House Passes SAVE Act, Sparking Debate Over Voter Eligibility
WASHINGTON – The House of Representatives recently passed the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, a bill mandating proof of citizenship for voter registration in federal elections, igniting a fierce debate over election security and voter access. The bill, which passed by a 220-208 vote with all Republicans and four Democrats in favor, aims to tighten existing voter registration requirements but has drawn sharp criticism from Democrats and voting rights advocates who view it as a form of voter suppression.
The SAVE act, previously introduced as part of a government funding bill in September 2024, seeks to amend current federal law, which allows individuals to attest to their citizenship by simply checking a box on the voter registration form. Currently, federal law prohibits election officials from requiring “notarization or other formal authentication” from registrants to prove their citizenship. However, states conduct routine list maintenance, cross-referencing voter rolls with government databases, such as the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements and DMV records, to identify potential non-citizens. the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) also mandates regular voter roll maintenance to remove deceased individuals and those who have moved. Notably, some states, like Arizona, already require proof of citizenship for state and local elections.Under the SAVE Act, states would be prohibited from accepting voter registration applications for federal elections without documentary proof of U.S. citizenship, such as a passport or a birth certificate accompanied by a government-issued photo ID.The bill also directs states to establish a process for removing non-citizens from voter rolls and provide an option method for applicants to prove citizenship, without specifying the details of these processes.The bill comes amid heightened concerns over election integrity and follows president trump’s recent executive order mirroring some elements of the SAVE Act, including new ballot-deadline rules currently facing legal challenges.Several state legislatures are also considering similar measures to restrict non-citizen voting.
Republicans argue the SAVE act is a necessary measure to safeguard against vulnerabilities in the election system, while Democrats contend it creates needless barriers to voter registration. Critics have specifically raised concerns about potential disenfranchisement of women who have changed their names through marriage, as their birth certificates may not match their current legal names.
Speaker of the House Mike Johnson dismissed these concerns, stating, “The Democrats are contorting themselves into a pretzel trying to justify some sort of vote against this. What they’re trying to do is protect the ability of non-citizens to participate in our elections. Plain and simple.That’s what this is about.”
The bill now faces a challenging path in the Senate, where it requires 60 votes to overcome a potential filibuster. Democratic leaders have already urged their members to vote against the bill.
Diverging Arguments
The crux of the debate over the SAVE Act lies in differing perspectives on its purpose and necessity.
Supporters, primarily on the right, assert the bill is a common-sense measure to enhance election security. They argue current laws are inadequate to prevent non-citizens from registering to vote and that the SAVE Act provides an effective solution. Further, they dismiss concerns about burdensome requirements, pointing to similar laws in other Western democracies and asserting that individuals should already possess the necessary documentation.
Opponents, mainly on the left, characterize the SAVE Act as a solution in search of a problem and express concerns about its potential to suppress voter turnout. they argue the bill is anti-democratic and could disenfranchise millions of voters, placing an undue burden on election officials ill-equipped to handle the additional requirements. Additionally,some legal scholars argue the bill infringes on states’ rights to administer elections by imposing federal voter eligibility standards.
Some even suggest the bill could inadvertently harm Republican voters, who may disproportionately lack the required documentation.
Expert Opinions
To gain a deeper understanding of the potential impacts of the SAVE Act, Archyde.com spoke with several policy experts.
Joe Burns, an elections lawyer and former deputy director of election operations at the New York State Board of Elections, supports
