If passed, the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility, or SAVE America, Act would transform voting in this country in two major ways. It would require all Americans to prove U.S. citizenship when registering to vote, and it would require all voters to show an I.D. when voting in person or by mail.
Voters submitting absentee mail ballots would have to provide a photocopy of their I.D. The bill would also require states to frequently review voter rolls and remove any noncitizens. And it would mandate states share voter registration data with the federal government, which most states have refused to do, a move backed by several federal judges.
[Context: the House has narrowly passed a Trump-priority SAVE Act on principally a thin partisan basis. While the Senate has enough floor votes to carry the act, the GOP majority currently lacks the 60 votes to end a filibuster on the act, and there aren't enough GOP senators to end the practice of filibusters.]
This is a follow-up on my earlier discussion of the proposed voter ID law, the so-called SAVE (Safeguard American Voter Eligibility) Act. There are aspects to the bill: proof of citizenship and a photo id, like a driver's license, state id, and/or passport. There is a context of 3 federal voting/registration acts: Voting Rights Act (VRA) (1965), National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) (1993); Help America Vote Act (HAVA) (2002). The latter 2 acts were cited in the earlier essay. NVRA requires attestation of citizenship, under penalty of perjury; registration is often tied into state DMV registrations, including its integration with REAL ID compliance (i.e., TSA requirement) (see below). HAVA requires ID to be documented for first-time voters, either at registration or when you initially vote. The second part is some variation of a voter ID. About 13 states don't require a photo/other id for voting (but generally authenticate signatures or other measures).
The other issue is an ID. Now part of the issue is authenticating the user/voter. We who hold security certifications (e.g., my CompTIA Security+) often discuss multi-factor authentication: usually 2 elements of something you have, something you know, or something you are (biometric). For example, when I go to the pharmacy to pick up my prescriptions, I have to give them my date of birth, or I furnish a passcode to access my PC. I have to use a CAC (common access card) to access a NIPR military network (a separate one, SIPR token for classified networks) or a government facility, or a swipe card to access a room or building.
The whole purpose of the SAVE Act is to prevent fraud in our elections, particularly noncitizen voting. First of all, noncitizen voting is only available dor local races in a small number of municipalities, and even there, aliens seldom participate. Via Cato Institute
Sore Loser Trump's fake news of voter fraud in 2020 has been debunked, and the few proven cases of real illegal voting usually involve American citizens, like felon voting or using a late parent's ballot. Via the Center for Election Innovation and Research:
Let's now discuss the desperate hype behind the Save Act, almost totally backed by the Republicans, facing a likely challenging midterm with Trump's approval rating at a dismal 41. They frequently cite polls backing of voter ID at 83%. The GOP, which has often embraced unpopular votes and the filibuster, has been flirting with ending the filibuster rule, a double-edged sword, because the Dems will drop it next time they're in power anyway, and Trump has made the Act a high priority. I see the bill as pushing on a string, far more likely to disenfranchise American voters than to stave off statistically irrelevant illegal voters. More recent conservative Republicans have emphasized states' rights and decentralization under the principle of federalism. not growing the size and extent of the general government.. Recall our earlier discussion that over two-thirds of the states already require some ID to vote. This bill would complicate individual registration, have a disparate impact on lower-income Americans in terms of documents and IDs, which may involve multiple in-person inconvenient trips to state offices, time, and costs, given work schedules and tight budgets.
The federal government cannot commandeer/micromanage the states' election infrastructure and procedures (e.g., mail-in ballots). Nationalization/centralization violates our federal construct.
Real-life examples of biometric verification:
- signature verification. My MD mail-in ballot requires a signature on the envelope against the signature on file, e.g., via MVA driver's license
- palm verification. When I worked for a Lockheed Martin facility in downtown Chicago, I had to insert my hands in an enclosure. (This frequently failed requiring an override,)
- retina scan. I needed to scan my eyes to access a federal building in Clarksburg, WV.
- photo/face verification: At TSA checkpoints, they may scan your face against your driver's license or state ID photo.
- fingerprint verification: ubiquitous use in FBI checks, e,g. for background checks for public trust or classified jobs, also stored on CACs, This can be a pain in the ass. I can recall 2 or 3 times I got called back to redo mine because the originals were unusable. They are also stored on CACs (multiple fingers), and it seems to take 15-30 minutes. I guess my fingers are too dry. Another common use is accessing.
- voice verification. A couple of my vendors want me to set it up by training against voice samples
There are common nuances to these factors. For example, on things you know, you might be asked a short sequence of challenge questions or even define your own, e.g., your high school team name, your favorite ice cream, the given name of the person you first kissed, your favorite vacation destination, or your beverage of choice to order at a restaurant.
For items you already have, consider using an RSA code-generating device or app emulators, such as Microsoft Authenticator or Google Authenticator. You could develop something like a government smartcard with a stored private key, which could be used to digitally sign ballots (say, using SSN or DOB as a passcode).
The point is, there are a vast number of ways to authenticate a voter from a voter roll. For example, for voters with cellphones, a temporary code could be texted or emailed at poll registration or identify the trailing digits of your SSN or your birth date, or your birth state/county. Or, as other non-voter ID states do, use signature verification.
Note that social security numbers, although the vast majority (about 95% for the SSI subset) are citizens, legal residents (e.g., green card) can qualify for the program. A similar consideration is true of REAL IDs; only a handful of states (Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Vermont, Washington) support enhanced driver's licenses, which verify citizenship.
Now, a related issue is the exposure of election personnel to federal liability charges:" The legislation adds new penalties for election officials who run afoul of the law. They would face criminal penalties if they register a person to vote who has not met the bill’s proof of citizenship requirement." Note that it is already a challenge to staff local polling places without risk of federal prosecution.
A major risk is that not all photo IDs are accepted (e.g., university IDs); copies could be rejected, or unusable if the ID is expired/invalid. I've sometimes discussed some example issues in past posts. When I registered my change of address after moving to WV, my nearest DMV was 20+ miles away. I had proof of address, but they insisted on a copy of my apartment lease. When I returned with my lease, they wouldn't accept it because it didn't have printed landlord contact information; I couldn't simply manually annotate the lease. In my case, the landlady wasn't on site most days. She wasn't happy with the idea of customizing the lease to accommodate DMV. Now, just consider someone without their own transportation and with a more limited budget.
Then there's my passport, which I renewed for a decade during the Great Recession. (I had to do it for consideration of a DBA contractor position in Saudi Arabia that didn't end in an offer.) It expired in 2022, I believe. For example, MD may allow up to a 4-year grace period after passport expiration. Now you can argue that people's appearances can change over 10 years, so it's reasonable for a photo ID to be updated, but it is already proof of citizenship. Now, for me, the issue is I have no short-term need to travel outside the US. Could I afford the $150+ government cost for renewal, plus related expenses such as a passport photo? Probably. However, I haven't traveled outside the US since 1995, and my driver's license generally satisfies the few times I need a photo ID, primarily for healthcare provider check-ins.
Then there's the supplemental documentation possibly necessary for people who have legally altered their names (e;g', I have a Jewish friend who changed his surname from 'Rueb' to the ancestral version 'Rubenstein') or up to 85% of women who hyphenate or adopt their spouse's surname:
Via Stephen Rogers:
According to the Migration Policy Institute, noncitizen voting in U.S. elections is "exceedingly rare." A study by the Brennan Center for Justice of the 2016 election found just 0.0001% of 23.5 million votes cast in 42 jurisdictions surveyed were suspected noncitizen votes. Forty of those 42 jurisdictions reported no known incidents of noncitizen voting.The database of election fraud cases maintained by the Heritage Foundation (a conservative organization deeply invested in proving widespread voter fraud is real) identified only 23 instances of noncitizen voting between 2003 and 2022. And according to the Bipartisan Policy Center, there were only 77 instances of noncitizens voting between 1999 and 2023.Several states have conducted audits of their voter rolls. The Associated Press reported that states including North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona, California, and Texas reviewed their voter rolls between 2016 and 2022 and found fewer than 50 noncitizens in each state had voted in recent elections, out of upwards of 23 million total votes per state.
Let's now discuss the desperate hype behind the Save Act, almost totally backed by the Republicans, facing a likely challenging midterm with Trump's approval rating at a dismal 41. They frequently cite polls backing of voter ID at 83%. The GOP, which has often embraced unpopular votes and the filibuster, has been flirting with ending the filibuster rule, a double-edged sword, because the Dems will drop it next time they're in power anyway, and Trump has made the Act a high priority. I see the bill as pushing on a string, far more likely to disenfranchise American voters than to stave off statistically irrelevant illegal voters. More recent conservative Republicans have emphasized states' rights and decentralization under the principle of federalism. not growing the size and extent of the general government.. Recall our earlier discussion that over two-thirds of the states already require some ID to vote. This bill would complicate individual registration, have a disparate impact on lower-income Americans in terms of documents and IDs, which may involve multiple in-person inconvenient trips to state offices, time, and costs, given work schedules and tight budgets.
A recent CBS poll shows mixed results. While majorities like photo ID (80%) and citizenship checks (66%), opponents edge proponents 31-28, with the remainder uncertain. There is hardly a mandate for change when less than a third of those polled support
But a compelling point is a constitutional one.
Specifically, many proponents have cited the Constitution’s elections clause, which gives Congress the power to regulate the “Times, Places and Manner” of congressional elections, as support for that assertion. Utah Sen. Mike Lee, for example, explicitly referenced the elections clause when defending the SAVE Act earlier in 2025.But the elections clause only grants Congress authority to regulate election procedures, not voter qualifications. The Supreme Court explicitly stated this in the Inter Tribal Council ruling.Congress can, for instance, require states to adopt a uniform federal voter registration form and even include a citizenship question on said form. What it cannot do, however, is implement a nonnegotiable mandate that effectively tells the states they can never allow any noncitizen to vote in a federal election.
If you look at the evolution of voting in the US, you'll see an expansion from propertied white males in various states, including non-citizens in up to 40 states, until 1926. It's fairly clear that the Elections Clause is relevant only for federal elections, and the general government has no authority over state/local elections beyond enforcing certain related constitutional amendments. Article 1, Section 2, and the 17th Amendment clearly state that state voters/electors are qualified to vote in federal elections
The federal government cannot commandeer/micromanage the states' election infrastructure and procedures (e.g., mail-in ballots). Nationalization/centralization violates our federal construct.
