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

People voting

Jessie Harris (left,) a registered independent, casts a ballot at during South Carolina's Republican primary on Feb. 24.

Joe Lamberti for The Washington Post via Getty Images

Our election system is failing independent voters

Gruber is senior vice president of Open Primaries and co-founder of Let Us Vote.

With the race to Election Day entering the homestretch, the Harris and Trump campaigns are in a full out sprint to reach independent voters, knowing full well that independents have been the deciding vote in every presidential contest since the Obama era. And like clockwork every election season, debates are arising about who independent voters are, whether they matter and even whether they actually exist at all.

Lost, perhaps intentionally, in these debates is one undebatable truth: Our electoral system treats the millions of Americans registered as independent voters as second-class citizens by law.

Keep ReadingShow less
ballot

The ballot used in Alaska's 2022 special election.

What is ranked-choice voting anyway?

Landry is the facilitator of the League of Women Voters of Colorado’s Alternative Voting Methods Task Force. An earlier version of this article was published in the LWV of Boulder County’s June 2023 Voter newsletter.

The term “ranked-choice voting” is so bandied about these days that it tends to take up all the oxygen in any discussion on better voting methods. The RCV label was created in 2002 by the city of San Francisco. People who want to promote evolution beyond our flawed plurality voting are often excited to jump on the RCV bandwagon.

However, many people, including RCV advocates, are unaware that it is actually an umbrella term, and ranked-choice voting in fact exists in multiple forms. Some people refer to any alternative voting method as RCV — even approval voting and STAR Voting, which don’t rank candidates! This article only discusses voting methods that do rank candidates.

Keep ReadingShow less
People voting
Paul J. Richards/Getty Images

Make safe states matter

Richie is co-founder and senior advisor of FairVote.

It’s time for “safe state” voters to be more than nervous spectators and symbolic participants in presidential elections.

The latest poll averages confirm that the 2024 presidential election will again hinge on seven swing states. Just as in 2020, expect more than 95 percent of major party candidate campaign spending and events to focus on these states. Volunteers will travel there, rather than engage with their neighbors in states that will easily go to Donald Trump or Kamala Harris. The decisions of a few thousand swing state voters will dwarf the importance of those of tens of millions of safe-state Americans.

But our swing-state myopia creates an opportunity. Deprived of the responsibility to influence which candidate will win, safe state voters can embrace the freedom to vote exactly the way they want, including for third-party and independent candidates.

Keep ReadingShow less
Map of the United States

The National EduDemocracy Landscape Map provides a comprehensive overview of where states are approaching democracy reforms within education.

The democracy movement ignores education races at its peril

Dr. Mascareñaz is a leader in the Cornerstone Project, a co-founder of The Open System Institute and chair of the Colorado Community College System State Board.

One of my clearest, earliest memories of talking about politics with my grandfather, who helped the IRS build its earliest computer systems in the 1960s, was asking him how he was voting. He said, “Everyone wants to make it about up here,” he said as gestured high above his head before pointing to the ground. “But the truth is that it’s all down here.” This was Thomas Mascareñaz’s version of “all politics is local” and, to me, essential guidance for a life of community building.

As a leader in The Cornerstone Project and a co-founder of The Open System Institute I've spent lots of time thinking and working at the intersections of education and civic engagement. I've seen firsthand how the democratic process unfolds at all levels — national, statewide, municipal and, crucially, in our schools. It is from this vantage point that I can say, without a shadow of a doubt, that the democracy reform movement will not succeed unless it acts decisively in the field of education.

Keep ReadingShow less