The SAVE Act will disenfranchise large swaths of voters
When Donald Trump, then a presidential candidate, said during his campaign, “we’ll fix it so good, that you won’t have to vote,” in future elections, some laughed at the promise of a dictatorship fascist. The House of Representatives voted on the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act this week, and with President Trump’s recent order directing the states to require proof of citizen to vote in federal election, we might be moving a big step closer to that promise. The SAVE Act would require many registered voters to update their registration or face being removed from the voter list. Even REAL IDs, such as driver’s licenses, would not be enough proof of citizenship. The bill would also require people to present this documentation in person, which presents an additional obstacle, especially for disabled people. The bill also would require people to provide this documentation in person, presenting an extra obstacle, particularly for disabled people.
Disproportionate effect on women and other marginalized groups
While the SAVE Act wouldn’t stop elections altogether, it would make voting incredibly difficult for millions of Americans–especially for rural voters, tribal citizens, people of color, disabled people, unhoused people, people living below the poverty line, and transgender people. You must provide proof of your name change to get a form that matches your current identity. It’s already difficult enough to access a driver’s license or other documentary proof of citizenship, but what do you do if the name on your birth certificate doesn’t match your current name?
According to the Center for Democracy and Civic Engagement, more than 21 million people can’t access the additional documents that would be required under the SAVE Act. The SAVE Act would specifically target married women, a group that is not usually considered marginalized. Suppression of women’s voting, regardless of race or income, is a long-standing problem that has received little attention. The SAVE Act does not provide language to reconcile birth certificates that have a name different from your current legal name. According to a report by the 2024 Pew Research Center, married women have legal names that differ from those on their birth certificates. They are also more likely than other Americans to identify themselves as Republicans. Pew Research Center found in a separate study that 84% of married women changed their name when they married. They either took their husband’s last names or hyphenated them. Conservative women, the women who are most likely to back Trump, changed their names more than their liberal counterparts. The process of proving a name-change can be complicated. For instance, if someone has been divorced several times, they may have changed the last name each time, and could have even moved states. Then, they may need to submit all of that documentation to get an ID matching their name at the time of voting. Transgender individuals are not only concerned with name changes but also the gender presentation and identification. Even if a trans person hasn’t tried to legally change their name, they could face difficulty voting if a poll worker doesn’t think a transgender voter’s photo ID matches their gender presentation.
Any voting law that requires extra documentation also presents an obstacle for domestic violence survivors. Abusers may hold onto their partners’ important documents to control them, and people who flee abusive situations might not grab their passport or birth certificate. Other obstacles exist for women who are victims of domestic violence, 85 percent of whom are female. Some states use caucusing to select presidential candidates. This process is open and public, but it could put people at risk if they choose differently from their partners. Some states also publish voter information like phone numbers and addresses, which could be a concern for survivors of domestic abuse, sexual assault or stalking, as their abusers may find them. Most states have address confidentiality programs, where people can apply to keep their address private if they are in danger, but the requirements to participate in the programs vary and there are far too many exceptions that put people at risk.
Republicans are–and have been–alienating their own base
It appears that in sponsoring legislation that could limit their own supporters’ ability to vote for them, Republicans are shooting themselves in the foot. A law like this doesn’t only aim to win future elections, it’s also about control. They hate liberal women who vote (we are all supposed to be trad wife with ten kids hanging off us, while we look white supremacists pioneers right?) but the idea that their wives might vote differently or even need to vote at all is offensive to conservative patriarchal ideology. The SAVE Act not only makes it more difficult for Republicans to vote, but it also worsens an already existing problem: strict voter identification laws which have prevented many women, and other marginalized groups, from voting. According to the Movement Advancement Project, 12 states require a photo ID to vote and four others do not. MAP data shows that 20% of voting-eligible residents live in 12 states with strict ID requirements, and 11 of those states voted Trump to office in 2024. In 2002, Republicans renewed their push for voter identification when George W. Bush, then president, signed into law the Help America Vote Act, which required all first-time mail-in voters to show an ID at the polls. Arizona passed a bill in 2004 requiring that voters present proof of citizenship at the time they register to vote and also present an ID when voting. In 2008, the Supreme Court upheld Indiana’s law. The Supreme Court upheld Indiana’s law in 2008.
However, the Supreme Court struck down the Arizona law’s documentary proof of citizenship requirement for federal elections in 2013 case Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, finding that it violated the NVRA’s voter registration requirements. A federal court ruled in 2018 that the documentary proof of citizenry requirements violated the NVRA, the U.S. Constitution and Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach’s attempts to enforce proof of citizenship as a way to combat the non-existent problem of fraud at the polls. The SAVE Act, which has been ruled unconstitutional, is merely trying to enforce documentary proof of citizenry, despite the fact that it was already deemed unconstitutional. We know that precedent is no longer as important as it once was. Pregnancy Justice claims that pregnancy criminalization was already occurring before the 2022 Dobbs V. Jackson Women’s Health Organization ruling. A 2024 Pregnancy Justice report found that “in the first year after Dobbs, at least 210 pregnant people faced criminal charges for conduct associated with pregnancy, pregnancy loss, or birth.” That number is, according to the report, the highest single-year number since researchers began studying these cases–and it’s likely an undercount.
The states with the most prosecutions of people for pregnancy related crimes are Alabama, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Ohio, Mississippi, and Texas. These six states all have laws that require voter identification, disenfranchise people with felony convictions or limit voting by mail and online registration. Women are also incarcerated at a higher rate than men, despite the fact that there are more women in prison. According to the Sentencing project, the number incarcerated females is seven times greater than in 1980. According to the Prison Policy Initiative, this population has grown twice as fast as men. Prison Policy Initiative found that 60% of women in local jails are not convicted and are awaiting trial. Most people held in jail awaiting trial should legally retain their right to vote, but are often prevented from doing so because many jails don’t provide voting materials.
The disenfranchisement of people convicted of felonies is a huge problem on its own. Even after completing their sentences, many states deny the right to vote to people with felony convictions. Women of color are disproportionately targeted by the disenfranchisement of incarcerated women, as Black women are incarcerated 1.6 times more than white women. SAVE Act, like many conservative initiatives, is a “solution in search of a solution”. The issue of non-citizens voting is statistically non-existent. According to the Migration Policy institute, there’s no evidence that they vote in large numbers. “Audits conducted by election officials, as well as numerous studies, show that voter fraud is extremely rare.” Brennan Center research found that in the 2016 election, “improper noncitizen” votes accounted for 0.0001 percent. Our government already makes sure only citizens are voting, but the SAVE Act would place an even heavier burden on individual voters.
