Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe SAVE Act: An Explainer
https://www.rockthevote.org/explainers/the-save-act/What is the SAVE Act?
The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act (SAVE Act) was introduced into Congress in 2024 by Representative Chip Roy (R-TX) opens a new window. If passed, the bill would require all voters to provide a document such as a passport or a birth certificate to register or update their voter registration. Government-issued drivers licensesincluding REAL IDs opens a new window as they exist nowas well as military or tribal IDs alone would no longer satisfy voter registration requirements opens a new window. Proof of citizenship opens a new window would be required every time a voter registers to vote, including when they change their name, address or party affiliation.
The bill claims to ensure only citizens vote; however, the Act, if passed, will prevent millions of citizens from voting.
How would the SAVE Act impact voter access?
While most Americans have a birth certificate, 9% of voting-age citizens (21.3 million opens a new window) cannot readily access documents to prove their citizenship. At this moment, do you know where your birth certificate is?
Among citizens who do have a birth certificate, a significant number 20% of the population will have a difficult time using their birth certificates under the SAVE Act as their certificate will not match their current last name. Approximately 84% of married women change their last name as well as some men. Consequently, 69 million women and 4 million men opens a new window do not have a birth certificate that matches their name. Transgender people who have legally changed their names would also have issues or be unable to use a birth certificate.
*snip*
4 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The SAVE Act: An Explainer (Original Post)
Nevilledog
Feb 7
OP
MaddowBlog-Targeting elections, House GOP advances the SAVE America Act, a solution in search of a problem
LetMyPeopleVote
Thursday
#4
durablend
(9,081 posts)1. Betcha the fine print also says
"Need to own property to vote"
SheltieLover
(78,694 posts)2. And be white & male
mwmisses4289
(3,684 posts)3. That the whole point. So called save act
is designed to disenfranchise voters who anything but white, male, and perhaps wealthy.
LetMyPeopleVote
(177,271 posts)4. MaddowBlog-Targeting elections, House GOP advances the SAVE America Act, a solution in search of a problem
The original SAVE Act was an indefensible step backward, and the revised version is worse. It passed the Republican-led House anyway.
Targeting elections, House GOP advances the SAVE America Act, a solution in search of a problem www.ms.now/rachel-maddo...
— Philly Joe (@joehick58.bsky.social) 2026-02-12T00:19:32.092Z
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/save-act-elections-house-republicans-trump-johnson-voter-id
A couple of years ago, House Speaker Mike Johnson made a pilgrimage of sorts to Mar-a-Lago to kiss Donald Trumps ring and hold a joint news conference with the then-former president. It was not, however, a simple photo-op: The Republicans unveiled a proposal they appeared to be rather proud of.
The GOP duo pitched legislation that would require documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote. The absurdity of watching two notorious election deniers pretend to be deeply concerned with the integrity of elections was a detail the political world was apparently supposed to overlook.....
The original SAVE Act was an indefensible step backward, and the revised version is worse:
The proposal is a classic example of a solution in search of a problem. Republicans have spent years desperately searching for evidence of systemic fraud in vote-by-mail systems, for example, and theyve come up empty. The same is true about the supposed need for voter ID laws: In reality, there is simply no national scourge of people trying to cast ballots while pretending to be someone else.....
Whats more, as The Associated Press reported, state elections officials from both parties have expressed practical concerns about how these costly proposed procedures would be implemented and paid for. The same article added: Voting rights groups have said married women who have changed their name could have trouble registering under the SAVE Act because their birth certificate lists their maiden name.
Despite all of this, the bill passed the House anyway.
The proposal now heads to the Republican-led Senate, where it will need to overcome a 60-vote threshold, which seems exceedingly unlikely. That said, Politico reported this week that GOP leaders are so desperate to fundamentally alter how Americans vote that theyre exploring potential procedural changes that would make it possible to pass the regressive legislation, despite existing cloture rules.
The GOP duo pitched legislation that would require documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote. The absurdity of watching two notorious election deniers pretend to be deeply concerned with the integrity of elections was a detail the political world was apparently supposed to overlook.....
The original SAVE Act was an indefensible step backward, and the revised version is worse:
All Americans would be required to prove their U.S. citizenship when registering to vote.
Voters would be required under federal law to present identification when casting ballots in person or by mail, even in states that do not have voter ID laws.
Republicans are eyeing new restrictions on Americans who want to vote by mail.
The proposal is a classic example of a solution in search of a problem. Republicans have spent years desperately searching for evidence of systemic fraud in vote-by-mail systems, for example, and theyve come up empty. The same is true about the supposed need for voter ID laws: In reality, there is simply no national scourge of people trying to cast ballots while pretending to be someone else.....
Whats more, as The Associated Press reported, state elections officials from both parties have expressed practical concerns about how these costly proposed procedures would be implemented and paid for. The same article added: Voting rights groups have said married women who have changed their name could have trouble registering under the SAVE Act because their birth certificate lists their maiden name.
Despite all of this, the bill passed the House anyway.
The proposal now heads to the Republican-led Senate, where it will need to overcome a 60-vote threshold, which seems exceedingly unlikely. That said, Politico reported this week that GOP leaders are so desperate to fundamentally alter how Americans vote that theyre exploring potential procedural changes that would make it possible to pass the regressive legislation, despite existing cloture rules.
There is no evidence of the type of voter fraud that the SAVE Act would prevent. It takes time and effort to get US citizens to go vote and so non-citizens are not going to risk arrest just to vote. The GOP and other groups have been looking for years for proof of non-citizens voting and have not found any such proof. The SAVE Act is a solution looking for a problem.