The SAVE Act: Fact v. Fiction

The SAVE Act is a proposal from congressional Republicans to require people to provide proof of citizenship when registering to vote. Critics of this bill, which passed the House last week with unanimous Republican support and almost no Democratic support, have attempted in recent weeks to portray it as an out-of-the-mainstream proposal that will leave countless Americans disenfranchised. Proponents argue that the SAVE Act is a commonsense proposal that Americans of all political stripes should have no problem backing.

The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, or SAVE Act, aims to ensure that eligible American citizens and only eligible American citizens appear on the country’s voter registration lists. To accomplish this goal, the SAVE Act would require that proof of citizenship be provided when voters register to vote. The SAVE Act contains other significant election integrity provisions as well, such as establishing a private right of action to allow citizens to sue election officials who fail to comply with proof of citizenship requirements. While the SAVE Act passed the House of Representatives last year, it was never brought to the floor of the U.S. Senate for a vote in 2024.

Since federal law already prohibits noncitizens from voting in federal elections, one might assume there would be bipartisan agreement in favor of the SAVE Act and its provisions ensuring that only citizens are able to register to vote. The SAVE Act, however, has generated white-hot opposition from congressional Democrats and others on the Left.

One attack made by SAVE Act critics is that the bill usurps state authority over elections. This is similar to the attack leveled by many on the Left against President Trump’s recent executive order on elections and election integrity. This attack is a bit hypocritical since Democrats have been championing the For the People Act since Democrats retook control of the House of Representatives in 2019. This proposal, if enacted into law, would be the largest single federal takeover of elections in the history of the country. Among other things, it would require states to allow same-day voter registration; establish a public campaign finance match for congressional candidates; establish a cap on how much national party committees can spend on presidential candidates; and force states to conduct congressional redistricting through independent redistricting commissions.

While the states are primarily responsible for administering federal elections, the Constitution explicitly gives Congress a role, too. Article I, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution states:

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

Congress has been more than willing to exercise this authority in recent decades. In 1993, Congress exercised its authority under Article I, Section 4, to enact the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). NVRA was the first bill signed into law by President Bill Clinton, and it was strongly backed by Democrats across the country. In 2002, Congress again exercised its Article I, Section 4, powers to enact the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). HAVA was signed into law by President George W. Bush and received overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress (it passed the House 357-48 and the Senate 92-2). A few years later, Congress once again exercised its Article I, Section 4, powers and enacted the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act (or MOVE Act). The MOVE Act was signed into law by President Obama and, like HAVA, passed the House and Senate with support from Democrats and Republicans.

The SAVE Act builds upon the foundation established by Congress through NVRA, HAVA, and the MOVE Act. Democratic lawmakers had no problem with Congress using its authority to enact each of those important legislative initiatives. Why are they so squeamish about Congress again using its power to ensure that only eligible US citizens are on our nation’s voter registration lists?

The other criticism Democratic opponents are directing at the SAVE Act is that it will disenfranchise millions of Americans who cannot prove citizenship through a birth certificate because they have legally changed their name from their birth name. But the SAVE Act would do no such thing.

The SAVE Act itself contemplates these name changes and provides protections so that Americans who have changed their names—because of marriage or otherwise—are not prevented from voting. The bipartisan federal Election Assistance Commission (EAC) is commanded by the SAVE Act to establish guidelines for states to accept supplementary documents—for instance, a marriage license—to prove citizenship when a voter’s birth certificate and current name do not match. Those on the Left who claim that the SAVE Act will disenfranchise millions of married women are simply wrong; they ought to read the bill’s text and see that it provides mechanisms to ensure that this does not happen.

Our system of government works best when Americans across the political spectrum— have faith that elections are being administered fairly and competently. Like many of the meaningful election reforms enacted by Congress in recent decades, the SAVE Act is a commonsense proposal that aims to bolster Americans’ confidence that elections will be run with honesty and integrity.