The real impact of the SAVE Act

The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act is set to be a priority for the 119th Congress. Sponsored by Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX), the bill seeks to require documentary proof of citizenship for voter registration. Supporters argue it will bolster election integrity, while critics warn it is redundant and risks disenfranchising eligible voters.

But both sides likely overstate their cases. The SAVE Act’s real impact will depend on its implementation: whether lawmakers approach it as a genuine effort to address concerns about election integrity or as a performative partisan measure.

The SAVE Act responds to growing concerns about noncitizen voting and aims to strengthen election security. The bill would require voters to provide proof of citizenship, such as a passport, naturalization document, or government-issued identification showing U.S. birthplace when registering to vote. Federal law already prohibits noncitizens from voting in elections and requires registrants to attest to their citizenship under penalty of perjury. However, the 1993 National Voter Registration Act and subsequent court rulings prevent states from mandating documentation to verify citizenship.

Supporters claim that the requirement that voters simply swear that they are citizens is insufficient and that the SAVE Act is necessary to prevent widespread noncitizen voting and strengthen election integrity. Evidence reveals that noncitizen voting does happen, but it is quite rare, and many states go to great lengths to keep noncitizens off the voter rolls. Arguments that the bill is necessary to prevent a wave of illegal voting, therefore, lack substance.

Yet, while the proponents may be exaggerating the problem, critics of the SAVE Act also tend to overstate their case, alleging that the bill would disenfranchise eligible voters. It is true that minority voters, low-income or homeless people, and college students are disproportionately less likely to possess the required documentation, and it’s possible that efforts to clean voter rolls can go wrong. However, these problems can be adequately addressed in the way the SAVE Act is implemented.

Implementation must prioritize accessibility and accuracy. States should approach voter roll updates with caution, relying on reliable data-sharing systems to minimize errors. For citizens lacking documentation, alternative pathways must be accessible and effective. Ensuring that states adopt realistic and transparent processes will be critical to maintaining access to the ballot while meeting the bill’s goals.

Furthermore, the number of people who can’t access the necessary documentation is relatively small — even smaller, therefore, would be the number of possible voters affected. Look no further than Arizona, the only state with a citizenship requirement to vote in state elections, where only 35,000 of the state’s 4.3 million voters have failed to provide citizenship documentation. It’s also easy to imagine that a requirement for those 35,000 “federal only” voters to provide citizenship documentation would drive that number down even further.

The absence of basic citizenship documentation also raises broader problems beyond voting. States ought to ensure that all citizens can obtain essential records without financial or logistical barriers. Providing accessible documentation pathways is a fundamental responsibility of government, and compliance with this legislation is an opportunity to incentivize states to address this serious matter.

At the end of the day, legislation should address real challenges with pragmatic solutions, not react to popular myths. Nevertheless, while the SAVE Act may not be necessary to prevent a surge in noncitizen voting, it still could have value. Restoring confidence in the electoral process is a legitimate policy objective. Currently, large swaths of the population have real doubts about the integrity of our elections, and that includes concerns about noncitizen voting. Restoring voter confidence in our electoral institutions is vital, and requiring documentary proof of citizenship would shore up one of the perceived causes of concern.

The SAVE Act’s passage or failure is unlikely to fundamentally alter the U.S. electoral system or play any role in determining the outcomes, but its implementation and public reception could significantly affect perceptions of election integrity. If approached thoughtfully, with broad support among the public, the bill could play a fundamental role in restoring voter confidence. However, if the legislation becomes merely performative and baseless fraud claims persist, the SAVE Act’s impact will be minimal.