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

Voters lining up to vote.

Voters line up at the Oak Lawn Branch Library voting center on Primary Election Day in Dallas on March 3, 2026. Republicans' decision to hold a split primary from the Democrats and to eliminate countywide voting forced Dallas County voters to cast ballots at assigned neighborhood precincts, leading to confusion. Republicans have now decided to use countywide polling locations for the May 26 runoff election.

Shelby Tauber for The Texas Tribune

Dallas County GOP Will Agree To Use Countywide Voting Sites for May 26 Runoff Election

Dallas County Republicans will agree to allow voters to cast ballots at countywide voting sites for the May 26 runoff election after a switch to precinct-based voting sites caused chaos, the county party chair said Tuesday.

Dallas County Republican Chairman Allen West supported the use of precinct-based sites earlier this month, but said using precincts again for the runoff would expose the county party to “increased risk and voter confusion” because the county is planning to use countywide sites for upcoming municipal elections and early voting.

Keep ReadingShow less
A person signing a piece of paper with other people around them.

Javon Jackson, center, was able to register to vote following passage of a 2019 Nevada law that restored voting rights to formerly incarcerated individuals.

The Nation Is Missing Millions of Voters Due to Lack of Rights for Former Felons

If you gathered every American with a prison record into one contiguous territory and admitted it to the union, you would create the 12th-largest state. It would be home to at least 7 million to 8 million people and hold a dozen votes in the Electoral College.

In a close presidential race, this hypothetical state of the formerly incarcerated could decide who wins the White House.

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

An analysis of Trump’s SAVE Act strategy, the voter ID debate, and how Pew data is being misused—exploring election integrity, voter suppression, and the political fight shaping U.S. democracy.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Stop Fighting Voter ID. Start Defining It.

President Trump doesn't need the SAVE America Act to pass. He only needs the debate to continue. Every minute spent arguing about voter suppression repeats the underlying premise — that noncitizen voting is a real and widespread problem — until it feels like an established fact. The question is whether Democrats will contest Republicans’ definition before the frame hardens.

Trump's claim that 88% of Americans support the bill traces to a Pew Research Center survey — a survey that found 83% support a “government-issued photo ID to vote,” not extreme vetting for proof of citizenship. That support included 95% of Republicans and 71% of Democrats, indicating genuine, broad, bipartisan support for a basic civic principle. That's worth taking seriously.

Keep ReadingShow less
Stickers with the words "I Voted Today."

Virginia is on its way to be the 19th jurisdiction to adopt the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, bringing the U.S. closer to electing presidents by the national popular vote.

Getty Images, EyeWolf

Virginia On The Path to Join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

NPVIC is an agreement among U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to the presidential ticket that wins the overall popular vote in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. It is considered a pragmatic, voluntary state-based initiative because it aims to ensure the winner of the national popular vote wins the presidency without requiring a constitutional amendment, operating instead within the existing Electoral College framework by utilizing states' constitutional authority to appoint electors. If enough states join the NPVIC to reach a total of 270 electoral votes, the United States will effectively shift from a winner-take-all (WTA) regime to a national popular vote system for electing the President.

With Virginia's adoption, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact will be adopted by eighteen states and the District of Columbia, collectively holding 222 electoral votes. The compact requires 270 electoral votes (a majority of the 538 total) to take effect. It currently needs forty-eight more electoral votes to become active.

Keep ReadingShow less