Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

The SAVE Act is a Solution in Search of A Problem

In Texas, This isn’t our First Rodeo

Opinion

People standing at voting booths.

The proposed SAVE Act and MEGA Act would require proof of citizenship to register to vote, risking the disenfranchisement of millions of eligible Americans.

Getty Images, EvgeniyShkolenko

The federal government seems to be barreling toward a federal election power grab. Trump's State of the Union address called for the Senate to push through the SAVE Act, which has already passed the House, in the name of so-called "election integrity." And the SAVE Act isn’t the only such bill. Like the SAVE Act, the Make Elections Great Again (MEGA) Act—introduced in the House—would require voters to provide a document outlined in the Act that allegedly proves their U.S. citizenship. We’ve been down this road before in Texas, and spoiler alert: it was unworkable.

Both the SAVE and MEGA Acts would disenfranchise millions of eligible U.S. citizens without making our federal elections more secure. They seek to roll out a faulty federal voter registration system, despite the existing separate registration and voting process for state and local elections. And these Acts target a minuscule “problem”—but would unleash mass voter purges and confusion.


Let’s be clear: these Acts primarily disenfranchise eligible voters. Only U.S. citizens can lawfully vote in state and federal elections, and noncitizen voting is vanishingly rare (about 0.0001 percent in the 2016 election). There are both criminal and immigration implications for voting while ineligible. On the other hand, almost 10 percent of eligible voters lack ready access to the documentation required by the SAVE Act, even though they are U.S. citizens.

Approximately 21.3 million people don’t have proof of citizenship readily available. And 3.8 million eligible voters don’t have the required documentation at all. Racial disparities also impact who has access to the required documentation. About 8 percent of white Americans don’t have the required documentation readily available, compared to 11 percent for voters of color.

That’s not the only problem. Under the SAVE Act, the only acceptable forms of identification for voter registration would be: a U.S. Passport, a military ID, a government-issued ID that confirms a person’s birthplace is in the United States, or a REAL ID that identifies U.S. citizenship.

But no REAL ID in the United States currently designates U.S. citizenship, nor do state IDs generally confirm your birthplace. Your driver's license or state identification card would thus need to match a government-issued document confirming a United States birthplace. For most people, that would be a certified birth certificate. But anyone who has changed their name, whether because of marriage, gender affirmation, or just personal reasons, would suddenly need a passport just to register to vote. This would include approximately 69 million married women who would be unable to use their birth certificate to verify their citizenship under the SAVE Act.

A passport isn’t cheap. It currently costs at least $145 to get a Passport book and $65 to get a Passport Card. Nor is it a fast process, usually taking 4 to 6 weeks. If you need it faster in time to register to vote, it’ll run you over $200. Urgent processing is only available by appointment if a person has international travel within 14 calendar days. There is no provision for expedited or urgent processing for voter registration purposes under the SAVE Act, nor is the application fee waived. Poll taxes have been unconstitutional since 1964–but the SAVE Act’s ID requirements impose a nationwide poll tax masquerading as "election security."

Voters nationwide would suddenly have to contend with two different systems of voter registration and two different eligibility requirements: those to vote in federal elections, and those to vote in statewide and local elections. Beyond impeding the average voter, this would cause a nightmare for local election officials. The expense and logistics of implementing a federal voter registration overhaul during a midterm election year would fall on underfunded and understaffed state and county election officials across the country. Such a massive, complicated, and rushed undertaking will inevitably wrongly target eligible voters.

Texas recently looked at pushing a similar initiative in 2025. SB 16 would have required documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote. Like the SAVE Act, SB 16 would have forced people with name changes to obtain a passport to prove their identities. It would have separated state and federal elections in Texas, creating a two-tiered system of voter registration. And it would have cost taxpayers close to $800,000 in its first year, with over $270,000 annually every year after. SB 16 quietly died after it became clear to lawmakers that this system was expensive, unworkable, and would disenfranchise rural voters more than urban voters.

As Texas’s SB 16 showed, the SAVE Act would disenfranchise eligible citizens in the name of a problem we’ve long solved. But there’s still time to stop it. While the House has passed the SAVE Act, the Senate has yet to act. We can’t fall for the branding and fearmongering those in power are using to avoid accountability. Preserving our democracy requires that the ballot box remain open to every eligible voter.


Veronikah Warms is the Voting Rights Policy Attorney for the Texas Civil Rights Project and has worked in the Texas legislative sphere pre and post licensure for the past decade. Her specialties are voting rights and redistricting policy, but she is passionate about reforms that lift up marginalized communities and combat targeted rights rollbacks. The Texas Civil Rights Project is a non-partisan nonprofit organization that advocates for the civil rights of all Texans through voting rights, immigrants’ rights, and criminal justice reform throughout the state


Read More

With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

Should the U.S. nationalize elections? A constitutional analysis of federalism, the Elections Clause, and the risks of centralized control over voting systems.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Why Nationalizing Elections Threatens America’s Federalist Design

The Federalism Question: Why Nationalizing Elections Deserves Skepticism

The renewed push to nationalize American elections, presented as a necessary reform to ensure uniformity and fairness, deserves the same skepticism our founders directed toward concentrated federal power. The proposal, though well-intentioned, misunderstands both the constitutional architecture of our republic and the practical wisdom in decentralized governance.

The Constitutional Framework Matters

The Constitution grants states explicit authority over the "Times, Places and Manner" of holding elections, with Congress retaining only the power to "make or alter such Regulations." This was not an oversight by the framers; it was intentional design. The Tenth Amendment reinforces this principle: powers not delegated to the federal government remain with the states and the people. Advocates for nationalization often cite the Elections Clause as justification, but constitutional permission is not constitutional wisdom.

Keep Reading Show less
Postal Service Changes Mean Texas Voters Shouldn’t Wait To Mail Voter Registrations and Ballots

A voter registration drive in Corpus Christi, Texas, on Oct. 5, 2024. The deadline to register to vote for Texas' March 3 primary election is Feb. 2, 2026. Changes to USPS policies may affect whether a voter registration application is processed on time if it's not postmarked by the deadline.

Gabriel Cárdenas for Votebeat

Postal Service Changes Mean Texas Voters Shouldn’t Wait To Mail Voter Registrations and Ballots

Texans seeking to register to vote or cast a ballot by mail may not want to wait until the last minute, thanks to new guidance from the U.S. Postal Service.

The USPS last month advised that it may not postmark a piece of mail on the same day that it takes possession of it. Postmarks are applied once mail reaches a processing facility, it said, which may not be the same day it’s dropped in a mailbox, for example.

Keep Reading Show less
Post office trucks parked in a lot.

Changes to USPS postmarking, ranked choice voting fights, costly runoffs, and gerrymandering reveal growing cracks in U.S. election systems.

Photo by Sam LaRussa on Unsplash.

2026 Will See an Increase in Rejected Mail-In Ballots - Here's Why

While the media has kept people’s focus on the Epstein files, Venezuela, or a potential invasion of Greenland, the United States Postal Service adopted a new rule that will have a broad impact on Americans – especially in an election year in which millions of people will vote by mail.

The rule went into effect on Christmas Eve and has largely flown under the radar, with the exception of some local coverage, a report from PBS News, and Independent Voter News. It states that items mailed through USPS will no longer be postmarked on the day it is received.

Keep Reading Show less
People voting at voting booths.

A little-known interstate compact could change how the U.S. elects presidents by 2028, replacing the Electoral College with the national popular vote.

Getty Images, VIEW press

The Quiet Campaign That Could Rewrite the 2028 Election

Most Americans are unaware, but a quiet campaign in states across the country is moving toward one of the biggest changes in presidential elections since the nation was founded.

A movement called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is happening mostly out of public view and could soon change how the United States picks its president, possibly as early as 2028.

Keep Reading Show less