its way through the legislative branch of our federal government.

Janet

The government should be afraid of its citizens, not the other way around.