April 1, 2025
By Susan Gobreski
The newly proposed “Safeguard American Voter Eligibility” (SAVE) Act has emerged as a contentious piece of legislation that threatens to undermine voting rights and state control over election administration. While proponents argue that it is necessary to prevent noncitizens from voting, it would actually disenfranchise millions of eligible American voters. The issue of non-citizens voting is a red herring, designed to frighten people into supporting restrictions on voting that would actually harm US citizens.
This legislation not only creates unnecessary barriers to voting but also imposes undue federal overreach into the domain of state election laws, eroding the democratic principles that the United States has long upheld. By examining the key arguments against the SAVE Act, it becomes evident that this bill is both harmful to individual voters and detrimental to the authority of states in administering elections.
The SAVE Act Would Disenfranchise Millions of Citizens
A primary reason the SAVE Act is deeply problematic is that it would impose new documentation requirements that millions of eligible voters may struggle to meet. The legislation mandates that voters provide proof of US citizenship when registering to vote, despite the fact that voter fraud by noncitizens is exceedingly rare. According to a report from the Center for American Progress, the SAVE Act would disproportionately affect marginalized communities, including elderly voters, low-income citizens, and racial minorities, who may lack easy access to documents like passports or birth certificates.
Strict voter ID laws have already demonstrated their ability to suppress turnout, particularly among groups that historically face barriers to obtaining government-issued identification. The SAVE Act would exacerbate this issue by adding additional requirements for “proof,” requiring documentation that many Americans do not regularly possess. As the League of Women Voters (LWV) points out, millions of Americans do not have immediate access to proof of citizenship, and obtaining the necessary documents can be costly and time-consuming. This legislation would disenfranchise voters who have every right to participate in elections but may lack the financial means or time to navigate bureaucratic hurdles.
A Solution in Search of a Problem
Proponents of the SAVE Act claim that it is necessary to prevent voter fraud by noncitizens, but extensive research has shown that such fraud is virtually nonexistent. Studies conducted by organizations like the Brookings Institution have found no credible evidence of widespread noncitizen voting in US elections. In fact, multiple investigations into voter fraud have repeatedly demonstrated that instances of illegal voting are extremely rare, with rates so low that they have no measurable impact on election outcomes.
The American electoral system already has safeguards in place to prevent noncitizens from voting. Existing voter registration processes require applicants to attest to their citizenship under penalty of perjury, and states already conduct database checks to verify voter eligibility. The SAVE Act, therefore, is an unnecessary measure that would do little to address election integrity concerns while creating significant obstacles for eligible voters. Instead of improving election security, the bill would have the unintended consequence of purging legitimate voters from the rolls.
Federal Overreach and the Undermining of State Authority
Another major issue with the SAVE Act is that it encroaches on the authority of states to administer their own elections. The US Constitution grants states the power to regulate their electoral processes. Federal oversight already exists to ensure fair elections, and the SAVE Act would impose an undue burden on states by forcing them to implement costly and unnecessary bureaucratic measures.
State election officials from both major political parties have expressed concerns that the bill would create confusion and additional administrative costs. Implementing new citizenship verification measures would require states to coordinate with federal agencies, maintain updated databases, and train election workers—all of which demand significant financial and logistical resources. The League of Women Voters warns that these requirements would disproportionately impact states with large populations of naturalized citizens and minority voters, further exacerbating existing disparities in voter access.
Moreover, the SAVE Act contradicts the long-standing principle of state autonomy in election administration. The National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) already establishes federal guidelines for voter registration while allowing states to determine their own processes. By imposing a federally mandated proof-of-citizenship requirement, the SAVE Act disregards the role of state governments and undermines their ability to ensure accessible and fair elections.
Negative Economic and Social Impacts
Beyond its immediate impact on voting rights, the SAVE Act would also have broader economic and social consequences. By disenfranchising millions of voters, the bill would weaken democratic participation, leading to elections that do not accurately reflect the will of the people. This could have long-term effects on policy decisions as certain communities would be underrepresented in the political process.
Additionally, implementing the SAVE Act would place a financial strain on both individuals and state governments. Voters who lack the necessary documentation would be forced to spend time and money obtaining proof of citizenship, further discouraging voter participation. Meanwhile, state governments would have to allocate funds to enforce the new requirements, diverting resources away from other critical election infrastructure needs. The Brookings Institution notes that similar laws in the past have resulted in significant administrative costs without demonstrable benefits in terms of election security.
Summary: A Step Backward for Democracy
The SAVE Act is a deeply flawed piece of legislation that would do substantial harm to U.S. citizens, who are entitled to vote. By imposing burdensome documentation requirements, it would disenfranchise millions of eligible voters—particularly those from marginalized communities. The bill is based on the false premise that noncitizen voting is a widespread problem when extensive research has proven otherwise.
Furthermore, the SAVE Act represents an overreach of federal authority into state-controlled election administration, placing unnecessary financial and logistical burdens on state governments.
Rather than improving election security, the SAVE Act would erode voter confidence and suppress democratic participation. If enacted, it would set a dangerous precedent for further restrictions on voting rights, ultimately weakening the integrity of the U.S. electoral system. Policymakers should reject this misguided bill and instead focus on measures that expand, rather than restrict, access to the ballot box. Protecting the fundamental right to vote should remain a priority, and the SAVE Act is a step in the wrong direction.