The SAVE America Act, recently pushed back into the national spotlight by President Donald Trump, aims to address concerns about noncitizen voting. While the intention to ensure only eligible American citizens vote is widely supported, the bill’s approach has sparked significant debate.
As conservative Republicans with extensive experience in election administration, we recognize the importance of election integrity. However, we believe the SAVE America Act may not be the most effective solution. Here’s why.
The SAVE America Act’s Central Premise
The bill’s core idea is to require documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote in federal elections, along with photo identification. This means standard driver’s licenses may not suffice, and voters might need passports, birth certificates, or naturalization papers.
At first glance, this seems straightforward. However, the practical implications reveal potential challenges for millions of eligible voters. A young voter registering for the first time may not have a passport. A married woman whose legal name no longer matches her birth certificate may need additional documentation. Rural voters may face long distances to election offices, and low-income workers may struggle to take time off during business hours.
State-Level Safeguards Already in Place
Federal law already prohibits noncitizens from voting in federal elections. States like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin have their own safeguards. Wisconsin requires voters to present acceptable photo ID and provide proof of residence. Pennsylvania’s automatic voter registration system ensures only eligible applicants are presented with voter registration screens.
These state-level systems are designed to meet local needs and traditions while adhering to national constitutional standards. A federal overhaul could impose a one-size-fits-all solution that may not work for all jurisdictions.
The Importance of State-Based Systems
Our Constitution leaves election administration largely to the states. Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, for example, have different approaches but both have effective safeguards. A federal mandate could override these state-based systems, potentially creating confusion and burdening local officials.
In Pennsylvania, a divided government has not prevented election reform. Bipartisan changes to the election code have been made with extensive input from county governments. This collaborative approach ensures reforms are practical and tailored to local needs.
A rushed federal overhaul could disrupt these well-established systems, leading to confusion rather than increased trust in the election process.
We understand the concerns about election integrity. Through our work with Keep Our Republic, we have heard real skepticism and frustration from citizens and election officials. However, taking voters seriously does not mean endorsing every bill labeled ‘election integrity.’ Some proposals strengthen trust, while others create confusion and burden eligible voters.
Real election integrity requires accuracy, transparency, and telling voters the truth. Noncitizen voting is illegal and is investigated and punished when it occurs. States should continue strengthening their safeguards, but the evidence does not support the claim that noncitizen voting is occurring at a scale that justifies burdening millions of eligible Americans or overriding state election systems with a sweeping federal mandate.
