By Esther Claudette Gittens | Photo Copyright IQ INC.

The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act is a proposed federal bill that aims to amend the National Voter Registration Act by requiring documentary proof of U.S. citizenship for voter registration in federal elections. This legislation has ignited a fervent debate, positioning concerns over election integrity against the potential for voter disenfranchisement. This article will analyze the SAVE Act, exploring how states and municipalities might participate, its potential impact on voters, the reliability of information within the broader SAVE program, potential delays in voting results, and the status of any associated litigation.

What is the SAVE Act and How States Can Participate

At its core, the SAVE Act (H.R. 22) seeks to mandate that individuals provide documentary proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote or updating their registration. Currently, most states rely on an applicant’s sworn affirmation of citizenship. The SAVE Act would change this by requiring documents such as a U.S. passport, birth certificate, or naturalization papers. Some acceptable documents may include a REAL ID-compliant driver’s license indicating citizenship, a military ID with a record of U.S. birth, or a government-issued photo ID combined with a certified birth certificate.

For states and municipalities, the implementation of the SAVE Act would necessitate significant overhauls to their voter registration processes. Many states currently lack the infrastructure to collect and verify documentary proof of citizenship from all registrants. This could lead to a bifurcated election system, where states might have separate voter lists for federal and state/local elections if they cannot comply with the federal requirements. This is a system already seen in some states like Arizona, which has a history of litigation regarding its proof-of-citizenship requirements.

The bill also proposes enhanced voter list maintenance programs to identify non-citizens who may be on the rolls. A related, existing program, the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program, operated by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), provides federal, state, territorial, tribal, and local agencies with immigration status information to verify eligibility for public benefits and licenses. USCIS recently announced updates to this SAVE program, allowing state and local authorities to use Social Security numbers to verify U.S. citizenship for voter eligibility, in support of Executive Order 14248, “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections.” Critically, as of April 1, 2025, USCIS eliminated all charges for state, local, tribal, and territorial government agencies to use the SAVE service for voter eligibility verification. Agencies interested in utilizing the SAVE program, as outlined on the USCIS “Prospective User Agencies” page (https://www.uscis.gov/save/prospective-user-agencies), must register and be approved by USCIS, and then enter into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). They must also possess the legal authority to perform such checks.

However, the SAVE Act itself does not authorize federal funding for these new state responsibilities, posing a significant financial and logistical challenge for election offices that are often already resource-strapped. The bill also includes provisions for criminal penalties for election officials who mistakenly register an applicant without proof of citizenship, which opponents argue could create a “cloud of intimidation” for election workers.

Impact on Voters

The potential impact of the SAVE Act on voters is a central point of contention. Proponents argue that the bill is crucial for preventing non-citizens from voting and bolstering public confidence in elections. They assert that the right to vote in American elections should be exclusive to American citizens and that this bill provides a necessary tool to ensure that.

However, critics contend that the SAVE Act would disenfranchise millions of eligible American citizens by creating significant barriers to voter registration and participation. Studies indicate that a substantial number of American citizens, potentially tens of millions, do not readily possess documents like passports or birth certificates. This disproportionately affects certain demographic groups, including:

• Married Women: Many women change their last name after marriage, and their current identification may not match their birth certificate, making the process of proving citizenship more cumbersome. While the bill includes provisions for states to develop processes for accepting supplemental documents like marriage certificates, concerns remain about the practical implementation and potential for varying policies across states.
• Low-income individuals: Obtaining documents like passports or certified birth certificates can be costly and time-consuming, posing a barrier for those with limited financial resources.
• Elderly and Rural Voters: Individuals born at home or in rural areas may lack official birth records. Additionally, the bill’s implicit requirement for in-person registration or updating of records could disproportionately affect rural voters who would have to travel long distances to election offices.
• Disabled Individuals: The requirement to provide proof of citizenship in person could pose significant challenges for people with mobility issues.
• Online and Mail-in Registration: The act could effectively eliminate or significantly hinder online and mail-in voter registration, which are popular and convenient methods for many voters. This is because proof of citizenship would be required in person.
• Native American Voters: The act’s in-person requirement would exacerbate existing barriers for many Native voters, who may have to travel great distances to reach election offices and whose tribal IDs may not contain the required citizenship information.

Opponents also point out that instances of non-citizen voting in U.S. elections are exceedingly rare, often occurring due to error rather than malicious intent. They argue that the existing penalties for non-citizens voting (including deportation and prison time) are already sufficient deterrents. The SAVE Act, they claim, is a solution in search of a problem and a form of voter suppression disguised as election integrity.

Reliability of Information in the SAVE Program

The existing USCIS SAVE program is touted as a reliable and secure online service for verifying immigration and citizenship status, used by approximately 1,200 agencies nationwide. As of May 22, 2025, USCIS has continued to deploy tools within SAVE to ensure a single, reliable source for verifying immigration status and U.S. citizenship. The program provides “point in time” information to help ensure eligibility for various public benefits and licenses. Recent updates to the program, including the ability to use Social Security numbers for verification and the elimination of fees for state and local government use, are presented as improvements to its functionality and accessibility for voter eligibility checks.

However, concerns about the reliability of information, particularly in the context of voter registration, are raised by critics of the SAVE Act. While the SAVE program itself may be accurate for its intended purpose of verifying immigration status, applying it to voter rolls introduces new complexities. USCIS explicitly states that “SAVE does not verify U.S. born citizens under any circumstances” as it does not access databases containing U.S.-born citizen information (e.g., birth certificates). It primarily verifies naturalized and acquired U.S. citizenship only if found in DHS records. This limitation means that for the vast majority of U.S. citizens (those born in the U.S.), the SAVE program cannot directly confirm their citizenship, necessitating reliance on documentary proof.

Discrepancies in records due to name changes, data entry errors, or outdated information could lead to eligible citizens being flagged as non-citizens and removed from voter rolls. Election officials, many of whom are already understaffed, would face the daunting task of reconciling these discrepancies and potentially handling a surge of inquiries from voters whose eligibility is questioned. This could create significant administrative burdens and potential for erroneous disenfranchisement.

Delay in Voting Results

The implementation of the SAVE Act could foreseeably lead to delays in voting results. The increased complexity of voter registration and list maintenance, coupled with the potential for a higher volume of challenges to voter eligibility, could strain election offices’ resources. If a significant number of voters are required to provide additional documentation or resolve discrepancies, this could slow down the processing of registrations and the certification of voter rolls.

Furthermore, if the bill leads to more in-person interactions for registration or updates, it could create longer lines and wait times at polling places, potentially impacting voter turnout and the efficiency of election day operations. The focus on verifying citizenship for every registration or update, even for minor changes like a change of address, could divert staff time and resources from other crucial election administration tasks, potentially delaying the finalization and certification of election results. Concerns have also been raised that the bill could impact mail-in voting by prohibiting states from counting ballots received after Election Day, even if postmarked on time, which could disenfranchise military voters, rural voters, and college students.

Litigation on SAVE and Status of Any Litigation

While the general USCIS SAVE program for benefits verification is an established federal tool, the proposed SAVE Act (H.R. 22), which mandates its application to voter registration, is the subject of considerable legal and political debate. The House of Representatives recently passed the SAVE Act by a vote of 220-208 in April 2025, with all Republicans and four Democrats voting in favor. Its fate in the Senate is uncertain due to the high bar of 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster.

Opponents of the SAVE Act, including numerous voting rights organizations and civil liberties groups like the ACLU, have pledged to campaign against its passage in the Senate. They argue that the bill is likely unconstitutional and would face immediate legal challenges if enacted. Litigation regarding similar “proof of citizenship” requirements at the state level, such as those in Kansas, has a long history, with some such laws being struck down in federal court for purging eligible voters. The ACLU is already challenging President Trump’s executive order that seeks to impose similar restrictions through the Election Assistance Commission, calling it an “unconstitutional abuse of power.”

While there is no litigation specifically on the federal SAVE Act (H.R. 22) itself that has reached a definitive legal conclusion, given its recent passage in the House, it is widely anticipated that if the bill were to pass the Senate and become law, it would be challenged in court swiftly. The core legal arguments would likely revolve around voter disenfranchisement, disparate impact on various communities, the administrative burden on states, and potential conflicts with existing federal laws like the National Voter Registration Act. The current status is that the bill has passed the House and is now moving to the Senate for consideration. The legal community is closely monitoring its progress, and significant litigation would almost certainly follow if it were to become law.

In conclusion, the SAVE Act represents a significant shift in federal election policy, driven by concerns over voter fraud. While proponents advocate for its role in ensuring election integrity, critics highlight its potential to create substantial barriers to voting for millions of eligible citizens, burden state and local election officials, and potentially delay election results. The reliability of information in the broader USCIS SAVE program, while effective for its original purpose, has limitations when applied to universal voter citizenship verification. The likelihood of extensive litigation if the SAVE Act becomes law underscores the deep divisions and high stakes surrounding this crucial piece of legislation.