The Senate will continue debate on the SAVE America Act, Republicans’ sweeping reform bill seeking to establish proof-of-citizenship and voter ID requirements for federal elections — but the legislation still faces an uphill battle in the Senate as members of both parties raise concerns.
While it’s already illegal for noncitizens to vote in federal elections, this legislation would go a step further to require voters to prove their citizenship status. That would entail showing identification that is compliant with the most recent Real ID guidelines, a passport or some other citizenship document when registering to vote.
For any identification card that does not include birthplace or citizenship status, the voter must also provide a birth certificate, a naturalization certificate, an adoption decree, or some document that proves he or she was born in the United States. Voters must then also produce photo identification when they go to turn the ballot in.
However, some provisions tucked into the underlying bill have raised concerns about enforcement and whether lawful citizens could be inadvertently removed from voter rolls. Here are some of the main concerns with the bill and what the legislation itself says.
Voters could be disenfranchised because they don’t have access to documents
One of the key tenets of the SAVE America Act is that voters must provide documentation to prove their citizenship when they register to vote.
Research from the Brennan Center for Justice shows that more than 21 million Americans lack immediate access to the documents that would be required to register. About half of Americans don’t have a passport and millions of others don’t have a paper copy of their birth certificate, according to the nonprofit organization.
However, Utah Sen. Mike Lee, the main sponsor of the SAVE America Act, says there are ways for those individuals to prove their citizenship. One way, he said, is by submitting an affidavit swearing one’s status and “outlin(ing) the facts supporting their citizenship.”
“If they are natural born citizens, for example, they could identify the city, state and date where they were born, describe the circumstances of the parents, if they are naturalized citizens, describe the date or date range in which they were naturalized, where they came from,” Lee told reporters last week. “That then flips the burden onto the state to confirm or refute what they have assessed.”
Married women would have more of a burden
Opponents of the bill have also raised concerns with the proof-of-citizenship requirements specifically in relation to married women who now have different last names than what is reflected on their birth certificate.
That could cause extra hurdles for married women if their current legal documents don’t match their voter registration records.
Lee has argued that presenting a marriage certificate could help close that particular gap or, if access to that document is not available, a sworn affidavit would also suffice.
Rural voters face more hurdles to travel to election offices
A major concern being posed by one of Lee’s Republican colleagues is that the requirement to provide these documents in person poses major challenges for those who live in rural areas.
For example, Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska says thousands of voters in her state could be cut off voter rolls simply because they don’t have road access to the state’s divisional election offices. Murkowski also cited concerns about the financial cost of traveling to submit those documents.
“It really is a financial consideration that is a true barrier,” Murkowski said.
Murkowski told reporters she has brought these concerns to Lee, and the Alaska Republican has introduced amendments to include exceptions in the bill. So far, no changes have been made to the underlying legislation.
Not enough time to implement changes
One of the biggest concerns about the SAVE America Act is that its changes would take effect immediately — with Republicans pushing to get it done before the November midterms.
That could cause major challenges for states who would need to adapt to entirely new systems registering and verifying identities — particularly for those who have already started their primary elections.
Utah Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson, who oversees elections for the Beehive State, specifically alluded to these challenges, arguing the bill does not give enough time or resources to states to accomplish the objectives.
“If we want a federal law mandating voter ID or Documentary Proof of Citizenship, and it’s really not about disenfranchising a bunch of voters, then states and voters need an onramp with time to prepare — get the documents, obtain the right ID, set up the system,” Henderson wrote in a post on social media. “That’s not what’s happening with the SAVE America Act. This bill would be effective immediately in the middle of an election year.”
Lee responded to those concerns by saying “Utah has never been the problem” and touting the state’s signature verification system. But, the senior senator argued other states do not follow the same process — and that Utah could adjust to widespread changes enacted in the SAVE America Act if needed.
Election bill would federalize elections, which violates Constitution
Several lawmakers have also raised concerns that the changes proposed in the SAVE America Act would go beyond Congress’ authority laid out in the Constitution on how it can influence elections.
The Constitution states that federal lawmakers have the ability to alter election regulations based on time, place, or manner. But opponents of this election bill say it goes beyond those parameters.
For example, a proposed amendment to the SAVE America Act would seek to ban mail-in ballots for federal elections, with some restrictions for those in the military or those with illness or disability.
“I’m really struggling (with that component) because it does fly directly in the face of the way Utah does things,” Sen. John Curtis told the Deseret News last week. “I think at some point there is a place for some national involvement. But this gets pretty close to telling states what they can and can’t do.”
Lee has pushed back against those arguments to say it does not federalize elections but rather enforces that states follow what is already required under the Constitution. Other Republicans have argued it simply creates a mechanism to establish a federal standard but not a federalized system.