On April 10, the House of Representatives passed the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, also known as the SAVE Act, with a final congressional vote of 220-208. The bill is now set to be voted on in the Senate, and if it passes, it’ll go to President Donald Trump to be signed into law.
Despite being introduced and passed in the House last year, the bill didn’t make it to a vote in the Senate. However, after winning the majority in both the House and the Senate, Republican Congress members have reintroduced several pieces of legislation, with the SAVE Act being the latest to pass the House.
Introduced by Texas Representative Chip Roy, the SAVE Act seeks to amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) by requiring individuals to provide proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections. The bill has been met with some opposition, with organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), League of Women Voters (LWV), and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) releasing statements condemning the potential law.
What Does the SAVE Act Entail?
In his Jan. 7 press statement, Roy said, “American elections belong to American citizens, and the public’s confidence in those elections is the cornerstone of our republic.” He explained that he was proud to be reintroducing the bill to Congress with his Republican colleagues saying, “We in Congress have a duty to our fellow citizens to provide that confidence and put concrete enforcement in place to ensure that our elections and our sovereignty can’t be hijacked and influenced by foreign nationals who have no business voting in this country.”
The bill reads that “a State may not register an individual to vote in elections for Federal office held in the State unless, at the time the individual applies to register to vote, the individual provides documentary proof of United States citizenship.”
To enact this requirement, the bill designates five possible ways to prove citizenship. This includes a form of identification that’s compliant with the REAL ID Act of 2005, stating that U.S. citizenship is permissible if the applicant has a valid U.S. passport, an official U.S. military identification card stating the applicant’s place of birth was in the U.S., a valid government-issued photo identification card stating the applicant’s place of birth was in the U.S., or a valid government-issued photo identification card presented together with a document stating place of birth such as a birth certificate or a document stating the full legal name of both parents.
Similar legislation has been introduced by different levels of government in the past, such as Kansas’ 2011 legislation that required proof of citizenship to vote. The legislation blocked over 31,000 U.S. citizens from voting when they were otherwise eligible. A federal court declared the legislation unconstitutional, and it hasn’t been in effect since 2018.
The case’s judge ruled that with “scant” evidence of an actual problem, the state government couldn’t justify keeping eligible citizens from voting. It was concluded that in comparison to the thousands of citizens who were blocked from voting, only 39 noncitizens registered to vote in Kansas from 1999 through 2012.
The Related Voting Legislation
The NVRA outlined three key ways for states to offer voter registration, including registering through mail, at any office that provides public assistance, and the opportunity to register to vote when getting a driver’s license.
The REAL ID Act of 2005 established standards for identification source issuance, including driver’s licenses. REAL ID-compliant cards have yellow or black star markings in the upper top portion of the identification. Military identification and U.S. passports are also considered REAL IDs. Besides passports, however, REAL IDs do not explicitly state citizenship.
Beginning May 7, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) will require REAL ID-compliant documentation to fly domestically. Applicants seeking a REAL ID will need to provide their full name, date of birth, social security number, lawful resident status, and at least two proofs of address.
The Oppositional Response
Since its reintroduction, the SAVE Act has faced criticism from many voting rights groups, with many organizations citing the legislation’s vague language.
North Carolina Representative Deborah Ross disapproved of the act, saying, “This legislation would immediately disenfranchise the 69 million women who have changed their names after marriage or divorce.”
Many echo this concern, citing that citizens who have taken their spouse’s name no longer have documentation with both their citizenship status and their new legal name. Florida Representative Laurel Lee supports the bill, saying that it “contemplates this exact situation” and that it “explicitly directs states to establish a process for them to register to vote.”
However, without the bill directly outlining the processes for states to establish, some predict that this bill will turn elections into a paperwork nightmare for voters. “Why not write it in the bill? Why are we making the potential for 50 different standards to be set?” asked New York Representative Joe Morelle. “How much paperwork do Republicans expect Americans to drown in?”
Sarah Copeland Hanzas, Vermont’s Secretary of State, considers the bill’s language to be intentional. “They bring out the SAVE Act and cloak it in this rhetoric of ‘election integrity,’ when what it really does is it pushes women out of the democratic process. And it’s not a coincidence,” she said following the House vote that passed the bill. “It’s part of a strategy to make voting harder — to sow distrust in our elections.”
Critics say that other groups might be affected, such as include low-income voters who can’t afford the financial burden of obtaining documentation, transgender voters whose documents don’t match their gender identity or name, disaster survivors who no longer have the required documents, and young or elderly voters who may not have immediate access to documents proving citizenship.
The NAACP strongly opposes the act, stating in a press statement that “the SAVE Act is nothing more than voter suppression disguised as voter protection. The burdensome requirements disproportionately target voters in historically marginalized communities, amplify systemic inequalities, and aim to silence millions.”
What’s Next for the SAVE Act?
It’s unclear yet if and when the SAVE Act will be voted on in the Senate. While Republicans currently hold the majority of the Senate, there’s a possibility the bill won’t advance to a vote due to the use of filibusters.
Despite recently making headlines after New Jersey Senator Cory Booker’s record-breaking filibuster protesting Trump’s second presidency, filibusters have historically been used to prevent legislation from reaching votes. Used as a tactic to kill off bills before they reach the floor, the Senate can end a filibuster with a 60-40 vote. This enacts what’s called a cloture and effectively ends debate on the bill to vote.
Republicans alone would be unable to end a filibuster attempting to kill the SAVE Act before it reaches a vote; however, there’s a possibility that members of the Senate will cross the aisle. In its vote in the House earlier this year, four Democrats voted for the GOP-backed bill: Hawaii Representative Ed Case, Texas Representative Henry Cuellar, Maine Representative Jared Golden, and Washington Representative Marie Gluesenkamp Perez. As voting rights groups continue urging voters to organize documentation and call their representatives, it remains uncertain how many senators might support the SAVE Act if it goes to vote.
Want to see more HCFSU? Be sure to like us on Facebook and follow us on Instagram, Twitter, TikTok, and Pinterest!