The SAVE Act: Protecting the Vote or Destroying It?

The US House passed the SAVE Act on Thursday, April 10 – much to the chagrin of Democrats in both chambers of Congress. While it may sound, at first, like some kind of financial bill, the SAVE Act – or, in long form, the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act – would require people to demonstrate citizenship before registering to vote. Congressional Republicans say it is to prevent noncitizens from voting. Congressional Democrats and the left-wing media, however, claim it will disenfranchise millions.

SAVE the Vote

Introduced to the House by Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX), the legislative package would require two things of would-be voters. First, provide proof of citizenship in order to register to vote. Second, show an ID compliant with the 2005 Real ID law to cast a ballot at polling locations.

The Act passed the House 220 to 208, with four Democrats – Ed Case (HI), Henry Cuellar (TX), Jared Golden (ME), and Marie Gluesenkamp (WA) – siding with nearly all Republicans in approval.

Another Democrat – Donald Norcross of New Jersey – abstained from voting, as did four Republicans: Monica De La Cruz of Texas, Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, Missouri’s Robert F. Onder Jr., and David Valadao of California. The bill moves on to the Senate, where it will need to garner at least some Democratic support to overcome the filibuster and pass.

The Fourth Estate Goes to War

The stated purpose of the SAVE Act is to prevent noncitizens from voting. But the left-wing media has spun it as an attack on the rights of those for whom acquiring the right ID is just too much bother.

The Center for American Progress ran an article declaring it would disenfranchise millions. “The SAVE Act would require all Americans to prove their citizenship with documentation unavailable to millions,” reads the story’s subtitle. Another article, this one from The New Republic, lays it all out in the title: “Four Democrats Pass Bill Making It Harder for Married Women to Vote.” The clear implications here are that these four Democrats are responsible for the passage of the bill and that married women will suddenly be unable to achieve voter registration.

Forbes pulls a similar trick in a piece titled “How the SAVE Act Could Impact Married Women and Other Voters.” The author argues that there are “potentially 69 million married women in America who have taken their spouse’s last name and don’t have a birth certificate matching their legal name.”

Here’s the thing about birth certificates: Everyone born in the US has one, and obtaining it isn’t that hard. It’s also required already for numerous purposes. You’ll need one to get government-issued identification like Social Security cards, passports, driver’s licenses, or state IDs. They’re often required by employers and banks and almost always by state or federal offices when applying for programs like Medicaid, Medicare, SNAP, unemployment, or housing assistance.

You don’t even have to go to the vital records office to get one. Birth certificates can be ordered online, over the phone, or through the mail and cost anywhere from $7 in North Dakota to, at the top end, $34 in Michigan. That’s certainly cheaper, faster, easier, and more practical than getting a passport – which the Forbes author claims is “the easiest way to show proof of citizenship.” As the story points out, only about half of Americans have a passport, which takes four to six weeks to arrive and costs about $130.

So what about those who have taken a spouse’s last name? Well, that means there’s a marriage certificate. And while it doesn’t prove citizenship, it does prove the change of a name. That, $15 or so, and a trip to vital records is all one needs to make the change.

Is It Even a Problem?

Opponents of this bill also argue that so few noncitizens are voting that it isn’t even worth counting. Perhaps that’s correct. But maybe it isn’t. How would one know if the question of citizenship doesn’t come up?

When this Act was being considered last year, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) countered the arguments from his colleagues across the aisle by pointing out three facts:

1. Millions of illegals have crossed into the US under the Biden administration.

2. A growing number of progressive municipalities are extending the right to vote to noncitizens in local elections.

3. Democrats have expressed a desire to see noncitizens vote.

“Research finds it’s rare for non-citizens to vote,” Forbes explains. “For example, an audit in Georgia found that just 20 of the 8.2 million people registered to vote in the state are not actually U.S. citizens – roughly only .0004%.” Why Georgia? Maybe it’s because the numbers are favorable. Not so nationwide.

The Public Interest Legal Foundation revealed just how easy it is for noncitizens to vote in some places. “Pennsylvania has been covering up for years, the tens of thousands of aliens who got on the voter rolls there for 20 years,” PILF President J. Christian Adams told Just the News. “In 2017, Schmidt, a Republican who was a Philadelphia city commissioner at the time, told a Pennsylvania Senate committee that there were over 100,000 matches of voter registration records to state driver’s license numbers with Immigration and Naturalization Service indicators.”

In 2020, Joe Biden won Pennsylvania’s 20 electors by less than 100,000 votes. Hardly a negligible amount. Bottom line: Yes, the SAVE Act will mean a bit more paperwork before registering to vote. But is it fair to say that it’ll disenfranchise millions – especially married women – or that noncitizens just don’t vote? Traveling to a polling station is an imposition, yet millions of Americans pull it off every other year. Having an ID is a limiting factor in many aspects of life, yet somehow, folks manage.