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.
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.
