Summary
🔒 Prove You Exist, or No Vote for You
The SAVE Act requires voters to present a passport, birth certificate, or military service record. Don’t have one? You don’t get to vote—no matter how long you’ve been a citizen.
⚖️ Citizen Lawsuits Galore
Anyone in the U.S. can now sue your local election official if they think non-citizens are voting. No evidence needed—just vibes and a filing fee.
😓 Election Officials Under Siege
Already underpaid and overwhelmed, local poll workers are now exposed to lawsuits for doing their jobs. Good luck finding anyone willing to work your next election.
🗳️ Brought to You by Claudia Tenney
New York’s own Rep. Tenney is one of the architects of this mess—supporting endless paperwork for voters but not for gun owners. Priorities, right?
🧩 GOP Rule-Bending Incoming
It passed the House. Now Republicans are eyeing procedural loopholes to pass it in the Senate without the 60 votes normally required. Democracy optional.
📜 New Tools, Same Jim Crow Playbook
Back then, it was literacy tests. Now, it’s document checks. Same strategy: keep poor, elderly, rural, and minority voters out.
Democracy Was Fun While It Lasted – Then Came the SAVE Act
The SAVE Act, brought to you by the same folks who brought us “alternative facts” and four-hour lines to vote, is the GOP’s latest attempt to make democracy look more like a gated community. With a name like “SAVE,” you’d think it was about rescuing puppies or pensions. Nope. It’s about “saving” elections from imaginary problems with very real consequences.
This little gem already passed the U.S. House of Representatives (because of course it did), and now it’s making its way to the Senate—where, under normal circumstances, it would need 60 votes to pass. That’s because most things that aren’t budget-related or full of judicial appointments go through regular order, also known as “what’s left of functioning democracy.”
But don’t count the GOP out just yet—they’re already floating ways to manipulate Senate procedure to pass it with a simple majority, perhaps by sneaking it into a must-pass bill or redefining “election security” as a budgetary issue. Because if there’s one thing Republicans are good at, it’s playing fast and loose with the rules of governance.
Vote? Sure. Just Prove You Exist First.
Let’s start with the obvious: voter ID laws are the heart of this bill, but not the kind you flash at a bar or airport. Under the SAVE Act, you must present proof of U.S. citizenship to vote in federal elections. Your state-issued ID? Cute. Your Social Security card? Try again. Your signed testimony under penalty of perjury that you were born in Topeka? Nope.
You’ll need a passport, naturalization paperwork, or a certified birth certificate that hasn’t been through the wash twice. Millions of Americans don’t have those readily accessible—especially seniors, low-income voters, and people born outside of hospitals in the Jim Crow South. But hey, nothing screams “election integrity” like denying Grandma her ballot because she can’t find paperwork from 1943.
The section of the SAVE Act that describes what qualifies as “Documentary Proof of United States Citizenship” is below.
Some are easy enough. For example, showing a valid U. S. passport works. That’s fine, although only about half of Americans have a valid passport.
What else would work? An official U. S. military ID card – OK, but with the military ID, you need to have a “military record of service showing that the applicant’s place of birth was in the United States.“
I was on active duty in the U.S. Navy for several years, and my service record was the size of a paperback book. So, the SAVE Act requires our servicemen and women to produce their service records and military IDs. This is just another example of Republicans who pay lip service to the military, erecting barriers to prevent them from voting.
The SAVE Act Is the New Jim Crow
The “Documentary Proof of United States Citizenship” is reminiscent of the Jim Crow Laws designed to prevent blacks from voting. But now, it’s not just blacks; it’s all of us.
Under Jim Crow, it was, “read this passage.” Now it’s “Show us a certified birth certificate from 1953.” Different tools, same outcome: keep certain voters out.
Roughly 21 million eligible U.S. citizens lack ready access to the documents listed in the SAVE Act –
Rural Americans who don’t have a passport.
Low-income citizens without access to vital records.
Native Americans born outside hospitals and lacking formal birth certificates.
Elderly people who may have never needed a passport or lost key records.
Just like under Jim Crow, the barriers are crafted to sound “neutral,” but they hit certain groups far harder than others.
“(b) Documentary Proof Of United States Citizenship.—As used in this Act, the term ‘documentary proof of United States citizenship’ means, with respect to an applicant for voter registration, any of the following:
“(1) A form of identification issued consistent with the requirements of the REAL ID Act of 2005 that indicates the applicant is a citizen of the United States.
“(2) A valid United States passport.
“(3) The applicant's official United States military identification card, together with a United States military record of service showing that the applicant's place of birth was in the United States.
“(4) A valid government-issued photo identification card issued by a Federal, State or Tribal government showing that the applicant’s place of birth was in the United States.
“(5) A valid government-issued photo identification card issued by a Federal, State or Tribal government other than an identification described in paragraphs (1) through (4), but only if presented together with one or more of the following:
“(A) A certified birth certificate issued by a State, a unit of local government in a State, or a Tribal government which—
“(i) was issued by the State, unit of local government, or Tribal government in which the applicant was born;
“(ii) was filed with the office responsible for keeping vital records in the State;
“(iii) includes the full name, date of birth, and place of birth of the applicant;
“(iv) lists the full names of one or both of the parents of the applicant;
“(v) has the signature of an individual who is authorized to sign birth certificates on behalf of the State, unit of local government, or Tribal government in which the applicant was born;
“(vi) includes the date that the certificate was filed with the office responsible for keeping vital records in the State; and
“(vii) has the seal of the State, unit of local government, or Tribal government that issued the birth certificate.
“(B) An extract from a United States hospital Record of Birth created at the time of the applicant's birth which indicates that the applicant’s place of birth was in the United States.
“(C) A final adoption decree showing the applicant’s name and that the applicant’s place of birth was in the United States.
“(D) A Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a citizen of the United States or a certification of the applicant’s Report of Birth of a United States citizen issued by the Secretary of State.
“(E) A Naturalization Certificate or Certificate of Citizenship issued by the Secretary of Homeland Security or any other document or method of proof of United States citizenship issued by the Federal government pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act.
“(F) An American Indian Card issued by the Department of Homeland Security with the classification ‘KIC’.”.
Langworthy “Spins” the SAVE Act
In an email to his constituents, Langworthy (R-NY23) provided an infographic that listed the SAVE Act’s “facts vs. fiction.” One of Langworthy’s “facts” is that the act “does not require citizens to reregister to vote.” This is not quite true.
While the Act does not compel all current voters to re-register, it affects those who need to update their voter registration information. This includes individuals who:
Change their name (e.g., due to marriage or other legal reasons). It’s estimated that around 1.8 million women change their last name due to marriage each year.
Move to a new address. Approximately 10 million registered voters in the United States change their addresses each year.
Change their political party affiliation. 8 to 16 million people may change their party registration in a given year.
As of September 2024, approximately 186.5 million Americans were registered to vote. Based on the three criteria above, about 15% of the voters must re-register in a given year. In such cases, voters must provide the specified documentary proof of citizenship to update their registration.
Another of Langworthy’s “facts” in the infographic is that “it does not prevent married women from voting.” This is a disingenuous statement if ever there was one. It doesn’t prevent women from voting, but, as above, the requirements for women who change their last name may make it difficult if not impossible to re-register to vote.
Citizen Lawsuits: Now With 100% More Chaos
But wait—there’s more!
The SAVE Act introduces a private right of action, which means anyone anywhere in the country can sue your local election officials if they think non-citizens are on the voter rolls. No evidence is required—just vibes and a Wi-Fi connection.
The private right of action opens the door to intimidation, lawsuits, and chaos that disproportionately affect precincts serving communities of color and immigrants.
This part of the bill turns every fedora-wearing Reddit moderator with a grudge into a self-appointed elections cop. It’s “Stop the Steal” meets Judge Judy. Picture your county clerk spending weeks in court fighting lawsuits from keyboard warriors who think drag queens and Wi-Fi routers are coordinating voter fraud.
And let’s be honest—these lawsuits won’t come from average citizens worried about democracy. They’ll come from partisans, political PACs, and fringe organizations who treat the judicial system like their personal sledgehammer. Expect Texans to file suit against New York election officials.
Election Officials? Good Luck Recruiting Those Anymore
As if election officials weren’t already underpaid and overwhelmed, the SAVE Act adds another reason to run screaming in the other direction.
In a post-Jan. 6 world where threats, doxxing, and harassment are now just part of the job, the SAVE Act piles on by making it easier to sue these workers for the crime of…doing their job. Between the lawsuits, the intimidation, and now the increased liability, don’t be surprised when your next election is staffed by the last three people in your county who aren’t in hiding.
Meet Claudia Tenney: Because Of Course
The SAVE Act was championed by Rep. Claudia Tenney (R-NY), co-chair of the House “Election Integrity” Caucus – an ironic name if ever there was. You may remember Tenney from hits such as “Democrats Are the Real Election Deniers,” “Broken Moral Compass” and her latest, “Let’s Ban Ranked-Choice Voting.”
She’s the kind of politician who thinks showing up with a pile of paperwork to register to vote is just common sense. But showing up with paperwork to buy a gun is government intrusion into our God-given rights.
Tenney and her allies pretend that the SAVE Act is about preventing non-citizen voting. Non-citizen voting in federal elections is already illegal—it has been for years—and statistically non-existent.
But we all know what the SAVE Act is really about: suppressing votes from young people, people of color, low-income Americans, the elderly, American Indians, and anyone else unlikely to vote Republican.
What Happens Next?
Now that it’s headed to the Senate, the SAVE Act needs 60 votes to pass—which, in today’s Senate, is roughly as likely as Mitch McConnell endorsing drag brunch. If all 53 Republican senators support the SAVE Act, they would still need at least 7 Democratic or independent senators to vote in favor to reach the 60-vote threshold required to overcome a filibuster and pass the bill under standard Senate procedures. Unlikely, but not impossible.
And if Republicans can’t get 60 votes? Expect backroom procedural stunts. Slipping it into a larger “must-pass” bill. Calling it “fiscal” to qualify for reconciliation. Twisting the rules, as usual.
Because when your policies aren’t popular, your next best move is to limit who can vote.
Bottom Line:
The SAVE Act isn’t saving anything; it’s a partisan power grab disguised as patriotism. It represents voter suppression wrapped in a Stars and Stripes bow. If it passes the Senate—whether by 60 votes or through procedural dirty tricks—it will become yet another nail in the coffin of American democracy, all wrapped in red, white, and blue.