The SAVE Act and National Voter ID: A Quick Explainer

Right now in Congress there’s a major push—again—to pass a federal election law that would require individuals to provide documentary proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections.

The most prominent version is the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act (SAVE Act), which passed the House and has been sent to the Senate (where it’s very unlikely to advance).

Supporters argue that requiring photo ID and proof of citizenship will boost election integrity. Polls often show broad support for “voter ID” in the abstract — one recent Pew poll found roughly 83% of Americans favor a national ID requirement to vote.

But supporting the idea of ID and supporting the specific legislation Congress is considering are two very different things.

Let’s break down what the SAVE Act would actually do.

First, a Quick Reality Check About How Things Work Right Now

Before we talk about what Congress wants to change, it’s worth grounding ourselves in what the law already says—and what the evidence actually shows.

1. It’s already illegal for noncitizens to vote

Federal law has long made it a crime for noncitizens to register or vote in federal elections. That prohibition is clear, nationwide, and not new.

And the consequences aren’t minor.

If a noncitizen registers or votes and is caught, they can face criminal penalties, fines, imprisonment, and serious immigration consequences, including denial of naturalization or deportation. In other words, the legal system already treats this as a major offense with life-altering stakes.

So when you hear lawmakers argue we need new federal laws to “make it illegal for noncitizens to vote,” the accurate response is: it already is.

2. Actual voter fraud is extremely rare

Claims about widespread voter fraud have been studied repeatedly by scholars, journalists, courts, and bipartisan election officials.

The consistent finding: it happens, but at vanishingly small levels. We’re talking hundredths or thousandths of a single percent of all votes cast.

For instance, and even using data from the Heritage Foundation—known to be conservative leaning—and their Voter Fraud Database, Arizona has reported 36 cases of fraud over 25 years and 42 million ballots. Pennsylvania, another hotly contested state, has reported 39 cases across 30 years and more than 100 million votes cast.

That doesn’t mean election systems should ignore security. But it does mean that proposals which make voting significantly harder for millions of eligible citizens are being justified by a problem that is statistically negligible.

3. States already run elections—and the Constitution says they should

Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution gives states the primary authority to administer elections, including setting rules for registration, ballot access, and polling operations. While Congress can set some baseline standards, the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that states have broad power over the “times, places, and manner” of elections.

A federal law that dictates specific voter ID and citizenship-verification procedures would significantly shift that balance—moving control over highly granular election rules away from states and toward Washington.

What the SAVE Act Would Do

At its core, the SAVE Act would:

1. Require Documentary Proof of Citizenship to Register

Under current federal law, you must affirm that you’re a U.S. citizen when you register to vote. Under the SAVE Act, you would have to present documents proving citizenship—like a U.S. passport, enhanced ID, or birth certificate—every time you register or update a registration.

That sounds simple until you remember that most state driver’s licenses don’t actually show citizenship status.

2. Expand Ongoing Verification and Voter Roll Purges

The bill would require states to affirmatively identify noncitizens on voter rolls and remove them — and that process depends on matching state rolls with federal databases.

3. Create a More Robust Role for Federal Data

Some versions of this bill, and related federal actions, would involve the Department of Homeland Security and its SAVE system—a big database originally designed for immigration purposes—as a central source for verifying citizenship and purging voters.

That’s where the line between election integrity and data governance starts to blur.

Why Critics Are Alarmed

The SAVE Act has drawn sharp criticism from nonpartisan voting-rights organizations, election officials, and civil liberties advocates. Beyond the facts that the Constitution gives power to the states to conduct their own elections and that voter fraud is exceedingly rare, critics of the legislation have two major concerns:

1. It Could Disenfranchise Millions of Eligible Voters

Experts estimate that upwards of 21 million U.S. citizens don’t have easy access to the kinds of documents this bill would require—passports, birth certificates, enhanced IDs—especially low-income Americans, seniors, and some naturalized citizens.

2. Increased Federal Role Could Be Misused or Mishandled

Under current proposals and related federal actions, states would match voter rolls with federal databases to identify potential noncitizens. But federal systems like DHS’s SAVE weren’t built for elections, and there have been more than a few documented cases of mistaken purges and the wrongful removal of lawful voters.

There are also privacy concerns: large databases tied to voter rolls could be weaponized to target individuals or undermine confidence in the electoral process.

Think of it this way: would you be fine with a president and DHS secretary of the opposite party having final say over the voter rolls of your state?

Bottom Line: A Nuanced Trade-Off, Not a Simple One

National voter ID and citizenship verification are undeniably popular and sensible at a high level. Democrats and Republicans alike all want safe, free, and fair elections. But the specific legislative proposals in Congress — especially the SAVE Act — could:

• Make it harder not just for noncitizens but for many eligible voters to register and vote;

• Expand federal data access in ways that risk misuse;

• Undercut historic state authority over elections; and

• Focus on a problem that already has very limited evidence of occurrence.

That’s why fair-minded observers on both sides of the aisle—including some Republican election officials and even lawmakers who support voter ID in principle—are raising red flags.

As always with voting policy, the challenge is balancing security and access without tipping the scales away from the basic right to participate in democracy.