I Tried to Renew My Kids' Passports Last Month. It Took Three Weeks Just to Get an Appointment.

And That's Just One Reason Why the SAVE Act Scares Me.

Photo by Jon Tyson on Unsplash

Can I tell you about my February?

Because I think it says a lot about why I keep writing about the SAVE Act.

I've gotten a lot of responses to my last two posts about the SAVE Act. Some thoughtful. Some frustrated. A few that were, honestly, a little condescending. But here's what I noticed in almost all of them — people were speaking from their own experience. And they genuinely seemed to believe that their experience was everyone's experience.

I get that. I really do. I've done the same thing.

But that assumption — if it's easy for me, it must be easy for everyone — is a huge problem at the heart of the SAVE Act. So let me walk through some of what people actually said, and then I want to tell you about our passport situation last month. Because it got real, fast.

"It's very simple to secure an ID."

For you. It's simple for you. And I'm genuinely glad it is. But "simple for me" has never meant "simple for everyone." I've seen too much to believe that. If we actually look at patterns, gaps, and repetition in equity data — or simply listen to one another — that claim falls apart pretty quickly.

"You needed your birth certificate to get other forms of ID anyway, so people should already have it."

I have mine. I already paid for a copy. But it has my maiden name on it — because I took my spouse's name when we married. And I'm not alone in that. Millions of people who've changed their names are in the same boat. Getting a birth certificate updated means more paperwork, more money, more time — things that are an inconvenience for some people and a genuine wall for others.

"A Real ID driver's license is acceptable for voting."

For voting, maybe. But the SAVE Act isn't just about voting — it's about registering to vote. And in most states, a driver's license, even a Real ID, does not prove citizenship. So no, it won't work for what this bill actually requires.

"When someone becomes a naturalized citizen, they get proof of citizenship."

They do. And that process is already expensive and lengthy — people who become naturalized citizens have already given a tremendous amount to get here. But under the SAVE Act, their Certificate of Naturalization most likely isn't enough on its own. It satisfies the citizenship requirement — but not necessarily the identity requirement. So naturalized citizens would need to show up with two documents: the certificate and a current government-issued photo ID. Two documents in order to register to vote.

More hoops. For people who have already cleared every hoop this country put in front of them. To solve a problem that — as I've documented in my earlier posts here and here — exists in genuinely minuscule numbers.

That's not fairness.

And now let me tell you about February.

We have three kids who needed their passports renewed. I want to be upfront: we are in a privileged position. We have a car. We can take time off work. Our kids can miss school without serious consequences.

We live in a city with multiple locations where you can submit a passport application. We’re all people without disabilities. That last one mattered more than I expected — one of the buildings we visited had a broken automatic door that day, with only a revolving door as the backup. For us, annoying. For someone with a mobility need, that's a whole different story.

I know that. I'm telling you this story because even with all of that going for us, it was still a mess.

We started at our closest post office — a short walk from our house. They advertise walk-in passport service. We showed up during those advertised hours and were told they couldn't do walk-ins that day. Or the next day. Or that week. They advertise the hours, but they don't always have someone there to actually do it.

So we made an appointment. Took time off work. Pulled the kids out of school early. Showed up — and were told the appointment had been cancelled because the person who handles passports wasn't available. We were never notified of the cancellation — despite providing our contact information for the appointment. Apparently, this happens frequently.

We didn't want to waste the whole afternoon, so we asked if there was a nearby office that definitely had someone on site. The postal worker told us our best bet was the main post office downtown.

We drove ten minutes to the second post office. Waited in line. Explained our situation. They called a supervisor — someone who could do passports — but that person was tied up for the day and couldn't see us. The best they could do was schedule us to come back the following week.

So we left. Again. We drove home and put another appointment on the calendar for the following week, knowing we'd be doing the whole thing over again. More missed work. More kids missing school. More juggling.

Week three, we finally walked out of that post office with our applications filed. The State Department received them on March 10, 2026. Three weeks. Three trips. More time, energy, and missed work and school than anyone should have to spend just to get passport applications submitted. And honestly? Given how this whole experience went, I'm not holding my breath that the passports will arrive in the 4-6 weeks the State Department promises.

And again — we're the lucky ones.

We have a car, flexible enough jobs, and kids who can handle a few missed school days. What about the people who don't?

What about someone who takes an unpaid day off, rides two buses, and gets turned away? What about the person who drives forty-five minutes each way because that's the nearest passport acceptance facility? And what about anyone applying for a passport for the very first time — because there is no mail-in option for that. No online workaround. You have to show up, in person, at a facility that can process it. What happens to these folks when they get turned away and have to figure out how to do it all over again the following week?

I already know what some people will say, because I've heard it: "Just renew by mail." And I understand why that sounds like a reasonable solution.

But mail renewal only works if your most recent passport was issued after age 16, within the last 15 years, isn't damaged, and is in your current name — or you have documentation of a name change. If any of those things aren't true? You're standing in line at a passport facility just like the rest of us. There is no shortcut.

Best of luck to you, my friend.

Here's what I keep coming back to, underneath all of it.

My spouse is a black naturalized citizen. He has a U.S. passport. We carry it everywhere — even for domestic travel. We carry our marriage license too. Because his accent and his skin color have caused enough suspicion from government and security agents over the years that we've learned: the more documentation, the better. His driver's license, on its own, has not been enough to prove that he belongs here.

That is not equitable. That is not fair. And the SAVE Act would make that reality more official, more codified, more baked into the system.

The inequity of this bill is my biggest problem with it. We already have plenty of inequity built into how this country operates. The SAVE Act proposes to fix a problem that exists in trace amounts by adding more weight to a system that already asks more of some people than others. That's what keeps me up at night.

And just to be clear — I'm not against having to show ID to vote. I'm really not. What I'm against is a process that isn't clear, isn't easy, and isn't fair for everyone.

If we're going to ask people to show documentation, then we have an obligation to make sure that process actually opens the door for people to participate — not closes it. And honestly, that door has never been equally open for everyone. That's not an accusation — it's just history.

Poll taxes. Literacy tests. Grandfather clauses. The barriers have looked different over time, but the pattern is the same: some people have always had to work harder just to exercise the same right. The SAVE Act doesn't break that pattern. It continues it.

For me, the goal has to be more people voting, not fewer. More voices, not less. If we can't build a process that actually works for all of us, then we haven't built a fair system. We've just built a more official-looking barrier on top of all the ones that came before it.

So here's what I want to leave you with.

When we say we want fair elections — and I believe most people genuinely do — I want us to mean fair for everyone. Not just people whose documents line up neatly. Not just people who have afternoons to spare and cars to drive and jobs that let them take time off.

Fair for the naturalized citizen who already proved their citizenship through one of the most demanding legal processes this country has. Fair for anyone whose name changed when their life changed. Fair for the person who has never needed a passport because they've never been able to afford one.

Equal access to our rights — like voting — has to work for everyone, not just the people the law has already made it easiest for.

If we want democracy to actually work — for all of us — then the barriers to participating in it have to be ones that everyone can actually clear.

To me, that's not a radical idea. That's just what fairness actually looks like.