Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

A bipartisan take on the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act

Members of Congress speaking outside the Capitol

Speaker Mike Johnson (right) and Rep. Chip Roy conduct a news conference at the Capitol to introduce the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act on May 8.

Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images

Lempert is an intern with the Bipartisan Policy Center’s Democracy Program. Orey is director of the Elections Project at BPC. Weil is executive director of BPC’s Democracy Program.

The House of Representatives recently passed the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act. Introduced by Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), the SAVE Act requires individuals to provide documentary proof of citizenship when they register to vote. The bill has not advanced through the Senate.

Both parties agree that voter registration should permit all eligible citizens — and only eligible citizens — to register and vote. Although instances of noncitizen registration and voting are rare, the SAVE Act’s goal of ensuring that only citizens can register to vote is important. But there are easier, more cost-effective ways to improve voter registration that don’t create new barriers for eligible voters.

Here’s what you need to know about requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote.


Citizenship is already a requirement to vote, but it is not always the easiest thing to prove

The SAVE Act amends the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 by introducing a requirement for individuals to provide proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections. Eligible documents include a REAL ID-compliant identification indicating U.S. citizenship; a valid U.S. passport, military ID and service record; a government-issued photo ID showing U.S. birthplace; or a government-issued photo ID that does not indicate birthplace or citizenship and a valid secondary document.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

The SAVE Act introduces a documentation requirement for a law that has existed for decades: The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 explicitly prohibits noncitizens from voting in federal elections. The NVRA requires states to use a common voter registration form, which includes an attestation under penalty of perjury that the applicant is a U.S. citizen. Illegal registration and voting attempts by noncitizens are routinely investigated and prosecuted by the appropriate state authorities, and there is no evidence that attempts at voting by noncitizens have been significant enough to impact any election’s outcome.

Arizona began requiring proof of citizenship to vote in 2004. After the Supreme Court ruled in 2013 that the additional documentation requirements violated the Voting Rights Act, the state created a “federal-only list” that permitted otherwise eligible voters who could not provide proof of citizenship to vote in federal elections.

Arizona’s federal-only list provides insight into how a national documentation requirement might impact voters in practice. Analysis conducted by Votebeat found that rather than noncitizens, college students and individuals experiencing homelessness — both transient populations that are more likely to lack identifying documentation — were disproportionately represented on the federal-only list. This echoes research by the Brennan Center for Justice, VoteRiders, the University of Maryland Center for Civic Democracy and Engagement and Public Wise, which found that “more than 9 percent of American citizens of voting age, or 21.3 million people, don’t have proof of citizenship readily available.”

The SAVE Act does include an alternative process for those without citizen documentation. It requires that states establish a process under which citizens who cannot provide documentary proof may submit other documentation and sign an attestation under penalty of perjury that the applicant is a citizen of the United States and eligible to vote in elections for federal office. This mimics the voter registration process that already exists, but with added administrative requirements for election officials.

The SAVE Act needs more time and resources to be implemented well

The SAVE Act requires significant changes to each step of the voter registration process: how voters register, how their identities are verified and how list maintenance is performed on an ongoing basis. These changes would be costly and time consuming, taking months — if not years — to achieve.

Despite the administrative difficulty of implementation, the SAVE Act prioritizes expediency over precision. The act becomes effective on the date of enactment, giving states no time to adjust processes. It also requires that the U.S. Election Assistance Commission offer implementation guidance to states within just 10 days of enactment.

BPC recommends that policymakers avoid making major changes in an election year, given the likelihood that they result in administrative errors and create confusion for voters. Making matters worse, the SAVE Act is an unfunded mandate, with no funding offered to states to assist with implementation costs.

There are better ways — like REAL ID and data sharing — to improve voter list accuracy

Rather than require documentary proof of citizenship, citizenship checks could be improved through adoption of REAL ID standards and improved data sharing between state departments of motor vehicles and state election offices.

The REAL ID Act of 2005 set standards for state-issued driver’s licenses and identification cards. While noncitizens with lawful residence are eligible for a REAL ID license or ID, all applicants are required to provide documentation confirming either lawful residence or U.S. citizenship. If state departments of motor vehicles share information about the types of information applicants submit with the state election office, then the state election office can reasonably determine whether someone is a citizen and seek additional information when eligibility is unclear.

In Colorado, the state department of motor vehicles shares daily updates with the state election office, enabling them to continuously evaluate the eligibility of prospective voters.

The federal government should expand state access to federal eligibility data

Election officials from BPC’s Task Force on Elections report that, at present, getting access to federal citizenship data is difficult, costly and burdensome. The SAVE Act grants election offices access to the federal citizenship data that they have long struggled to obtain.

It specifically grants access to the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements database maintained by the Department of Homeland Security, which is a “fast, secure, and reliable online service that allows federal, state, and local benefit-granting agencies to verify a benefit applicant’s immigration status or naturalized/derived citizenship.”

The bill requires that federal departments and agencies respond to state election official requests for eligibility information within 24 hours and prohibits the federal body from charging a fee. State election officials are also permitted to batch requests for eligibility information, enabling them to check multiple individuals at once. Permitting election officials to submit batch requests without charge simplifies and streamlines list maintenance, improving the accuracy of voter lists.

State legislatures are taking action on citizenship and list maintenance

The SAVE Act is unlikely to become law before the presidential election, but states are taking action on this issue. Nine states have enacted legislation in the past year and a half to solidify citizenship verification for voting and voter registration. Some states opted to take a voter-based approach, mandating individuals to provide proof of citizenship upon registration or allowing provisional ballots for citizens without proof. Other states improved data collaboration with state resources and federal databases like Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements. Florida and Indiana chose to cross-reference with the DMV, Kentucky, North Carolina and Oklahoma began to use jury duty exclusion lists, and Tennessee utilizes its Department of Safety and Homeland Security data.

Both Democrats and Republicans want voter registration processes that allow all eligible citizens — and only eligible citizens — to vote. While citizenship is a requirement to vote, there are more effective ways to ensure the voter rolls include only eligible Americans and place the burden of proof on the state and federal government — not their citizens.

A version of this writing was first published by the Bipartisan Policy Center. Read the original article.

Read More

Half-Baked Alaska

A photo of multiple checked boxes.

Getty Images / Thanakorn Lappattaranan

Half-Baked Alaska

This past year’s elections saw a number of state ballot initiatives of great national interest, which proposed the adoption of two “unusual” election systems for state and federal offices. Pairing open nonpartisan primaries with a general election using ranked choice voting, these reforms were rejected by the citizens of Colorado, Idaho, and Nevada. The citizens of Alaska, however, who were the first to adopt this dual system in 2020, narrowly confirmed their choice after an attempt to repeal it in November.

Ranked choice voting, used in Alaska’s general elections, allows voters to rank their candidate choices on their ballot and then has multiple rounds of voting until one candidate emerges with a majority of the final vote and is declared the winner. This more representative result is guaranteed because in each round the weakest candidate is dropped, and the votes of that candidate’s supporters automatically transfer to their next highest choice. Alaska thereby became the second state after Maine to use ranked choice voting for its state and federal elections, and both have had great success in their use.

Keep ReadingShow less
Top-Two Primaries Under the Microscope

The United States Supreme Court.

Getty Images / Rudy Sulgan

Top-Two Primaries Under the Microscope

Fourteen years ago, after the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional the popular blanket primary system, Californians voted to replace the deeply unpopular closed primary that replaced it with a top-two system. Since then, Democratic Party insiders, Republican Party insiders, minor political parties, and many national reform and good government groups, have tried (and failed) to deep-six the system because the public overwhelmingly supports it (over 60% every year it’s polled).

Now, three minor political parties, who opposed the reform from the start and have unsuccessfully sued previously, are once again trying to overturn it. The Peace and Freedom Party, the Green Party, and the Libertarian Party have teamed up to file a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Their brief repeats the same argument that the courts have previously rejected—that the top-two system discriminates against parties and deprives voters of choice by not guaranteeing every party a place on the November ballot.

Keep ReadingShow less
Ranked Choice Voting May Be a Stepping Stone to Proportional Representation

Someone filling out a ballot.

Getty Images / Hill Street Studios

Ranked Choice Voting May Be a Stepping Stone to Proportional Representation

In the 2024 U.S. election, several states did not pass ballot initiatives to implement Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) despite strong majority support from voters under 65. Still, RCV was defended in Alaska, passed by a landslide in Washington, D.C., and has earned majority support in 31 straight pro-RCV city ballot measures. Still, some critics of RCV argue that it does not enhance and promote democratic principles as much as forms of proportional representation (PR), as commonly used throughout Europe and Latin America.

However, in the U.S. many people have not heard of PR. The question under consideration is whether implementing RCV serves as a stepping stone to PR by building public understanding and support for reforms that move away from winner-take-all systems. Utilizing a nationally representative sample of respondents (N=1000) on the 2022 Cooperative Election Survey (CES), results show that individuals who favor RCV often also know about and back PR. When comparing other types of electoral reforms, RCV uniquely transfers into support for PR, in ways that support for nonpartisan redistricting and the national popular vote do not. These findings can inspire efforts that demonstrate how RCV may facilitate the adoption of PR in the U.S.

Keep ReadingShow less
Supreme Court
Nicolas Economou/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Gerrymandering and voting rights under review by Supreme Court again

On Dec. 13, The Fulcrum identified the worst examples of congressional gerrymandering currently in use.

In that news report, David Meyers wrote:

Keep ReadingShow less