The latest version of the Save America Act could, if it is passed, upend voting for all Americans in the middle of a federal midterm election year and create costly, chaotic changes for elections workers. George Chidi, the Guardian’s politics and democracy correspondent and Sam Levine, who has spent years focusing on voting rights in the US, including for our ongoing series The fight for democracy, answered questions about Save’s implications on everything from the midterms to overseas voting.
George and Sam have now finished answering your questions. Read the Q&A below.
What will the full impact of Save be?
IcommentthereforeIam asks: Is it possible to model the likely effects of the changes in the SA act on elections? And in purely numerical terms, how many people are likely to be disenfranchised or intimidated into losing their vote?
George: I think the Kansas example is instructive. Kansas enacted a law in 2013 requiring voters to prove their citizenship when registering. Evidence presented in a federal lawsuit challenging the law showed that 18,000 people were blocked from registering – about 8 per cent of people trying to register. That statistic only covers motor voter registrations; another study showed the overall number was closer to one in eight voters. Only about a quarter of those who were initially blocked ended up registering. (And no, these were not non-citizens - they were by and large born Americans who couldn’t lay hands on their birth certificates.) The blocked registrants were disproportionately young people with no party affiliation. The federal court struck down the law in 2018.
Arizona enacted a similar law in 2005, with similar results. Elections officials attributed the large number of blocked registrants to people whose married names didn’t match their birth certificates, or people who couldn’t get their birth certificate. In 2024, the US supreme court blocked the use of documentary proof of citizenship to register for federal elections in the Arizona case.
How do we let more people know about the implications of the act?
GrammySue22 asks: Q: The Save act is based on some lies that apparently many Americans are being told: that there are large numbers of non-citizens who are voting (absolutely not true), that mail-in voting invites fraudulent voting (again, not true), and that somehow the “radical leftist antifa democrats” will “steal” an election “again” if something isn’t done. We all know the facts about this, and we also know that the opposite is true: many elderly, women, rural, poor, and minority legitimate Americans will be disenfranchised if this legislation passes. Question: how can we drive home the truth to the broader audience in such a way as to get them to put more pressure on their Republican representatives?
George: The hard part here is making an argument that will be heard by people who believe the “mainstream media” exists to lie to conservatives. I think the best answer is to show examples of people who look and sound – and perhaps believe the same things – as the people demanding high levels of documentation to vote. One of the less-spoken corollaries to voting registration changes as proposed is that it will disproportionately affect voters with a propensity to vote for Republicans. Married women. Rural voters. People who have never drawn a passport and don’t have easy access to a county clerk who can send them a new birth certificate.
Have people not just had enough?
CalinaZumurrud asks: If Save comes in for the midterms and the GOP aren’t wiped out, can the US system take a repeat of the last two years and have the US people (even Maga) just not had enough?
George: It is stunningly unlikely for this to become federal law in time for the midterms. States are more likely to enact this at the local level, but even there, I believe courts will look at the examples of Arizona and Kansas and are likely to block immediate implementation. I will withhold my opinion about the prudence of voters’ choices: democracy is a contact sport.
Lock them up?
jimbles asks: Can we solve our problems in America by jailing Republican criminals?
George: I say this with love in my heart; the real scandal is always what’s legal.
How is it different from buying alcohol or boarding a plane?
MartWPD writes: You need ID to buy alcohol, drive a car, board a plane, and enter government buildings – no one calls that oppression. But for voting – the foundation of the system – we’re told requiring basic proof of citizenship is outrageous? Over 80% of Americans support voter ID and proof of citizenship requirements (see polling from Pew). This isn’t about “defending democracy”. It’s about ignoring what the public actually thinks and hoping no-one notices.
George: The right to buy alcohol is not in the constitution (but, by all means, begin a pedantic conversation with me about the 21st amendment). Neither is driving a car, boarding a plane or entering a government building. But the right to suffrage is explicitly stated in the 15th amendment: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. From this precept flows correlaries. Does the duty of a voter registrar to prevent people barred by law from voting supersede the right of people lawfully entitled to vote? That duty is not explicit in the constitution; the right is. From this, we get 100 years of precedent on voting law.
Very, very few people are credulously arguing that noncitizens should be able to vote. The problem is proportionality. You may be of the view that it would be legal and proper for the police to, say, bomb an apartment building in a crowded Philadelphia neighborhood in order to facilitate the arrest of someone accused of shooting at a cop. But the law doesn’t actually support that. If the threat of undocumented noncitizen voters were great enough to materially affect an election, I think this would be a different conversation. But it is not. If a law that will in practice reduce noncitizen voting from, say, 10 people to zero will also predictably prevent 10,000 citizens from voting, the law is constitutionally questionable … as courts have repeatedly found.
Sam: Just one thing to add to George’s point. We often hear the talking point that people have to show ID to get on an airplane so they should have to show it to vote. But in the US, there’s a process that allows someone to go through airport security and get on their flight if they don’t have an acceptable form of ID. I think this is a point that often gets lost when it comes to the debate over voter ID – there’s often a lot of focus on whether ID should be required or not, and much less discussion about an equally important question: what happens if someone doesn’t possess an acceptable form of ID but is otherwise eligible to vote? How much of a burden should that person face to prove their eligibility?
Does Save undermine individual states?
Densher asks: Does the Save bill undermine state rights by imposing a federal election policy that should be the choice of individual states?
Sam: The US constitution is fairly explicit about who runs elections. Article 1, section 4 says that states get to set the rules for elections, except that Congress can pass rules for federal elections. That’s why there are federal, congressionally-enacted laws like the Voting Rights Act, National Voter Registration Act, and Help America Vote Act. If Republicans were able to pass the bill through Congress, it would be consistent with what the constitution says about Congress’s power to enact voting laws.
What are the actual positives of Save?
(Question via Instagram)
Sam: Those who support the bill argue that provides a much-needed upgrade to ensure that only citizens and eligible voters are casting ballots. They argue existing safeguards, which include swearing under penalty of perjury that you are an eligible citizen who can vote, aren’t strong enough.
Despite those concerns, study after study has shown voter fraud is extremely rare. That includes instances where non-citizens either register or ultimately cast a ballot. I have covered a few cases where non-citizens have been caught voting and they usually involve people who are confused and didn’t realize they couldn’t vote.
The concern among voting rights advocates and those who oppose the legislation is that the measures in it are far too restrictive. Whatever tiny amount of ineligible voting the legislation passes will be offset by the number of eligible voters who are blocked from voting because they don’t have access to the necessary documents. As George mentioned earlier, the state of Kansas tried implementing a proof of citizenship law a few years ago and it was a disaster. Tens of thousands of eligible Kansans were blocked from registering, and state officials conceded there were few examples of non-citizens trying to register the law would have actually blocked.
Will married women who changed their names be disenfranchised?
sammja asks: The “Save” Act is Orwellian in nature. One statistic I’ve seen is that approximately 68m married women will not be eligible to vote if the last name on their state ID (such as driver’s license) doesn’t match the last name on their birth certificate. This is downright scary. How many of these 68m women kept their birth last name? How can this statistic be made more widely known?
George: It will probably not be 68 million married women. Most – but not all – people have marriage documentation that shows their name change. The “not all” part is the problem. If the Arizona and Kansas precedents are instructive, perhaps one in six married women will be unable to obtain the correct documentation easily. I note in passing that according to the Pew Research Center, liberal Democratic women are the most likely to keep their last name in marriage (25%), and conservative Republican women are the least likely (7%).
Will it impact the availability of voting sites?
eonphyre asks: Besides adding onerous, expensive and fear-inducing restrictions to an already moderately participating populace – will voting sites still be adequate & available?
George: The act doesn’t legislate polling locations; that’s a state-level function that it didn’t attempt to touch.
Could we test if Save is unconstitutional before it is passed?
WeiWuWei asks: Can the Senate do a “constitutionality pre-check” using Senate Lawyers? Because many parts of the proposed law are deliberately unconstitutional. What is the point of passing a bill that is known beforehand to be contrary to the Constitution? And – what is there to stop Democrats from adding amendments? An amendment for compulsory voting, like in Australia. Or ranked voting like Australia. No runoff. No ICE at no polling station. No armed federal presence at the polling station …
George: Alas, it doesn’t work that way. Senators are often given a legal analysis of bills before a vote, but that analysis is a recommendation not a rule. It is always up to a court to make a determination on the constitutionality of a law, and sometimes senators will vote for a bill that contradicts precedent simply to challenge that precedent. We are seeing a spate of state-level laws related to registration and voting designed to do just that.
An amendment has to be adopted by the Senate to become part of the bill by the same mechanism used to pass the bill. Since an amendment to a bill is a “debatable question”, it is subject to a filibuster and also requires 60 votes to pass. If the bill isn’t passing, neither are amendments. As a practical matter, if Democrats are offering amendments to a bill, they are signalling that they are up for negotiating on its provisions and are looking for some give-and-take compromise. Very few Democrats in the Senate are up for that compromise on this bill.
Sam: If Republicans are able to pass this bill, there are lots of advantages for them, even if it is ultimately struck down by the courts. Concerns about the election have been a top concern for Trump and the Republican base ever since Trump’s false claims about the 2020 election. Passing this bill would send a strong message to the GOP base that Republicans are taking this issue seriously.
Is it too late to impact the midterms?
arootbeer asks: At some point in time, does the passage of the act realistically no longer impact the midterms, simply in terms of the logistics of implementing the changes? Is there a grace period written into the law? I’m assuming the answer is “no”, because then even if it’s passed on election day it would presumably still be a useful lawfare tool.
Sam: If it passes, the new requirements would go into effect immediately. Even though the general election is under seven months away, there are federal primary elections rapidly approaching (some states like Texas have already held them). It would be a logistical nightmare – to put it mildly – for election administrators to try and implement such sweeping changes now. But even if the bill doesn’t pass, or its implementation date is somehow delayed, it will likely still be a useful messaging tool for Republicans in the midterm elections since they can tell their base they did all they could to get more safeguards in place.
What does it mean for overseas voters?
Lauramax100 asks: How will this impact overseas voters? I’m already registered (in New York) and have been voting absentee for years. My eldest daughter is also a dual citizen but has never lived in the US. She should be able to register to vote as she is about to turn 18, but we can’t afford to take her to the US just to show her ID. Will she be able to register and vote absentee? We have to file US tax returns despite not living or having income there – the least we can do is be able to vote. Wasn’t there a war about this about 250 years ago … ?
George: The act adds the following subsection to the law (emphasis in bold is my own):
--
Ensuring proof of United States citizenship.—“(1) PRESENTING PROOF OF UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP TO ELECTION OFFICIAL.—An applicant who submits the mail voter registration application form prescribed by the Election Assistance Commission pursuant to section 9(a)(2) or a form described in paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (a) shall not be registered to vote in an election for Federal office unless—
“(A) the applicant presents documentary proof of United States citizenship in person to the office of the appropriate election official not later than the deadline provided by State law for the receipt of a completed voter registration application for the election;
--That is, you’ll have to get on a plane back to your last place of permanent US residence to register. My understanding is that your daughter would have to get on a plane with you to the place you were last domiciled to register in person. There’s more information here.
Could this backfire on the GOP?
Gandalf666 asks: Restricting mail-in voting and making voter registration more difficult may be intended to reduce Democratic votes, but the odds are that a lot of elderly, female and rural Republicans and right-leaning independents will be disenfranchised as well. What it boils down to for many voters affected by the Save Act is just how motivated are they to vote this year? And the answer is that left-leaning voters are currently highly motivated while right-leaning voters are not.
Sam: There has long been a presumption that putting new barriers in place hurts Democrats and benefits Republicans. But as you suggest, that conventional wisdom is now being challenged. During the 2024 election, Republicans saw major gains in mail-in voting, so efforts to limit it could wind up hurting Republican voters. Republicans also saw gains among infrequent voters in 2024, so implementing policies that make it harder for infrequent voters to stay registered – like having to prove their registration every time they move – could also wind up hurting Republicans.
If I’m stopped from voting – do I still have to pay my taxes?
Mossonarock asks: First question: if because of this excessive bureaucratic red tape that the Republicans are drawing up that we end up not being able to vote, will that mean we won’t have to pay taxes? I’m of course referring to the pre-revolution complaint of “no taxation without representation”. If they say we can’t vote because we couldn’t jump through the snafu red-tape hoop they create, then we aren’t represented and shouldn’t be taxed. I do hope they are willing to make that concession.
Second: Why do they think America is in need of saving? Which organizations are pushing this propaganda and why? What are they really trying to achieve? Are Republicans trying to save America from themselves? Are they trying to get to the point where they install an unaccountable dictator?
George: I get your sentiment; I wouldn’t try it. The taxman doesn’t care if you vote or not; he doesn’t care if you’re legally barred from voting or not. He doesn’t care who you vote for. He doesn’t even care if you’re a criminal – the taxman wants his cut of the loot. Remember that they ultimately got Al Capone not on murder but on tax evasion. The IRS is fond of reminding people that it has one of the highest conviction rates in federal law enforcement, and hates tax resisters. In addition to the courts handing down substantial prison sentences, those convicted must also pay fines, taxes and penalties. We have Wesley Snipes’s immortal example to guide us in the downfall of man in this regard.
Your second question is better answered by referring you to the work of Frank Luntz, a political messaging guru who coined the term “death tax” as a means of killing legislation on estate taxes. A rule of thumb: the more controversial a bit of legislation might be, the more likely it is to be renamed in a way that presses your limbic system. It is no accident that they named a set of laws requiring federal detention of illegal immigrants charged with or arrested for minor theft-related offenses like shoplifting, burglary, and larceny the Laken Riley Act. because who wants to side with her killer, right?
It’s just propaganda. Democrats do this too. Recognize it for what it is.
How can it be stopped?
jxlarson asks: This looks and smells like an unconstitutional poll tax. Aside from the negative potential impacts, what do George and Sam think are the mechanisms in government and law offering the strongest means for shutting down this bill? Thanks for keeping this issue in focus!
Sam: If the bill were to pass, it would likely be met swiftly with a slew of challenges in federal court. While there are a number of different strategies to pursue, I would expect voting rights groups to bring challenges under the 14th amendment, which guarantees equal protection of the laws to everyone, as well as the first Amendment and the 15th amendment, which prohibits denying the right to vote based on someone’s race or color.
George: The poll tax question is interesting and complicated. There’s a Politifact explainer here that gets into it. In short, the supreme court has said that voter ID is itself not so high a burden as to warrant ending its use. But the court has not explicitly said that the cost of obtaining one is a poll tax. State by state, your mileage may vary. In Georgia, the state issues free photo IDs to anyone who wants one, for purposes of voter registration. Voter registration rates in Georgia are among the highest in the country, with an aggressively-pursued motor voter process and non-profits scouring the public for unregistered people. In Alabama next door, the DMV shut down locations in the poorer (read: Black) parts of the state, which reduced voter registration in a practical way.
I note in passing that the bill provides no financial support to states to implement this act if it passes. A conservative friend and I were talking about this bill a few weeks ago. In support, he said that if women were having trouble getting their ID in order, then the state should help them instead of legislators blocking this bill. I reminded him that the bill offers no help for states to provide identification or documents to its citizens. If the bill’s supporters were truly concerned about that problem, wouldn’t they have added a provision like that to the bill?
How will it impact the entire voting system, will it benefit mostly Republicans?
Question via Instagram
George: Take a look at this subsection of the bill (the parts in bold are my emphasis):
--
STATE REQUIREMENTS. — Each State shall take affirmative steps on an ongoing basis to ensure that only United States citizens are registered to vote under the provisions of this Act, which shall include the establishment of a program described in paragraph (4) not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this subsection.“(4) PROGRAM DESCRIBED. — A State may meet the requirements of paragraph (3) by establishing a program under which the State identifies individuals who are not United States citizens using information supplied by one or more of the following sources:
“(A) The Department of Homeland Security through the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (‘SAVE’) or otherwise.
“(B) The Social Security Administration through the Social Security Number Verification Service, or otherwise.
“(C) State agencies that supply State identification cards or driver’s licenses where the agency confirms the United States citizenship status of applicants.
“(D) Other sources, including databases, which provide confirmation of United States citizenship status.
--
The bill would turn the Department of Homeland Security into the registrar of record for every state. By that, I mean that someone working at DHS could decide that someone’s name in a state voter registration database isn’t “really” a citizen because it sounds funny (or they’ve offended the chief executive in some way) and tell the state to strike it from the rolls, and if that official chooses not to do so, they are subject to criminal prosecution for potentially “registering an applicant to vote in an election for Federal office who fails to present documentary proof of United States citizenship.” Would that prosecution go anywhere? Probably not. But you are then asking some clerk in an elections office to defy a DHS order and take their chances.
This process starts 30 days after enactment.
Sam: Thanks everyone for your thoughtful questions! We’ll be continuing to follow this closely and feel free to reach out to us with any questions
