On Thursday, the full U.S. House of Representatives adopted the Save Act. This new legislation would make it necessary for people to show proof of citizenship when registering to vote. Supporters claim the measure is an important safeguard for electoral integrity. Opponents warn that it would “disenfranchise millions of lawful American citizens.”
The Save Act would also mandate that states check voters’ citizenship status. Advocates and critics alike note that disproportionately eliminating access and affordability will erect barriers for millions of Americans, particularly those in marginalized communities. This legislation mandates that states proactively clean up their voter rolls based on this sketchy and incomplete data. Her remarks raise alarming questions about widespread misguidance that could disenfranchise eligible voters. Additionally, states can start deportation proceedings against registrants if it is discovered that they registered illegally.
Supporters of the bill claim that it will improve the security of the voting process. In favor of Real ID, they claim that Real IDs are a way to raise basic security standards across the board. This policy will guarantee that all participants in our elections are citizens. Opponents point out that the bill’s mandates disproportionately affect low-income people and minorities. This affects voters of color, younger voters, rural voters, voters from tribes, voters who are unhoused, and voters born in U.S. territories. Established communities that are home to those who have weathered natural disasters will find themselves negatively impacted by these new regulations as well.
Critics of the bill are understandably alarmed by its potential impact on our democracy. Rep. Mary Miller, who is perhaps the strongest opponent of the legislation, announced, “This is an insulting, condescending and a false argument. You have to produce an ID for nearly everything else in day-to-day life. Voting advocates are rightly alarmed by these developments. They claim that imposing a proof of citizenship requirement would be an unreasonable burden, thus deterring many from taking part in the electoral process.
Rep. Nikema Williams condemned the bill as a new vehicle for voter suppression. She continued, “Look, y’all, that’s a poll tax, outright, that’s just blatant voter suppression. These types of statements underscore very real concerns that the Save Act will end up disproportionately disenfranchising communities that already experience systemic barriers to voting access.
The bill’s proponents have propagated the myth that this bill was intended to protect our elections from fraud. Critics such as Michael Waldman are critical and unrepentant. In fact they’ve recently denounced it as “one of the worst pieces of voting legislation in American history.” More importantly he is making clear that this measure will cause massive racial and ethnic disenfranchisement among a variety of communities.
The Save Act includes provisions directing states to implement processes when people experience name changes. This deepens the complexity of the current voter registration landscape. As states scramble to comply with the new requirements, there is widespread concern about the potential for confusion and administrative challenges.
Many advocates are concerned that the Save Act could have truly perverse unintended consequences. In fact, they think it could do the opposite by actually undermining the public’s confidence in the electoral process. Given the risk of widespread disenfranchisement, one must question both the motivation for and the democratic spirit of such legislation.
As the debate rages on, legislators and advocacy organizations are still split over the impact of this new law. Supporters contend that this move is an important measure to protect the integrity of our elections. Opponents say it’s a dangerous, regressive measure that will undemocratically mute millions of voices at the ballot box.