Walter Olson

According to multiple reports, Republicans “plan to move quickly” to move election legislation early in the new Congress. Supporters of constitutional liberty should watch closely to make sure that such legislation is shorn of the punitive enforcement provisions and unrealistic timelines that riddled last year’s Republican bill on citizenship verification, and that it does not let the federal government draw unto itself too much discretionary regulatory power over local election administration. Reports AP:

The main legislation that Republicans expect to push will be versions of the American Confidence in Elections Act and the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, said GOP Rep. Bryan Steil of Wisconsin, chair of the Committee on House Administration, which handles election-related legislation. The proposals are known as the ACE and SAVE acts, respectively.

The political logic in starting with those two is clear enough. A requirement to show a government-issued photo ID at the polls is consistently popular with the public across party lines, leaving aside scholars’ doubts as to whether it actually matters much to outcomes. Indeed, most states already have it. Noncitizen voting in federal elections is already unlawful, and there is a broad political consensus on the principle of the thing, if not necessarily on the details of enforcing it.

By contrast, some other ideas floated by Donald Trump and allies, such as requiring that all voting be done on Election Day, are deeply unpopular both with the public and with election administrators of both parties. AP again:

[Republican Georgia Secretary of State] Raffensperger and Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, a Democrat, said it would be a mistake to move the country to a single day of voting, something Trump has said he would like to see happen, because it would eliminate early voting and limit access to mail ballots. Both methods are extremely popular among voters. In Georgia, 71% of voters in November cast their ballots in person before Election Day.

Even if there’s more of a consensus in principle behind the ACE and SAVE bills, the question is whether that consensus extends to the details. As I wrote last summer when House Republicans were pushing SAVE as a messaging bill: 

the fact is that it’s hard for much of the population to lay hands on high-level documentary proof of citizenship. Drivers’ licenses, government employee IDs, and the like generally don’t record citizenship status. Passports are better, and so are domestic birth certificates bearing someone’s current legal name, but much of the population cannot easily lay hands on either, especially given that many married women have changed their legal names.

For all the polarized talk in this area, the SAVE Act itself acknowledges that less-than-perfect compromise solutions would be necessary. It “requires states to establish an alternative process under which an applicant may submit other evidence to demonstrate US citizenship.” Will this involve some combination of second-best documents, sworn attestations, in-person interviews, or maybe something else? The bill is sparse and vague on these crucial details.

Aside from whether the unrealistic and punitive timelines and penalties for administrators get softened, a particular issue to watch is whether the bill or bills attempt to transform the obscure federal Election Assistance Commission, currently configured as a cheerful helper to local election authorities, into something closer to a regulator empowered to give them orders. Last summer’s SAVE Act authorized the EAC to begin issuing guidance to states on how to apply the law, a potentially broad power.

AP quotes Rep. Steil as saying he “expects there will be ‘some reforms and tweaks’ to the original proposals and hopes Democrats will work with Republicans to refine and ultimately support them.” But as reporter Pam Fessler noticed, the citizenship verification bill is listed among twelve initial bills in a new House Rules package “to be considered with no amendments.” Let’s hope the voice of state and local administrators—and all those concerned with keeping elections decentralized, as contemplated by the US Constitution—is given a chance to be heard. 

• I'm a Gen X woman with a name beloved by baby boomers, but often misunderstood by my peers.
• Today the name Linda is often associated with a frumpy archetype, as seen in TV shows and memes.
• The unique "y" in the spelling of my name helps me stand out from the Lindas of the world.

"Linda? That's my aunt's name!"

I probably wasn't even out of my teens before I'd lost count of the number of times a cute boy said this to me. "You have an old name because you had old parents," my older sister flatly told me once. My friends more tactfully insisted that "No, the 'y' makes it a totally different name!"

But my sister wasn't wrong: I'm a Gen X Lynda with a name beloved by the parents of baby boomers and even the silent generation. These days, the name has been reduced to a frumpy archetype. How did a name that was the equivalent of a TikTok sensation of its day become so relentlessly uncool?

Lindas are getting a bad rap

The "y" is the only thing standing between me and the Lindas of the world. As a Linda, I'm an episode-long joke on "The Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt" in which everyone is confounded by a baby named Linda because Lindas are adult women who work in HR. There's also the bossy busybody of the "Listen Linda" meme (there but for the grace of Karen go I), which originated with a Linda recording her three-year-old son repeatedly insisting "Listen, Linda" with all of the exasperated patience he can muster faced with the implacable bureaucracy that a Linda embodies. As a Lynda, I have plausible deniability.

The comedic success of both the TV show and the meme relies on the confidence that we've all noticed certain things about people named Linda and that we'll all get the joke, and we do.

"Who's Linda? Your mom's friend?" Linda is the type of person who carries SlimFast in her purse and gets mad when she can't find her keys. Linda says things like "Mondays," with that little rueful head shake, you know the one. Of course she does. And Linda's meddling opinions likely need to be shut down: Listen, Linda.

We all know this Linda, but why? How did this extraordinarily popular name become this frumpy archetype?

The name isn't poised for a comeback — yet

One thing all the characters in the Kimmy Schmidt episode agree on — including the five middle-aged Lindas who all work in HR at the same company — Linda definitely can't be a baby.

These days, they aren't wrong. In the US, the name Linda began its sharp rise in popularity in the late 1930s, peaked in the late 1940s, and declined dramatically throughout the 1960s and 1970s to become one of the unlikeliest names given to babies today.

This is my name, and I'm keeping it

Of course, we Lyndas with a "y" were always somewhat rare, which is why I've always side-eyed HR departments, try not to make everything my business, and can solemnly swear not a sip of SlimFast has ever passed my lips. I do get mad when I can't find my keys though.

I try not to think much about the fact that I was almost an Elizabeth as I'm convinced my life would have taken a completely different trajectory. Elizabeth surely would have been several inches taller than my five-foot-one-inch frame and would probably have had a decent sense of direction. She'd have published a novel in her twenties and probably landed on one of those "30 Under 30" lists.

However unenamoured I have always been of my name, I've also never considered changing it. Wouldn't that just leave me with another name I'd also get tired of, only I'd have no one but myself to blame?

There's another reason I'm kind of attached to Lynda though. My father loved the name and had always wanted a daughter named Linda. My mother suggested the "y" addition just so it would be a little different. The name meant something to them even if it seems slightly ridiculous to me. Now that they're both gone, it feels like a lasting thread of connection with them both.

That and the fact that it's Lynda with a "y." I'm not one of those Lindas other people talk about — at least not as long as I can find my keys.