SAVE act bad solution in search of problem

The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act has passed the U.S. House, but faces the 60/100 vote challenge in the US Senate unless Senator Thune can succeed in inserting the bill’s provision in a reconciliation measure that will be advanced by Republicans to resolve the ICE and Border Patrol funding issue.

The bill has three major provisions including proof of US citizenship to register to vote, valid government ID to vote in federal elections and valid government photo ID copy to accompany absentee ballots requested by individual voters in federal elections. I have relied upon a policy brief prepared by Vote.org titled “The SAVE Act: “What Every American Voter Needs to Know” in offering the following analysis of the SAVE Act.

The bill’s sponsors insist that the new voter registration and voting requirements are necessary to protect the integrity of the election process and that the new requirements are not an excessive burden on the voting public. The integrity of the election process has been challenged by the pretend monarch in the White House who insists without evidence that he lost the popular vote in 2016 and the Electoral College vote in 2020 because of millions of noncitizens voting in the presidential elections of those years.

Opponents argue that there is no need for the added requirements because since 1996 it has been a federal crime with serious penalties including fines, imprisonment and deportation for a noncitizen to vote in federal elections. Opponents also point to multiple state and federal studies concluding that voter fraud is extremely rare in the US. Finally, opponents contend that the new voter registration and voting requirements do present a significant new burden for low-income citizens, rural citizens, military members and civilian Americans abroad, married individuals with a name change and transgender adults.

Finally, SAVE opponents contend that the current system that requires individuals to swear in writing to their US citizenship under penalty of perjury when registering to vote followed by state level verification has been very effective in deterring noncitizen voter registration and voting.

The proposed new proof of citizenship requirement for voter registration and re-registration would require individuals to appear in person before a registration official with US citizenship documentation which would be limited to an enhanced driver’s license ( SD is one of 5 states that issues an enhanced drivers license), a US passport or passport card, a certified birth certificate with a photo ID, a naturalization certificate or Consular Report of Birth Abroad.

Married women or men who have adopted their spouse’s last name must also present a marriage license. In addition to the added expense in acquiring the needed documentation, there will also be a need for travel and the expenditure of time in rural areas. A US passport costs $165, a passport card costs $65, a certified birth certificate costs between $10 to $50 depending on the jurisdiction, and a naturalization certificate replacement costs $1, 385.

Legalists question whether the added expenses might run afoul of the 24th Amendment which prohibits application of a poll tax or any other tax restricting the right to vote.
The requirement to appear in person with the needed documentation runs counter to how voter registration and re-registration occurs today. Only 6% of voters register in person today.

The overwhelming majority of voters register online, by US Mail, or at the DMV. It would no longer be possible to use the dominant means of registering or re-registering when moving or changing parties if SAVE becomes law. Traditional voter registration drives on college campuses, state fairs, shopping malls or door to door would be shut down because of the need for citizenship documentation versus a sworn statement of citizenship.

The proof of citizenship requirement for voter registration was tried and failed in Kansas. Prior to implementation of the law in Kansas, noncitizen voter registration was approximately 0.002% of all registered voters. When the law was implemented, 31,000 US citizens representing 12% of registration applicants were blocked from registering to vote because of flaws in the system. The law was struck down in federal court.

A similar law in Arizona suffered the same fate.

The SAVE Act is a solution in search of a problem. It has advanced not out of real need to protect against voter fraud, but in response to the whining of our pretend monarch over his loss in 2020. The present voting system run by state and local election officials has proven effective in deterring voter fraud.

Equally important, the current system encourages voter registration and voting with minimum inconvenience and expense. Our democracy ought to encourage citizen voting rather than discourage it through unnecessary and burdensome barriers.