Analysis of H.R. 22 (SAVE Act) and H.Res. 294 (119th Congress): Provisions, Implications, and Context

I. Introduction

A. Overview

This report provides an in-depth analysis of House Bill 22 (H.R. 22), titled the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, and House Resolution 294 (H.Res. 294), both considered during the 119th Congress. H.R. 22 proposes significant changes to federal voter registration requirements, specifically mandating documentary proof of U.S. citizenship. H.Res. 294 served as the procedural mechanism facilitating the consideration of H.R. 22 on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives.

The objective of this analysis is to dissect the core provisions, assessed implications, stated motivations, and procedural context surrounding H.R. 22, examining its relationship with H.Res. 294. The report addresses the potential effects of the SAVE Act on election administration, voter eligibility, and specific voter populations, evaluates the arguments presented by both proponents and opponents, and contrasts the proposed changes with the existing federal framework for voter registration. The analysis draws upon available legislative text, summaries, sponsor statements, and external analyses concerning these legislative items. H.R. 22 passed the House of Representatives on April 10, 2025, and was received in the Senate, highlighting its status as a significant, albeit contentious, piece of election-related legislation. 1

B. Scope and Methodology

The scope of this report is strictly confined to the analysis of information derived from provided documentation pertaining to H.R. 22 and H.Res. 294 (119th Congress). This includes legislative summaries, bill text excerpts, status updates, and related commentary or analysis found within the source materials. 1  The report systematically addresses the relationship between the two legislative items, the specific requirements and implications of H.R. 22, the potential impact on various voter groups, the stated rationale linking the bill to voter fraud concerns, and the general documentation requirements for voter registration under current U.S. law prior to the potential enactment of the SAVE Act. The structure follows a logical progression from procedural context to substantive analysis of H.R. 22, its implications, and the existing legal landscape it seeks to modify.

II. H.Res. 294: Procedural Context for H.R. 22

A. Purpose and Function of H.Res. 294

House Resolution 294 (H.Res. 294) of the 119th Congress served a specific procedural function within the U.S. House of Representatives. Its formal title explicitly states its purpose: "Providing for consideration of..." several distinct pieces of legislation, including S.J. Res. 18, S.J. Res. 28, H.R. 1526, and, pertinent to this analysis, H.R. 22. 2

Such resolutions, commonly referred to as "rules," are standard legislative tools originating from the House Rules Committee. They govern the terms under which specific bills or resolutions are debated, amended, and voted upon on the House floor. H.Res. 294, therefore, did not enact substantive policy regarding voter registration or any other topic. Instead, its sole purpose was to establish the parliamentary procedures—such as time limits for debate and allowable amendments—for considering the listed legislative items, including the SAVE Act (H.R. 22). 2  It enabled H.R. 22 to advance to the floor for formal deliberation and a vote.

B. Relationship Between H.Res. 294 and H.R. 22

The relationship between H.Res. 294 and H.R. 22 is direct but purely procedural and hierarchical. H.Res. 294 acted as the legislative vehicle necessary to bring H.R. 22 to the House floor for consideration under specific procedural guidelines. 2  Without a rule like H.Res. 294 being adopted by the House, H.R. 22 might not have been debated or voted upon in the manner it was.

Therefore, the two are related in process: H.Res. 294 facilitated the legislative action on H.R. 22. However, they are entirely distinct in content and objective. H.Res. 294 addressed the how  of legislative consideration, while H.R. 22 contained the what —the substantive policy proposal to amend federal voter registration law. 1

C. Legislative Prioritization

The inclusion of H.R. 22 within the specific group of legislative items addressed by H.Res. 294 offers insight into the priorities of the House leadership at that time. The House Rules Committee, typically controlled by the majority party, determines which bills receive rules for floor consideration and dictates the terms of that consideration. By packaging H.R. 22 with other measures (two joint resolutions concerning Consumer Financial Protection Bureau rules and a bill limiting judicial injunctive relief) under H.Res. 294, leadership signaled that the SAVE Act was deemed ready and important for floor action. 2  This bundling is a common practice for legislative efficiency, but the selection of items invariably reflects the strategic priorities of the controlling party or leadership aiming to advance specific policy goals or respond to political imperatives. Advancing H.R. 22 to the floor via this rule indicates it was a chosen legislative priority worthy of valuable floor time and a structured debate process.

D. Table 1: Comparison of H.R. 22 and H.Res. 294

Feature	H.R. 22 (SAVE Act)	H.Res. 294
Legislative Type	House Bill (Substantive Legislation)	House Resolution (Procedural Rule)
Purpose	To amend the NVRA to require documentary proof of U.S. citizenship for voter registration in federal elections. 1	To set the rules (e.g., debate time, amendments) for House consideration of H.R. 22 and other specified bills. 2
Subject Matter	Voter registration requirements, proof of citizenship, election administration. 1	House floor procedure, legislative process management. 2
Relationship	H.R. 22 is the substantive bill acted upon.	H.Res. 294 provided the procedural mechanism for H.R. 22's consideration and vote in the House. 2

This table clarifies the distinct nature and procedural interdependence of the two legislative items, directly addressing the query regarding their relationship.

III. The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act (H.R. 22): Core Provisions and Stated Intent

A. Summary of H.R. 22's Primary Requirement

H.R. 22, officially titled the "Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act" or "SAVE Act," proposes a fundamental change to the process of registering to vote in federal elections in the United States. 1  Introduced by Representative Chip Roy 1 , the bill's central provision amends the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) to mandate that individuals provide documentary proof of their U.S. citizenship at the time they apply to register to vote. 1

This requirement is comprehensive, applying to any method of voter registration used within a state. 5  States would be explicitly prohibited from accepting and processing any application for federal voter registration unless the applicant presents the required documentary proof of citizenship concurrently with the application. 1  Critiques suggest this requirement would extend not only to initial registration but also to updates necessitated by changes in address or name, or potentially even changes in party affiliation, significantly increasing the burden for already registered voters needing to modify their information. 7  The bill also directs states to take ongoing, affirmative steps to ensure only citizens are registered, including establishing programs to identify non-citizens on the rolls using specified data sources and removing them. 1

B. Specified Acceptable Documentation

The SAVE Act outlines specific types of documents deemed acceptable as proof of U.S. citizenship. While the precise list may be subject to interpretation or implementing regulations, the available materials indicate the primary forms include 1 :

• A valid, unexpired U.S. Passport .
• A certified Birth Certificate , typically needing to be presented alongside a government-issued photo identification card. 3
• A Certificate of Naturalization  or a Certificate of Citizenship  issued by the relevant federal agency (e.g., U.S. Department of Homeland Security). 6
• A Consular Report of Birth Abroad  or similar report from the U.S. Secretary of State for citizens born outside the U.S.. 7
• Identification that complies with the REAL ID Act of 2005   and  indicates U.S. citizenship. 1  However, it is frequently noted that standard state-issued driver's licenses and ID cards, even if REAL ID compliant, generally do not  display birthplace or citizenship status, rendering them insufficient on their own under this provision. 7  Only "Enhanced Driver's Licenses," available in a small number of states, might meet this criterion. 14
• A U.S. Military ID card , but only when accompanied by military records of service that explicitly show the United States as the place of birth. 7  The military ID alone is insufficient. 3
• Certain Tribal government-issued photo IDs  that indicate U.S. citizenship or birthplace. 7

The legislation reportedly directs states to establish alternative processes or procedures for individuals whose documentation may have discrepancies, such as women who changed their names upon marriage. 3  This provision acknowledges the potential issue but requires states to accept supplemental documents like marriage certificates to link identity across documents. 11  However, critics have questioned the clarity and effectiveness of this directive within the bill itself, arguing it may not adequately resolve the barrier for millions affected by name changes. 3

C. Table 2: Acceptable Proof of Citizenship Documents under H.R. 22 (Based on Available Information)

Document Type	Key Requirements / Limitations	Supporting Sources
U.S. Passport	Must be valid and unexpired.	3
Birth Certificate	Must typically be presented with a government-issued photo ID. Name must match ID unless supplemental documents accepted. 3	3
Certificate of Naturalization / Citizenship	Issued by U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security or predecessor agency.	6
Consular Report of Birth Abroad	For citizens born outside the U.S.	7
REAL ID Act Compliant ID	Must explicitly indicate U.S. citizenship . Standard REAL IDs usually do not qualify. 7  Enhanced DLs may qualify. 14	1
U.S. Military ID	Insufficient alone . Must be accompanied by military service record showing U.S. birthplace. 7	3
Tribal Government Photo ID	Must indicate U.S. citizenship or birthplace.	7
State-Established Alternative Process	For situations like name changes; requires states to develop procedures for supplemental documents (e.g., marriage cert.). 11	3

This table summarizes the specific documentation requirements outlined in the available materials, highlighting the limitations and complexities involved.

D. Stated Motivations: Preventing Noncitizen Voting and Enhancing Election Integrity

The primary justification articulated by proponents of H.R. 22 is the perceived need to prevent non-U.S. citizens from registering and voting in federal elections, thereby safeguarding the integrity of the electoral process and restoring public confidence. 3  Sponsors like Rep. Chip Roy and Sen. Mike Lee argue that "American elections belong to American citizens" and that the SAVE Act provides necessary enforcement mechanisms to ensure this principle is upheld. 6  They posit that the bill is essential to prevent foreign nationals from influencing or "hijacking" U.S. elections and to give states the ability to prevent illegal voter registration. 6

Proponents often frame the legislation as a common-sense measure grounded in the Constitution. 6  They point to instances where non-citizens have allegedly been found on voter rolls or, as in the case of New York City cited by Rep. Garbarino, where local ordinances permit noncitizen voting in municipal elections, arguing this necessitates stricter federal standards. 6  The bill is also presented as a way to codify into law a presidential executive order aimed at requiring proof of citizenship for voters. 3  Conservative groups like Heritage Action support the bill, aligning it with broader election integrity reforms like voter ID laws, which they claim are popular and necessary to restore trust. 18  The underlying premise is that existing systems, primarily relying on attestation under penalty of perjury, are insufficient to guarantee that only eligible citizens participate in federal elections.

E. The "Confidence Gap" Narrative

A recurring theme in the arguments supporting the SAVE Act is the emphasis on "restoring Americans' confidence in our elections". 3  This framing is significant, particularly when juxtaposed with counterarguments and data suggesting that noncitizen voting in federal elections is exceptionally rare and often accidental. 3  The persistent focus on public confidence, even if the empirical basis for widespread noncitizen voting is contested, suggests the legislation serves a purpose beyond merely addressing the statistical occurrence of the problem. It appears positioned as a tangible response to a perceived broader crisis of confidence  or anxiety among segments of the electorate regarding the security and legitimacy of the electoral system. By mandating a strict, visible requirement like documentary proof of citizenship, the SAVE Act offers a concrete action intended to address these sentiments. This suggests the bill operates on two interconnected levels: as a proposed technical solution to prevent noncitizen voting, and as a political instrument aimed at reassuring voters or leveraging existing public distrust in election processes, irrespective of the actual prevalence of the issue it claims to resolve.

IV. Assessed Implications and Consequences of H.R. 22

A. Impact on Existing Voter Registration Framework (NVRA & HAVA)

The SAVE Act (H.R. 22) represents a direct and substantial modification of the federal voter registration landscape established primarily by the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) and augmented by the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA).

• Conflict with NVRA Principles:  The core philosophy of the NVRA was to expand opportunities for voter registration and make the process more accessible and convenient for eligible citizens. 23  It achieved this through key provisions mandating registration opportunities during driver's license transactions ("Motor Voter," Section 5), via mail-in applications (Section 6), and at various public assistance and disability service agencies (Section 7). 23  The SAVE Act's central requirement—mandating in-person presentation of specific citizenship documents for all federal registrations—directly contravenes this principle of simplification and accessibility. It introduces a significant new barrier, effectively reversing the NVRA's intent to streamline the process. 15
• Undermining Specific NVRA Mechanisms:

• Mail Registration:  The NVRA's Section 6 explicitly requires states to offer voter registration by mail, utilizing either state-developed forms or the National Mail Voter Registration Form. 23  H.R. 22 would severely curtail, if not eliminate, the ability to register entirely  by mail for federal elections. While an applicant could potentially mail the form, they would still be required to subsequently appear in person at an election office with their proof of citizenship documents, negating the convenience and purpose of mail-in registration. 8  Millions of Americans utilize mail registration. 10
• Online Voter Registration (OVR):  Currently offered in a vast majority of states (42 or 44 plus D.C. cited) 8 , OVR systems provide a highly efficient registration method relied upon by millions (8 million in 2022 cited 10 ). The SAVE Act threatens to upend OVR by requiring a subsequent, mandatory in-person document verification step, thereby eliminating the possibility of completing the registration process entirely online. 8
• Agency-Based Registration:  The NVRA mandates simultaneous voter registration opportunities at DMVs (Section 5) and public assistance agencies (Section 7). 23  While these agencies could still initiate the registration process, H.R. 22 complicates it by requiring applicants to present specific citizenship documents, which are often different from the standard identification (like a driver's license) typically presented for agency services. 11  This adds a layer of complexity and potential delay to the streamlined process envisioned by the NVRA.
• Voter Registration Drives:  Community-based voter registration drives, often crucial for reaching underrepresented populations 9 , would become largely impractical for federal registration under the SAVE Act. The requirement for applicants to present original documentation directly to an election official in person effectively prohibits the model of volunteers collecting forms in community settings. 8

• Shift in Burden:  Perhaps the most fundamental change is the inversion of responsibility for verifying eligibility. Under the current framework established by NVRA and HAVA, the applicant attests to their eligibility (including citizenship) under penalty of perjury. 13  Election officials then bear the primary responsibility for verifying this information, typically using data matching with existing government databases (leveraging provided driver's license numbers or the last four digits of Social Security numbers). 10  The SAVE Act shifts this paradigm entirely. The burden falls squarely on every individual citizen seeking to register (or update their registration) to proactively obtain and present specific, often primary-source, documents to prove their citizenship to the government. 8

B. Potential Effects on Voter Access and Disenfranchisement

Critics of the SAVE Act express profound concerns that its requirements would significantly impede voter access and potentially disenfranchise millions of eligible American citizens.

• Scale of Impact:  Multiple sources cite estimates that a substantial portion of the U.S. citizen voting-age population lacks ready access to the specific documents required by the SAVE Act (primarily passports or birth certificates). Figures range from 9% (Brennan Center estimate, equating to 21.3 million people) to potentially higher numbers when considering issues like name mismatches. 3  State-level studies reinforce this, suggesting 7% of eligible Texans and 10% of eligible Georgians would face difficulty producing such documentation. 13  This potential for mass disenfranchisement is contrasted sharply by opponents with the documented rarity of noncitizen voting in federal elections, which they argue is statistically insignificant and often the result of unintentional errors rather than coordinated fraud. 3
• Disproportionately Affected Groups :  The burden of the SAVE Act's requirements is not expected to fall evenly across the population. Analysis indicates several specific demographic groups would likely face disproportionate challenges in meeting the documentary proof standards:

• Married Women (and others with name changes):  This group faces a significant hurdle due to the common practice of changing names upon marriage (or divorce). Their current legal name on government-issued photo IDs may not match the name on their birth certificate, potentially invalidating the birth certificate as standalone proof without navigating complex supplemental documentation processes. 3  Estimates suggest up to 69 million American women have changed their names 3 , and roughly one-third of married women may lack documents reflecting their current legal name that meet the likely requirements. 13  While the bill directs states to create processes for this 3 , the effectiveness and uniformity of these state-level solutions remain uncertain.
• Young Voters (18-29):  Studies indicate younger citizens are significantly more likely than older citizens to lack ready access to required documents like birth certificates or passports. 7  State-level data from Texas and Georgia showed young adults were two to three times more likely than older counterparts to face documentation barriers. 13
• Elderly Voters:  Older citizens, particularly those residing in assisted living facilities or with limited mobility, may face substantial difficulty obtaining or presenting original documents like birth certificates. 3  One survey indicated over 14% of respondents aged 80+ lacked access to proof-of-citizenship documents. 13
• Low-Income / Working-Class Americans:  Obtaining necessary documents often involves costs (e.g., fees for birth certificate copies, passport application fees) and requires time off work to visit government offices, creating significant socioeconomic barriers. 3  Passport possession rates are notably lower among individuals with lower incomes and less formal education. 8
• Rural Americans:  The requirement for in-person document presentation at an election office poses a particular hardship for those living in rural areas, who may face long travel times and limited transportation options to reach the necessary facilities. 8  Passport ownership is also lower in some predominantly rural states. 15
• People of Color / Marginalized Communities:  Concerns are frequently raised about the disparate impact on racial and ethnic minorities and other marginalized groups. 3  These concerns stem from potential interactions with systemic inequalities, historical patterns of disenfranchisement, lower rates of possessing required documents among some groups (e.g., Hispanic voters in GA/TX studies 13 ), and disproportionate reliance on registration methods like community drives that the bill would curtail. 9  Groups like the ACLU argue the bill is grounded in falsehoods seeking to dissuade eligible citizens of color from voting. 7
• Military Personnel and Families:  Active-duty military members and their families face unique challenges. Standard military IDs are deemed insufficient without accompanying records proving U.S. birthplace. 3  Furthermore, frequent relocations inherent in military life would necessitate navigating these burdensome registration/re-registration requirements repeatedly. 15
• Naturalized Citizens:  While possessing proof of citizenship (e.g., Naturalization Certificate), naturalized citizens might face heightened scrutiny or unique bureaucratic hurdles in the registration process under the SAVE Act. 19
• Natural Disaster Survivors:  Individuals and families displaced or affected by natural disasters often lose vital documents, creating immense difficulty in meeting the SAVE Act's requirements while simultaneously rebuilding their lives. 15
• Transgender Individuals:  People who have legally changed their name and/or gender marker may encounter significant difficulties if their identity documents do not align consistently, mirroring the challenges faced by married women. 15

C. Table 3: Potential Disparate Impacts of H.R. 22 on Voter Groups

Affected Group	Specific Barrier(s) Created/Exacerbated by H.R. 22	Rationale/Evidence (Sources)
Married Women / Name Changes	Mismatch between current legal name (on ID) and name on birth certificate; need for supplemental documents/processes.	3
Young Voters (18-29)	Higher likelihood of lacking required documents (passport/birth certificate).	7
Elderly Voters	Difficulty accessing/obtaining original documents; potential mobility issues for in-person requirement.	3
Low-Income / Working Class	Cost of obtaining documents (fees); time off work required for in-person visits; lower passport possession rates.	3
Rural Americans	Difficulty/cost of travel to distant election offices for in-person verification; lower passport possession rates.	8
People of Color / Marginalized Communities	Potential interaction with systemic barriers; historical disenfranchisement; lower document access for some groups (e.g., Hispanic); reliance on curtailed methods (drives).	3
Military Personnel / Families	Military ID insufficient alone; need supplemental birth proof; burden exacerbated by frequent moves/re-registration.	3
Naturalized Citizens	Potential for unique bureaucratic hurdles or heightened scrutiny.	19
Natural Disaster Survivors	Loss of essential documents creates significant registration barriers.	15
Transgender Individuals	Potential document inconsistencies related to name/gender marker changes.	15

This table synthesizes the identified potential impacts across various voter demographics, highlighting the core arguments regarding disenfranchisement risks associated with H.R. 22.

D. Administrative Burdens and Legal Risks for Election Officials

Beyond the impact on voters, the SAVE Act is projected to impose substantial administrative burdens and legal risks on state and local election officials responsible for implementing its provisions.

• Increased Workload and Costs:  Election offices, often operating with limited budgets and staffing, would face a significant increase in workload. 10  They would need to physically receive, inspect, and verify citizenship documents for every new federal voter registration application, and potentially for every registration update. This necessitates developing new intake procedures, training staff on complex document verification, potentially acquiring new equipment, and managing increased foot traffic and processing times. Concerns have been raised that these mandates are unfunded, placing the financial burden on state and local governments. 21
• Voter List Maintenance Mandates:  The Act compels states to actively purge non-citizens from voter rolls. 1  This involves establishing programs to compare voter lists against various federal and state databases to identify potential non-citizens and conducting retroactive audits of existing rolls. 13  While list maintenance is a standard practice, critics worry that the SAVE Act's mandate, potentially lacking robust safeguards, could lead to inaccurate data matching and the erroneous removal of eligible citizens from the rolls. 14  Existing NVRA protections for list maintenance might be undermined. 23
• Criminal and Civil Liability:  A particularly striking feature of H.R. 22 is the imposition of significant legal liability on election officials. The bill establishes criminal penalties—potentially including imprisonment for up to five years—for officials who register an individual who fails to present the required documentary proof of citizenship. 1  This liability could potentially apply even if the failure was due to an administrative error and even if the applicant was, in fact, a U.S. citizen. 13  Additionally, the bill creates a private right of action, allowing individuals to sue election officials over alleged violations of this registration requirement. 1  This heightened legal risk could create a chilling effect, making election officials overly cautious and potentially leading them to wrongfully deny registration to eligible citizens to avoid liability. 21
• Complexity of Dual Systems:  In the majority of states that do not  currently have state-level proof-of-citizenship requirements for registration 20 , the SAVE Act would create a bifurcated system. Election officials would need to manage one set of registration rules and potentially separate ballots for federal elections, and another set for state and local elections conducted concurrently. This dual-track system could generate significant voter confusion, administrative complexity, and increased potential for errors. 21

E. Critiques Regarding Necessity and Proportionality

A central line of criticism against the SAVE Act concerns its necessity and proportionality. Opponents argue forcefully that the problem the bill purports to solve—widespread, intentional noncitizen voting in federal elections—is largely nonexistent. 3  They point to numerous studies and state audits finding such instances to be extremely rare, often attributable to misunderstanding or clerical error. Furthermore, they emphasize that existing federal law already strictly prohibits noncitizens from voting in federal elections, carrying severe penalties, including deportation. 9

Given this context, critics contend that the SAVE Act imposes an extraordinarily burdensome and potentially disenfranchising requirement on millions of eligible American citizens to address a statistically minor issue. The potential harm caused by blocking eligible voters is seen as vastly disproportionate to the harm prevented. 7  The analogy of "sifting the entire ocean to find a single type of seashell" captures this critique of the bill's perceived lack of proportionality. 13

F. Relevant Legal Precedents

The debate surrounding H.R. 22 occurs against a backdrop of relevant legal history concerning proof-of-citizenship requirements for voter registration.

• Kansas Experience:  Opponents frequently cite the state of Kansas, which enacted a documentary proof-of-citizenship law in 2011. This law resulted in over 31,000 voter registration applications being blocked or suspended within a few years, the vast majority (over 99% acknowledged by state officials in court) belonging to eligible U.S. citizens. 3  Federal courts ultimately found the Kansas law unconstitutional and in violation of the NVRA, halting its enforcement. 3  This case is presented as a real-world example of the potential negative consequences of such requirements.
• Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Ariz., Inc. (2013):  In this landmark case, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed Arizona's attempt to require documentary proof of citizenship from individuals using the National Mail Voter Registration Form (the "Federal Form"). The Court ruled 7-2 that the NVRA's requirement that states "accept and use" the Federal Form preempted Arizona's state law mandating additional documentation beyond the form's attestation clause (where applicants swear to citizenship under penalty of perjury). 24  H.R. 22 directly seeks to amend the NVRA itself, effectively attempting to legislate around this Supreme Court precedent by changing the underlying federal statute.
• Attempts by other states, including Alabama and Georgia, to impose similar requirements have also faced legal challenges and been struck down. 15

G. The Conflict Between Federal Mandate and State Administration

H.R. 22 exemplifies a significant assertion of federal authority into the mechanics of voter registration, an area traditionally administered primarily by state and local governments. 33  While federal laws like the NVRA and HAVA establish standards and requirements, the SAVE Act goes further by dictating a highly specific, uniform, and burdensome method  of citizenship verification (in-person documentary proof) that overrides existing state practices and variations. This top-down mandate imposes substantial operational challenges, costs, and legal risks onto state and local election officials 13 , potentially straining their resources and administrative capacity. This contrasts with the NVRA's original approach, which, while setting federal standards (like offering mail registration), allowed states some flexibility in implementation (e.g., designing their own forms alongside the federal one 26 ). The SAVE Act's rigidity creates a tension between a centralized federal requirement and the decentralized reality of election administration in the U.S.

H. Potential for Increased Litigation

The combination of factors surrounding H.R. 22 strongly suggests its enactment would trigger immediate and widespread legal challenges. The history of successful litigation against state-level proof-of-citizenship laws in Kansas, Arizona, and elsewhere provides a clear precedent. 3  The significant concerns raised about the bill's potential to disenfranchise millions of eligible voters, particularly those in protected demographic groups (as detailed in Section IV.B and Table 3), form a likely basis for constitutional challenges alleging undue burdens on the fundamental right to vote and potential violations of equal protection principles. Furthermore, the bill's explicit creation of a private right of action against election officials 1  could itself stimulate lawsuits from various actors. Consequently, the passage of the SAVE Act would almost certainly usher in a period of intense and complex litigation concerning its constitutionality and practical application.

V. Current U.S. Voter Registration Requirements (Pre-SAVE Act)

A. Federal Framework Overview (NVRA & HAVA)

Prior to the potential changes introduced by H.R. 22, the federal framework governing voter registration primarily rests on the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) and the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA).

• Citizenship Requirement:  It is fundamental under existing federal law that only U.S. citizens are eligible to vote in federal elections. This requirement is universally understood and enforced across all states. 13  North Dakota is an exception in that it does not require voter registration, but citizenship is still a requirement to vote. 20
• NVRA Attestation:  The standard procedure established by the NVRA for verifying citizenship at the point of registration relies on applicant attestation. Individuals completing a voter registration form, including the National Mail Voter Registration Form or forms used at motor vehicle and public assistance agencies, must affirm, under penalty of perjury, that they meet all eligibility requirements, including U.S. citizenship. 13  Falsely claiming citizenship to register is a federal offense. 28
• HAVA Identification Requirements:  HAVA introduced specific identification requirements, but these apply narrowly. Under Section 303(b), individuals who register to vote by mail  and have not previously voted  in a federal election within that jurisdiction must present identification the first time they vote . 25  Acceptable forms of ID for this purpose include either a current and valid photo ID or  a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the voter's name and address. 25  Importantly, this HAVA requirement applies at the point of first voting , not at the point of registration , and only to this specific subset of mail registrants. Exemptions exist, notably if the voter provided a driver's license number or the last four digits of their Social Security number on their registration form, and state officials were able to match this information with an existing state database record. 25
• Verification Role of Election Officials:  States are responsible for maintaining accurate voter rolls. 23  They utilize the information provided by applicants on registration forms, primarily the driver's license number or the last four digits of the Social Security number (if provided), to verify the applicant's identity and eligibility through checks against various government databases (e.g., state motor vehicle records, Social Security Administration data, statewide voter registration databases, potentially Department of Homeland Security citizenship data, death records, and U.S. Postal Service change-of-address data). 10  This system relies on data matching rather than requiring physical document presentation from every applicant.

B. Common Documentation and Identification Practices for Registration

Under the current system (pre-SAVE Act), the documentation and information typically required for the act of voter registration itself are generally straightforward:

• Information Required on Forms:  Standard voter registration forms (state or federal) require basic identifying information: full name, residential address, date of birth, an affirmation of U.S. citizenship, and the applicant's signature under penalty of perjury. 24  Most forms also request a state driver's license number or state identification card number, or the last four digits of the applicant's Social Security number, to facilitate verification. 4  Some states ask for political party affiliation, particularly for participation in primary elections. 29
• ID for Registration (General):  Crucially, for the act of registering to vote , most states do not  currently mandate the presentation of documentary proof of citizenship. 20  The system largely relies on the sworn attestation combined with backend verification using the provided numerical identifiers (DLN/SSN4). 4  While some states might require identification if registering in person at an election office or DMV, the types of acceptable ID vary widely and typically do not necessitate primary citizenship documents like passports or birth certificates for all applicants. 35  For online registration, states often use existing DMV records (linked via driver's license/ID number) or SSN4 for verification. 4
• ID for Voting (Distinct from Registration):  It is important to distinguish registration requirements from voter ID laws applied at the polling place . Many states have laws requiring voters to show some form of identification before casting a ballot in person. 34  These laws vary significantly, ranging from strict photo ID requirements to non-photo ID options or allowing voters to sign affidavits. However, these voter ID laws pertain to the act of voting, not the initial act of registration, which is the target of H.R. 22.

C. Contrast with H.R. 22's Proposed Changes

The changes proposed by H.R. 22 represent a radical departure from the current federal framework:

• Universal Documentary Proof:  H.R. 22 replaces the system of attestation plus backend verification (for most registrants) with a universal requirement for all  individuals registering for federal elections to proactively present specific, physical documents proving U.S. citizenship at the time of registration . 1  This applies regardless of the registration method (mail, online, in-person, agency-based) and potentially even to registration updates. 7
• Shift from Verification to Presentation:  The focus shifts from election officials verifying  eligibility using existing data points (DLN/SSN4) linked to government databases, to the applicant bearing the burden of presenting  a narrow set of primary source documents (passport, birth certificate, etc.). 8  Standard forms of identification like most driver's licenses become insufficient for proving citizenship under the Act. 7

D. Table 4: Comparison of Voter Registration Requirements - Current Federal Framework vs. H.R. 22

Aspect	Current Federal Framework (NVRA/HAVA)	Proposed H.R. 22 (SAVE Act)
Proof of Citizenship Method	Attestation under penalty of perjury on registration form. 24  Verification via DLN/SSN4 and database checks. 10	Mandatory presentation of specific documentary proof (passport, birth cert., etc.) at time of registration . 1
Role of Attestation	Primary method of affirming citizenship on the form. 24	Attestation likely still required, but supplemented  by mandatory document presentation.
ID for Mail Registrants (First-time Voters)	HAVA: Required to show ID (photo or non-photo utility bill, etc.) at first time voting , unless verified via DLN/SSN4 match. 25	Required to present citizenship documents in person  at election office before  registration is complete. 8
ID for Agency Registrants (DMV, Public Assistance)	Registration integrated with agency transaction; eligibility affirmed via attestation; verification via DLN/SSN4. 24	Required to present specific citizenship documents during the agency transaction. 11
Burden of Proof	Primarily on election officials to verify eligibility based on attestation and provided data. 10	Primarily on the individual applicant to obtain and present specific documents. 8
Verification Process	Backend database checks using DLN/SSN4, list maintenance procedures. 10	Physical inspection of presented documents by election officials; database checks for list maintenance. 1

This table provides a direct comparison, illustrating the fundamental shifts in process, burden, and requirements proposed by the SAVE Act compared to the established federal system.

E. The Layering of Requirements

An important aspect of H.R. 22's approach is that it appears to add  a significant new requirement (documentary proof) on top of, rather than entirely replacing, existing ones like attestation under penalty of perjury. This layering effect is central to the concerns about increased complexity and burden. Instead of simplifying or streamlining, the SAVE Act introduces an additional, demanding step for all prospective federal voters. This move away from the simplification goals of the NVRA 23  creates potential redundancy—requiring citizens to both swear they are citizens and provide specific documentary evidence. Furthermore, by focusing intensely on verifying citizenship through a limited set of physical documents, it risks overshadowing or complicating other necessary aspects of eligibility verification, such as confirming residency, age, and non-felon status (where applicable), while dramatically increasing the barriers associated with the citizenship check itself. This added layer is the primary driver of the administrative burdens and potential disenfranchisement highlighted by opponents.

VI. Conclusion

A. Synthesis of Findings

The analysis of H.R. 22 (the SAVE Act) and its enabling procedural measure, H.Res. 294, reveals a significant legislative effort to reshape federal voter registration law in the United States.

• Procedural Context:  H.Res. 294 served as the necessary parliamentary mechanism within the House of Representatives to allow for the formal debate and vote on H.R. 22, demonstrating that consideration of the SAVE Act was a procedural priority for House leadership at that time 2  
• Core Change:  H.R. 22 proposes a fundamental amendment to the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 by mandating that all individuals provide specific documentary proof of U.S. citizenship (such as a passport or birth certificate) when registering to vote in federal elections 1  
• Stated Rationale:  Proponents justify this requirement as essential for preventing non-U.S. citizens from participating in federal elections, thereby safeguarding election integrity and bolstering public confidence in the electoral process 3 .
• Major Implications and Criticisms:  Opponents argue that the SAVE Act addresses a statistically insignificant problem (noncitizen voting) with a solution that poses a severe risk of disenfranchising millions of eligible U.S. citizens who lack ready access to the required documents. 3  Concerns are particularly acute for specific demographic groups, including married women, young and elderly voters, low-income individuals, rural residents, military personnel, and communities of color, who may face disproportionate barriers 3 . Furthermore, the Act is projected to undermine key provisions of the NVRA aimed at simplifying registration, impose significant administrative burdens and costs on election officials, and expose them to heightened legal risks 8  .
• Contrast with Current Law:  The proposed documentary proof mandate starkly contrasts with the current federal framework, which primarily relies on applicant attestation of citizenship under penalty of perjury, coupled with backend verification by election officials using identifiers like driver's license or Social Security numbers and database checks 10  .

B. Overall Significance

The analysis of H.R. 22 highlights a critical tension in contemporary election policy debates: the balance between measures aimed at enhancing election security and the imperative to ensure broad access to the ballot for eligible citizens. The SAVE Act, if enacted, would represent a significant shift towards prioritizing documentary proof as the primary gatekeeper for federal voter registration, potentially altering the composition of the electorate by erecting substantial barriers for millions. It signifies an increased federal role in dictating the specific mechanics of state-run voter registration processes and, given the legal precedents and strong opposition, promises considerable administrative disruption and protracted litigation. The debate surrounding the bill underscores fundamental disagreements about the nature and prevalence of threats to election integrity and the appropriate legislative responses.

C. Final Note

This report is based exclusively on the analysis of the provided source materials concerning H.R. 22 and H.Res. 294 (119th Congress). The findings and conclusions presented herein reflect the information contained within those documents.

Works cited

1. H.R.22 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): SAVE Act, accessed April 15, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/22
2. Text - H.Res.294 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): Providing for ..., accessed April 15, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-resolution/294/text
3. House passes Republican bill requiring voters provide proof of U.S. citizenship - PBS, accessed April 15, 2025, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/house-passes-republican-bill-requiring-voters-provide-proof-of-u-s-citizenship
4. Voter Registration | NJ DOS - Division of Elections - Polling Place Search, accessed April 15, 2025, https://voter.svrs.nj.gov/register
5. Text - H.R.22 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): SAVE Act | Congress.gov, accessed April 15, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/22/text
6. SAVE Act (H.R. 22) - IssueVoter, accessed April 15, 2025, https://issuevoter.org/bills/4485/hr22-119-save-act-hr-22
7. SAVE Act seeks proof of citizenship for voter registration amid claims of fraud - NBC4 Washington, accessed April 15, 2025, https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/national-international/gop-save-act-hr-22-strict-proof-citizenship-requirement-voting/3844246/
8. The SAVE Act Would Disenfranchise Millions of Citizens - Center for American Progress, accessed April 15, 2025, https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-save-act-would-disenfranchise-millions-of-citizens/
9. Oppose the SAVE Act: A Threat to Our Right to Vote - APIAVote, accessed April 15, 2025, https://apiavote.org/oppose-the-save-act/
10. The SAVE Act: Overview and Facts - Center for American Progress, accessed April 15, 2025, https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-save-act-overview-and-facts/
11. How the House's requirement to prove U.S. citizenship could affect the ability to register to vote - WHYY, accessed April 15, 2025, https://whyy.org/articles/save-act-gop-voter-registation-citizenship-proof/
12. The SAVE Act: An attempt to restrict voting rights - Brookings Institution, accessed April 15, 2025, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-save-act-an-attempt-to-restrict-voting-rights/
13. The SAVE Act: How a Proof of Citizenship Requirement Would Impact Elections, accessed April 15, 2025, https://responsivegov.org/research/the-save-act-how-a-proof-of-citizenship-requirement-would-impact-elections/
14. What You Need to Know About the SAVE Act - Campaign Legal Center, accessed April 15, 2025, https://campaignlegal.org/update/what-you-need-know-about-save-act
15. The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act is a Trick | League of Women Voters, accessed April 15, 2025, https://www.lwv.org/blog/safeguard-american-voter-eligibility-save-act-trick
16. Congresswoman Simon to Vote NO on the SAVE Act, accessed April 15, 2025, https://simon.house.gov/media/press-releases/congresswoman-simon-vote-no-save-act
17. House Passes the SAVE Act | U.S. Representative Rick W. Allen, accessed April 15, 2025, https://allen.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=6720
18. Heritage Action Commends House Passage of the SAVE Act, accessed April 15, 2025, https://heritageaction.com/press/heritage-action-commends-house-passage-of-the-save-act
19. Tell Your Legislator: Vote NO on the SAVE Act! | PeoplePower.org - ACLU, accessed April 15, 2025, https://act.aclu.org/a/save-act
20. Democracy Maps | Proof of Citizenship Requirements for Registration, accessed April 15, 2025, https://www.lgbtmap.org/democracy-maps/proof_of_citizenship_requirements
21. The Dangers of Congress's Latest Election Bill | Brennan Center for Justice, accessed April 15, 2025, https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/dangers-congresss-latest-election-bill
22. What the SAVE Act could mean for millions of voters, according to a Brennan Center expert, accessed April 15, 2025, https://www.kpbs.org/news/national/2025/04/15/what-the-save-act-could-mean-for-millions-of-voters-according-to-a-brennan-center-expert
23. About The National Voter Registration Act - Department of Justice, accessed April 15, 2025, https://www.justice.gov/crt/about-national-voter-registration-act
24. National Voter Registration Act of 1993 - Wikipedia, accessed April 15, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Voter_Registration_Act_of_1993
25. The National Voter Registration Act Of 1993 (NVRA) - Department of Justice, accessed April 15, 2025, https://www.justice.gov/crt/national-voter-registration-act-1993-nvra
26. H.R.2 - 103rd Congress (1993-1994): National Voter Registration Act of 1993, accessed April 15, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/house-bill/2
27. National Voter Registration Act - FVAP.gov, accessed April 15, 2025, https://www.fvap.gov/info/laws/nvra
28. Federal Voter Registration Requirements - KLRD, accessed April 15, 2025, https://klrd.gov/publications/federal-voter-registration-requirements/
29. National Voter Registration Application Form for U.S. Citizens (ENG), accessed April 15, 2025, https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/eac_assets/1/6/Federal_Voter_Registration_ENG.pdf
30. House Passes SAVE Act; Brennan Center Reacts, accessed April 15, 2025, https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/house-passes-save-act-brennan-center-reacts
31. Registering to Vote 101 - U.S. Election Assistance Commission, accessed April 15, 2025, https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/Voting%20101/Additional%20Resources/Registering%20to%20Vote%20101.pdf
32. Register to vote in U.S. elections | Vote.gov, accessed April 15, 2025, https://vote.gov/register
33. Voter FAQs | U.S. Election Assistance Commission, accessed April 15, 2025, https://www.eac.gov/voters/voter-faqs
34. Voter ID requirements | USAGov, accessed April 15, 2025, https://www.usa.gov/voter-id
35. How to register to vote | USAGov, accessed April 15, 2025, https://www.usa.gov/register-to-vote