The SAVE Act & Its Threat to Disenfranchise Americans

Author: Abigail Stofer

July 1, 2025

[Image source: Civic Media]

On April 10, 2025, the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act (SAVE Act) passed through the United States’ House of Representatives and is now awaiting a vote in the Senate. For a bill to become a law in the U.S., it must undergo a multi-step process, passing through both the lower and upper legislative chambers— the House of Representatives and Senate respectively— before being passed onto the president to either sign into law or veto. This bill, if made into law, would amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require proof of U.S. citizenship in order to register, or re-register, to vote in federal elections.

This Republican-driven effort to scrutinize voter registration follows the recent political trend, spearheaded by the Trump Administration, of cracking down on immigration policy and the residency of non-citizens in the United States. The Trump Administration’s simultaneous increased deportation efforts and plan to revoke international students’ visas (Ainsley & Strickler, 2025; Brinkley & Ma, 2025) are just two examples of the executive branch’s widespread and far-reaching attempts to clamp down on immigration policy. While hiding behind the noble front of preserving election integrity, in actuality, the SAVE Act will raise barriers to voting and disenfranchise American citizens. 

The SAVE Act, Unpacked

The current version of the bill specifies that citizens registering to vote or updating their voter registration information must present a “form of identification issued consistent with REAL ID Act of 2005 requirements indicating applicant is a citizen” to election officials (SAVE Act). In order to vote in U.S. federal elections, federal law already specifies that one must be a citizen. The goal of this proposed legislation is to assuage concerns over voter fraud by forcing voters to provide documentary proof of their citizenship. 

The most commonly held forms of identification that would be accepted under this legislation are a valid U.S. passport or birth certificate (Bedekovics & Bryant, 2025). The bill also states that any government-issued photo identification (ID) showing the applicant's birthplace will be accepted; however, most photo IDs do not contain this information, showcasing a critical flaw in the bill’s language. This means that even REAL IDs may not be an acceptable form of identification, as most driver’s licenses do not indicate citizenship. People who are legal residents, but not yet citizens, can obtain a REAL ID, unlike passports or birth certificates, which are only held by citizens (USA.gov). Five U.S. states (Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Vermont, and Washington) offer a citizen-only REAL ID alternative, a model that many Republican legislators hope other states will consider utilizing (Cassidy, 2025). This complication of the SAVE Act bill in its current form also invalidates military or tribal IDs, as they do not indicate an applicant’s [citizenship] birthplace either. 

The bill also specifies that this identifying documentation must be presented to election officials in person (SAVE Act). This rule applies to both mail voter registration and same-day registration. Even if an individual is already registered to vote, that person would also be required to present documentation to election officials if they move to a new state, change their legal name, or need to update their voter registration for any other reason, such as changing political party affiliation.

Increasing Barriers to Voter Registration

The SAVE Act would massively affect the ease and convenience with which Americans are able to register to vote. More than 21 million (9%) American citizens do not have easy access to the necessary documentation needed to register to vote under this act (Garber & Weiser, 2025). This could be for a variety of reasons: the documents are at the home of another family member or in a safety deposit box, or they have been lost, stolen, or destroyed (Henry & Morris, 2024). Furthermore, approximately half of all Americans, 146 million people, do not have a valid passport. High rates of passport possession are concentrated in blue states, while low rates of possession are concentrated in red states, which primarily reflects lower incomes and educational attainment in these states (Bedekovics & Bryant, 2025; Florida, 2011). This act would also impact rural voters, who would need to travel up to multiple hours in order to present their documentation to the nearest election office. Not to mention, elderly, disabled, or poor individuals who might lack the resources or ability to make the trip to the election office.

Additionally, this bill would completely restructure the way states conduct their voter registration. Online voter registration, which 8 million Americans utilized in the 2022 election cycle, would be potentially overhauled or even eliminated; likewise, 3 million Americans registered to vote by mail in the 2022 cycle, the future of which is also uncertain. The SAVE Act threatens to eliminate programs that have made registering to vote more convenient for Americans, such as Automatic Voter Registration through motor vehicle agencies, outright disenfranchising millions of Americans (Bedekovics & Bryant, 2025).

One of the largest demographic groups that the SAVE Act would impact is that of  married women. Around 80% of married women in heterosexual relationships have taken their spouse’s last name (Lin, 2023). This means that their birth certificate no longer matches their current legal name and other IDs, potentially impacting their ability to register to vote under the SAVE Act. Women’s right to vote, enshrined in the 19th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, was hard won after about 70 years of advocacy; the SAVE Act would mark a huge step backwards for women’s political rights and participation. Especially since the overturning of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that established abortion rights, many issues specifically impacting women, such as abortion rights and maternal healthcare have been on state ballots. It is vital that American women have the ability to exercise their constitutional right to vote to the fullest extent, uninhibited by SAVE Act barriers.

When the voting process becomes more complicated, people are less likely to vote (if they are still able to), even if they have the proper credentials (Colarossi, 2025). This is especially true among young people. Compared to other advanced industrialized democracies, such as Sweden, Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom, youth voter turnout (ages 18-29) is particularly low in the U.S. (Holbein & Hillygus, 2020). There are a multitude of reasons why youth voter turnout in the United States is low, including feelings of disillusionment with the major political parties and their candidates, problems with absentee voting as out-of-state students, and confusion regarding voter registration (Medina, Siegel-Stechler, & Suzuki, 2025). However, in recent decades, as expansive voting laws have been implemented, such as same-day registration, the youth vote has been increasing, from 13% in 2014 to 28% in 2018 (League of Women Voters, 2024). Adding an additional informational burden to the voter registration process could potentially reverse this positive trend, as young voters will have doubts over who can register and how they can do so (Held, 2025). This will influence policy outcomes and priorities, as politicians will cater to those that they know will show up at the polls. 

Leading by Example

Prior to the introduction of the SAVE Act into Congress, there had already been similar laws introduced in multiple states, which exposed the flaws of this policy. For example, Kansas implemented a proof-of-citizenship requirement law in 2013. The law ended up blocking the registration of more than 31,000 eligible U.S. citizens and was struck down by a federal court in 2018 as a violation of the National Voter Registration Act (Hanna, 2024). 

Similarly, Arizona law has required proof of citizenship to register to vote in state and local elections since 2004. In 2022, they extended this mandate to include federal elections. Subsequently, in September of 2024, just a few weeks before the federal general election, officials announced that there was a coding error marking 218,000 voters as having provided citizenship documentation, when in actuality it was unclear if they had, throwing these voters’ eligibility into question (Cohen & Hill, 2024).  

States are often referred to as the “laboratories of democracy,” a term first popularized by Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Louis Brandies in 1932, meaning legislation is often tested out at the state level before being implemented on the federal level (Blakeman, 2020). As evidenced from these examples in Arizona and Kansas, there are still massive kinks to be ironed out before taking this policy to the national level, which will almost certainly become a logistical and administrative nightmare. States will have to virtually overhaul their current voter registration process, undertake awareness campaigns to inform citizens about this policy change, and ensure that there are no coding or data errors in their voter databases to avoid a repeat of what was seen in Arizona this past election cycle.

Voter Fraud: Myth or Reality?

Contrary to the narrative often promoted by various right-wing news and media outlets, there are already guardrails in place to ensure elections are secure and protected from fraud. Under federal law, it is illegal for non-citizens to vote, and doing so can lead to felony charges and potential deportation (Cassidy, 2025). The federal voter registration form asks registrars to affirm, under penalty of perjury, that those registering to vote are U.S. citizens. While previously, ensuring the security of elections was primarily the job of election officials, the SAVE Act would shift the burden of providing indisputable proof of citizenship onto American voters. 

There is no evidence that indicates that U.S. elections have been impacted by widespread voter fraud committed by illegal immigrants. This narrative, despite a lack of statistical proof, has floated around conservative media for years, echoing the racist “great replacement theory,” i.e.,  the idea that there is a mass conspiracy to bring nonwhite immigrants into the U.S. to replace white voters and dilute their political power (Joffe-Block & Yousef, 2024). In 2016, after Donald Trump won the presidential election, yet lost the popular vote, he claimed that he actually won the popular vote if you “subtract” millions of illegal voters (Waldman, 2024). 

There have been many recent state audits, such as one in Georgia in October 2024, confirming the rarity of voter fraud. According to Georgia’s top election officials, 20 out of 8.2 million people (0.00024%) registered to vote were found to be non-citizens (AP News, 2024). Even conservative institutional data, such as that from the Heritage Foundation, supports this rarity. According to their election fraud map, which has collected data from 1982 up until the present, the state with the most instances of voter fraud is Minnesota with 138 cases total. Many states have found less than 10 instances of voter fraud since 1982 (The Heritage Foundation). The lack of data supporting conservative claims that there is widespread voter fraud negates the need for the SAVE Act. The real messages underneath this rhetoric are fear mongering against immigrants and racist dog-whistles.  

Odds of Bill’s Passage

Currently, with the slim Republican majority in the Senate, it is unlikely that the SAVE Act will be able to override a filibuster (requiring 60 votes) and pass through to President Trump’s desk. To clear the Senate would require at least 7 moderate Democrats to vote “Yes” on the bill, which in today’s polarized chambers, is unlikely. 

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has been outspoken about his opposition to the bill, declaring that he will use his full influence as the head Democrat in the Senate to ensure party loyalty and strike down the bill (Senate Democrats, 2025). Democratic senators, Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) and Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), who both represent competitive states, have already stated that they will be voting “No” on the SAVE Act. Other moderate Democrats, such as John Fetterman (D-PA), Mark Kelly (D-AZ), Maggie Hassan (D-NH), and Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), have not yet said where they stand on this issue (Stanton, 2025). However, it would take nearly every moderate Democrat crossing the aisle to push this bill through the Senate. 

While the odds of this bill becoming law are slim, it sets a dangerous precedent. President Trump has already issued an executive order mimicking the SAVE Act that requires the U.S. Election Assistance Commission to mandate proof-of-citizenship documentation when registering to vote via the federal form (The White House, 2025). In mid-April, a federal court issued a preliminary injunction on this executive order as an overreach of presidential power, but the fight is far from over (League of Women Voters, 2025). The Republican party has made it clear that this is one of their main legislative goals, and if they gain a larger margin of power after the 2026 midterm elections, in which every representative and ⅓ of all senators are up for re-election, very little will be standing in their way to disenfranchise millions of Americans.  

Conclusion

The SAVE Act is a convoluted attempt to “solve” a nearly non-existent problem with the potential to disenfranchise more U.S. citizens than deter non-citizens from voting. In a political era where elections are often won in the margins, it is vital that every eligible American has the ability to make their voice heard using their constitutional right to vote. This bill is anti-democratic and directly contradicts the constitutional principles the United States was built upon. 

---

Glossary

• Citizen: a legally recognized subject or national of a state or commonwealth, either native or naturalized

• Conservatism: a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing the importance of established hierarchies and institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change

• Deportation: the action of deporting a foreigner from a country

• Disenfranchise: to deprive of a legal right or of some privilege or immunity,

  especially to deprive of the right to vote.

• Dog-whistle: a subtly aimed political message which is intended for, and can only be understood by a particular group

• Election: a formal and organized choice by vote of a person for a political office or other position

• Executive order: a directive by the president of the United States which has the force of law, usually based on existing statutory powers, and requiring no action by Congress 

• Fear mongering: the action of deliberately arousing public fear or alarm about a particular issue

• Federal: relating to or denoting the central government of the U.S.

• Filibuster: an attempt to delay or block a vote on a piece of legislation or a confirmation

• Guardrails: in the context of politics, institutional, legal, and societal mechanisms that limit power and prevent abuse by political actors

• Immigrant: a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country

• Industrialized: used to describe a country, economy, area, etc. that has many businesses and factories involved in producing goods

• Legal resident: Any immigrant who is living in the United States under legally recognized and lawfully recorded permanent residence as an immigrant; a “green card holder”

• Legislation: rules or laws relating to a particular activity that are made by a government

• Minority leader: the senior official of the political party that holds a minority of seats in the Senate

• National Voter Registration Act: enacted in 1993, designed to simplify the voter registration process, making it more accessible

• Perjury: the offense of willfully telling an untruth in a court after having taken an oath or affirmation

• Real ID: a driver’s license or identification card that meets minimum security standards set by the Department of Homeland Security

• Rhetoric: language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect on its audience

• U.S. Election Assistance Commission: An independent, agency of the United States government created by the Help America Vote Act of 2002

• U.S. House of Representatives: The lower chamber of Congress made up of 435 voting members

• U.S. Senate: The upper chamber of Congress, comprising 100 voting members

• Veto: the power of one department or branch of a government to forbid an action of another department or branch

• Visa: an endorsement on a passport indicating that the holder is allowed to enter, leave, or stay for a specified period of time in a country

• Voter: disenfranchisement: the action of taking away the right to vote from a person or group; alternatively a feeling in a person or group of not being represented in the political system

• Voter fraud: illegal interference with the process of an election

• Voter turnout: the number of people who cast ballots in a given election