 |
| Point Arena, California © Lisa R. Pruitt 2025 |
The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act (“SAVE Act”) has returned to Congress and sits before the Senate after passing the House.This bill would amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 by requiring every eligible voter to provide proof of citizenship when registering to vote or updating a registration.
The bill would require individuals to appear in person at an election and present approved documentation even for routine updates. These updates can include address changes, name changes, or party affiliation adjustments. Each federal election cycle, approximately 80 million people either register to vote for the first time or update their voter registration information. This bill would impose new logistical hurdles on all of them. Acceptable documentation would include a valid U.S. passport, a certified birth certificate paired with a photo ID, or a naturalization certificate. If a person’s legal name does not match their birth certificate, they must also provide additional legal documents to prove the change.
Supporters of the bill, including many Republican lawmakers, argue that stricter verification requirements will prevent non-citizen voting. Arguing that Joe Biden’s “reckless open-border policies” necessitate this bill because without it we can’t be sure that Americans are the only ones voting in federal elections.
What does the White House have to say about the SAVE Act? The official White House website refers to it as a “common sense, bipartisan bill,” emphasizing that all it “simply” requires is a valid ID to register to vote in a federal election, proof of citizenship, and no mail-in ballots. The website then goes on to list other countries that enforce stricter voter identification laws.
The SAVE Act is not new. Last year it passed the House but failed to advance in the Senate due to nationwide public opposition. It was reintroduced this January. Critics, previously and this time, argue that the SAVE Act solves nothing. Numerous studies and audits have shown that non-citizen voting occurs at extremely low rates. In fact, many view this bill as a way for Republicans to hammer Trump’s narrative of widespread election fraud.
Additionally, the act will determinately impact rural America, which particularly relies on mail-in and online methods for voter registration. Rural Americans already face long travel distances and fewer government service offices. A Center for American Progress analysis found that in some cases rural Americans would need to drive hours to an election office in order to meet the requirements of the act. The maps below highlight two examples. In two rural counties, Catron County, New Mexico, and Harney County, Oregon, residents must travel four hours or more round trip to reach their local election office. In states like Alaska, the burden will be even more pronounced. Alaska’s Senator Lisa Murkowski is one of the only Republicans to oppose the bill, arguing that it will disenfranchise thousands of Alaskans and their ability to vote as a large majority of Alaskan voter registration is done online.
The SAVE Act is not new. Last year it passed the House but failed to advance in the Senate due to nationwide public opposition. It was reintroduced this January. Critics, previously and this time, argue that the SAVE Act solves nothing. Numerous studies and audits have shown that non-citizen voting occurs at extremely low rates. In fact, many view this bill as a way for Republicans to hammer Trump’s narrative of widespread election fraud.
Additionally, the act will determinately impact rural America, which particularly relies on mail-in and online methods for voter registration. Rural Americans already face long travel distances and fewer government service offices. A Center for American Progress analysis found that in some cases rural Americans would need to drive hours to an election office in order to meet the requirements of the act. The maps below highlight two examples. In two rural counties, Catron County, New Mexico, and Harney County, Oregon, residents must travel four hours or more round trip to reach their local election office. In states like Alaska, the burden will be even more pronounced. Alaska’s Senator Lisa Murkowski is one of the only Republicans to oppose the bill, arguing that it will disenfranchise thousands of Alaskans and their ability to vote as a large majority of Alaskan voter registration is done online.
Credit: Center for American Progress, 2025
Furthermore, while the act imposes no direct fee to vote it requires Americans to provide documentation that can only be obtained by paying a fee. Obtaining documentation that requires payment will discourage low-income rural residents from even participating. Under this act, rural voters will face longer travel time, higher costs, and fewer alternatives. These barriers will not just inconvenience voters but will prevent participation in the voting process.
4 comments:
It is sad to see the attacks on mail-in ballots. As highlighted in the post many rural voter rely on the option to mail-in their ballots, but also many Americans in general utilize the flexibility to cast their vote before election day. By getting rid of mail-in ballots the Trump Administration is disproportionately burdening rural residents and ignores the spatial reality that many of them are living in. On the other hand, this is interesting also because a majority of Trump's votes were from rural Americans.
The SAVE Act seems like a regressive tax on rural voters who need to travel long distances to an election office. Given the low population of rural communities when compared to metro communities, supporters of the bill might calculate that it's worth the collateral damage unless they're elected by a predominantly rural voter base. For Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, the lost rural votes might make all the difference. The bigger issue I foresee is the enforcement of this rule for primary elections, where fewer votes make more of a difference. By disenfranchising rural voters from the primary process, both parties will only put forward candidates that pay attention to issues affecting metropolitan voter bases.
There are lies that look so true, there are real cryptocurrency traders and there are fakes, I was a victim to the fakes, they seemed all real and true at first, until I made up to four investments that was when I started noticing some strange patterns at first, it was difficult to reach the investing company, then I could not log into my crypto account that was given to me, that was when it was obvious that I was played but macprivateinvestigators came to change the narrative, This team (macprivateinvestigators@gmail.com) helped recover my funds and they showed me how to invest right.
Other than gerrymandering, the alteration and manipulation of the voter registration system is, at least to me, one of the more frightening political frontiers. I absolutely agree with you that seems targeted toward disenfranchising rural voters, either in design or effect. What is interesting about it, is that I wonder how many Republican voters it might negatively impact? While these measures tend to usually be directed at Black and Brown voters, I cannot help but feel that unless there is very nuanced application of this act, it’s going to potentially disenfranchise a chunk of Trump’s base coalition? I am not sure if the party thinks they are an expendable population for a greater goal or if they’ve found some loophole to target those they care about, but I am curious on what the political theory and statistics driving this act are. As you noted in your analysis of Senator Murkoswki, her opposition seems rooted in exactly this concern.
Post a Comment