Qamar Nazir
In recent years, one of the most contentious pieces of election legislation has been the Securing America’s Voting Eligibility Act, or SAVE Act. Supporters describe it as a vital step in regaining public trust in the fairness of American elections and a sensible defense against voter fraud. Critics caution that the plan would have far-reaching and detrimental effects, possibly depriving millions of eligible votes nationwide, especially those living in underprivileged and marginalized areas.
The SAVE Act, which was introduced by a group of politicians who believe that election security has been too loose, aims to boost penalties for election-related fraud, enforce voter ID laws, and require evidence of citizenship in order to register to vote in federal elections. Such steps, according to supporters, are required to guarantee that only eligible U.S. citizens are able to cast ballots and to stop what they characterize as the growing concerns of unlawful voter registration and voter impersonation.
One of the bill’s co-sponsors, Rep. Mark Stevens (R-TX), stated, “Americans deserve to know their vote counts and isn’t canceled out by someone who shouldn’t be voting in the first place.” “The SAVE Act establishes reasonable safeguards to preserve the integrity of our democratic process.”
However, the bill’s opponents, who include voting advocacy groups, civil rights organizations, and some Democratic politicians, claim it is everything but sensible. They contend that instead, it would create needless obstacles to voting that disproportionately impact certain groups of people, including students, people of color, the elderly, low-income Americans, and naturalized citizens who might not have the particular paperwork needed under the proposed law.
Rep. Linda Martinez (D-CA) stated during a contentious floor debate that “this is not about election integrity — it’s about voter suppression.” “Millions of law-abiding citizens will find it more difficult, not easier, to exercise their fundamental right to vote as a result of the SAVE Act.”
The bill’s demand that all voters present documentary evidence of their U.S. citizenship at the time of voter registration is at the heart of the dispute. A birth certificate, passport, or naturalization certificate are examples of this. Although the intention can seem simple, there are significant ramifications. Many Americans lack access to a birth certificate, especially those who were born at home or in a remote region. Others might have misplaced important documents or encounter administrative or financial obstacles when trying to get replacements.
Additionally, detractors cite research showing that voting fraud is incredibly uncommon in the US. Only 31 convincing cases of voter impersonation were discovered in a thorough 2014 research by Justin Levitt, a professor at Loyola Law School, out of over 1 billion ballots cast in federal elections between 2000 and 2014. Voting rights supporters claim that political strategy, rather than actual threats, is the driving force for the continued momentum of bills such as the SAVE Act.
The National Voting Rights Coalition’s executive director, Janice Reynolds, described this as a solution looking for a problem. Laws that make voting more difficult are becoming more common, particularly in areas where one party has a strong voter participation. That is manipulation, not democracy.
Apart from demanding proof of citizenship, the SAVE Act suggests extending federal authority over voter lists and mandating that states regularly audit registered voters to confirm their eligibility. Opponents contend that even while this would seem like due diligence, it could result in purges that unintentionally exclude qualified voters, particularly if the databases used to cross-reference voter lists are out-of-date or prone to errors.
Such purges have had negative effects in the past. After declaring in 2019 that they had located almost 100,000 noncitizens on the voter lists, Texas officials later acknowledged that the data was faulty and that thousands of qualified voters had been mistakenly tagged. Concerns have been made that efforts to purge voter rolls frequently result in the disenfranchisement of legitimate voters due to similar events in places such as Georgia and Florida.
Critics further contend that naturalized Americans, who may not possess the precise types of papers required by the law, will be disproportionately affected by the SAVE Act even if they are fully able to vote. These difficulties are made worse by administrative red tape, language impediments, and restricted access to legal resources.
Maria Hernandez, an Arizona naturalized citizen, said, “I came to this country, studied for years to become a citizen, and proudly cast my vote in every election.” Since I don’t have a copy of my naturalization certificate or a passport, I’m now concerned that I might not be able to cast a ballot. I feel as though I’m being punished for being an immigrant.
Access to the ballot has emerged as a key problem as voter turnout is expected to rise, especially among younger and more diverse communities. After passing the House of Representatives, mostly along party lines, the SAVE Act is now on its way to the Senate, where it will confront a fierce and widely followed debate.
In the meantime, grassroots groups are organizing to educate voters about their rights and, should the measure pass, to oppose its implementation at the state level. Advocacy groups are stepping up their efforts to assist voters in obtaining the required identity, and lawsuits are already being drafted in anticipation of judicial disputes over paperwork requirements.
“This is about more than paperwork,” said voting rights lawyer Marsha Greene. The goal is to maintain a democracy in which all citizens, not just those who are adept at navigating a system that is getting more complicated, have a voice.
The SAVE Act has already rekindled a national dialogue about what it means to defend elections and who is left out of the process, regardless of whether it becomes law or is overturned by the courts.