If SAVE Act prevents one Idahoan from voting, it’s not worth it | Opinion
AI-generated summary reviewed by our newsroom.
- SAVE Act mandates documentary proof of citizenship and federalizes voting rules
- Proposals risk disenfranchising citizens lacking proof of citizenship
- States would bear unfunded costs and face faulty purges while preventing minimal fraud
Calls were renewed this week to get rid of the filibuster in the U.S. Senate so that Republicans can bypass Democrats and pass the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, which passed the U.S. House in April on party lines and awaits the Senate.
The SAVE Act would require documentary proof of U.S. citizenship to ensure that only U.S. citizens vote in U.S. elections.
Sounds simple enough. Federal law already requires citizenship to vote. Showing proof of your citizenship should be a no-brainer, right?
It’s not that simple.
According to research by the Brennan Center for Justice, more than 9% of American citizens of voting age, or 21.3 million people, don’t have proof of citizenship readily available.
In Idaho, 9% translates to about 135,000 eligible voters.
Many people don’t have passports. Many don’t have their birth certificate handy. Think about an elderly voter whose driver’s license has expired and either never had a birth certificate or lost it somewhere along the way.
According to the Bipartisan Policy Center, Arizona, which has required proof of citizenship to vote since 2004, has disproportionately disenfranchised or made it much more difficult to vote for college students and individuals experiencing homelessness — both transient populations that are more likely to lack identifying documentation.
Would the SAVE Act disenfranchise 135,000 Idahoans who are otherwise eligible to vote? Most likely not.
But how many would be unable to vote simply because they can’t find a birth certificate or don’t have a driver’s license or passport? How many disenfranchised eligible voters is acceptable?
This is like bringing a cannon to kill a mosquito.
Take, for example, Idaho’s recent purge of its voter rolls of 1.1 million voters. Out of those 1.1 million registered voters, the state found 36 non-citizens, according to Idaho Secretary of State Phil McGrane.
That’s 36 out of 1.1 million voters, or 0.003%.
If we prevent possibly 135,000 citizens from voting simply for the sake of preventing 36 non-citizens from voting, is it worth it?
Mosquito, meet cannon.
The act also requires significant changes to the voter registration process, which could be costly and time-consuming for states to implement. It’s an unfunded mandate, meaning states would have to bear the costs of these changes without federal assistance.
The SAVE Act mandates frequent voter purges, which could remove eligible voters from the rolls based on faulty data.
McGrane told the House Administration Committee in April that when his office checked all 1.1 million voters, they initially got back 700 potential non-citizens, but of those 700, only 36 actually proved to be non-citizens at the time of voting. And many of those were instances of records not having been updated.
This newfound push to pass the SAVE Act before the midterm elections this year should be cause for concern. The Trump administration already is seeking to inject federal involvement in what is a constitutionally enumerated state responsibility in Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution.
The Trump administration has asked states for protected voter information and suggested that mail-in voting be outlawed.
The SAVE Act could be used as a way to open the door for the federal government to disenfranchise enough eligible voters to affect the outcome of the midterm elections.
Remember when Republicans voted down the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act in 2022? One of their arguments was that voting was a states issue, and the federal government shouldn’t tell states how to run their elections. Well, now that the Republicans are in charge in Congress, it’s OK for the federal government to tell the states how to run elections, including how and when to purge voter rolls and even creating criminal penalties for elections officials who screw up.
Some have argued that if for nothing else, the SAVE Act is necessary to restore public trust in elections. But the only reason for that distrust is the big lie that the 2020 presidential election was stolen — a lie that has been repeated often enough that it’s become true for some people.
On balance, the cons of the SAVE Act outweigh the pros. Would it be the end of the world? No. But it would most certainly disenfranchise an untold number of people from exercising their duty and their right to vote.
And disenfranchising even one eligible voter because of a politically expedient, trumped-up lie isn’t worth it.
Scott McIntosh is the opinion editor of the Idaho Statesman. You can email him at smcintosh@idahostatesman.com or call him at 208-377-6202. Sign up for the free weekly email newsletter The Idaho Way.
