By Mitch Myers
On April 10th, the House of Representatives passed the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, or the “SAVE Act.” If passed by the Senate, it would require voters to present valid documentary proof of U.S. citizenship in person. Acceptable documents would include:
- A U.S. passport
- A REAL ID-compliant ID (such as an enhanced driver’s license, which requires a birth certificate and is only available in a few states, including Michigan)
- A government-issued photo ID showing the U.S. as the applicant’s birthplace
- A U.S. military ID, if accompanied by military service records showing U.S. birth
These documentation requirements would apply not only to first-time voters, but also to anyone updating their registration due to a name change (such as after marriage or divorce), a move to a new address, or being dropped from voter rolls for any reason.
The bill now heads to the Senate, where Senate Republicans—holding a 53–47 majority—would need bipartisan support to reach the 60-vote threshold needed to send it to President Trump for signature.
What’s the Problem with the SAVE Act?
Sounds reasonable, right? I would suggest otherwise.
If enacted, the SAVE Act could cause major disruptions. It could disenfranchise up to 69 million women whose married names do not match the names on their birth certificates.
Additionally, the in-person registration requirement would make it nearly impossible for troops serving overseas and Americans living abroad to register and vote.
The Justification—and the Reality
Representative Chip Roy, who introduced the bill, defended it by claiming, “The policy is wildly popular with the American people… its opponents want and need illegals to vote.”
However, voter fraud remains extremely rare.
“Research has been consistent over time that voter fraud is infinitesimally rare and almost never occurs on a scale that would affect an election outcome,”
— Alice Clapman, senior counsel for voting rights at the Brennan Center for Justice
Roy also argued that the bill allows each state to make its own exceptions. But the bill does not allocate federal funding to help states implement these exceptions, and experts warn that:
“The provision cited by Roy was a weak one and does not provide a meaningful failsafe for married women… A separate provision would make it a federal crime for election officials to register anyone who does not present documentary proof of citizenship.”
— Wendy Weiser, Vice President for Democracy at the Brennan Center
What election official is going to risk jail time and steep fines to register someone whose documentation doesn’t exactly match?
Efforts to Add Safeguards Were Rejected
An amendment from Oregon Representative Maxine Dexter proposed additional research before implementing the bill to ensure it wouldn’t disenfranchise voters. House Republicans voted it down.
Meanwhile, courts have already taken issue with similar laws.
In February, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals blocked parts of two Arizona laws that required documentary proof of citizenship to vote by mail and in presidential elections, saying they violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the National Voting Rights Act.
Executive Overreach and Public Assistance
In a separate case, a U.S. District Judge halted key parts of President Trump’s executive order titled Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly ruled that the President does not have the constitutional authority to regulate federal elections:
“Our Constitution entrusts Congress and the States—not the President—with the authority to regulate federal elections… No statutory delegation of authority to the Executive Branch permits the President to short-circuit Congress’s deliberative process.”
One disturbing part of the executive order, Section 2(d), would require “the voter registration executive [to] assess citizenship prior to providing a voter registration form to enrollees on public assistance programs.”
Why are people on public assistance being singled out?
The judge also blocked the Election Assistance Commission from withholding federal funds from states that didn’t comply.
Real-World Concerns: What About the Cost?
Some say, “Just use your passport if you don’t have your birth certificate.” But you need a birth certificate to get a passport.
At a recent Bedford Township town hall, Representative Tim Walberg was asked whether the SAVE Act would lead to voter suppression. When someone mentioned that many can’t afford the $200 for a passport, Walberg responded:
“Well, they shouldn’t be voting.”
That comment made national headlines. Later, he tried to walk it back in an interview with Sean Hannity. Maybe he spoke in frustration—but he said what he said. I’d argue that his response was dismissive of his constituents.
We Already Have Election Protections
After the 2020 election, when Donald Trump lost, 62 lawsuits were filed in 9 states (including Michigan) to challenge the results. All but one were dismissed or dropped due to lack of evidence, lack of standing, or meritless claims—even by judges appointed by Trump.
Ironically, in 2024, when Donald Trump won, no lawsuits were filed.
We Should Protect Voting Rights—But Not Like This
I’m not saying we shouldn’t protect the integrity of our elections—we absolutely should. Our Constitution and federal laws already do, and 62 courts have affirmed that.
If the American people support changing voting laws, and Congress passes reforms that don’t disenfranchise voters, then so be it. But the SAVE Act—and President Trump’s executive order—go too far.
What do you think?
Lenawee Indivisible is a grassroots organization committed to defending democracy, protecting voting rights, and holding elected officials accountable in Lenawee County and beyond. We believe in informed civic engagement, inclusive communities, and building power through people. Learn how you can get involved.