Federalism, Verification, and the Electorate: A Policy Analysis of the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act

Feb 6, 2026

The legislative landscape of the 119th United States Congress has been profoundly defined by the introduction and House passage of H.R. 22, officially designated as the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act. Introduced by Representative Chip Roy on January 3, 2025, the bill represents the most significant proposed overhaul of federal election administration since the Help America Vote Act of 2002.1 By seeking to amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), H.R. 22 proposes a transition from an attestation-based voter registration system—where applicants swear to their citizenship under penalty of perjury—to a strict documentary-based system.1 The passage of the bill in the House of Representatives on April 10, 2025, by a margin of 220–208, signaled a sharp partisan divide over the mechanics of democratic participation, a conflict that has only intensified as the legislation remains stalled in the Senate as of early 2026.4

Legislative Intent and the Proponent Narrative

The motivation driving H.R. 22 is rooted in a specific interpretation of election integrity and national sovereignty. Proponents argue that the current federal registration framework contains a significant "vulnerability" because it relies on the honor system.5 Representative Chip Roy and Senator Mike Lee, the bill's primary sponsors, contend that the presence of non-citizens on voter rolls, even if they do not vote, erodes public confidence in the legitimacy of the republic.7 This perspective frames the bill as a "commonsense" measure designed to ensure that "American elections belong to American citizens" and that the "cornerstone of our republic" is protected from foreign influence or accidental participation by ineligible residents.7

Table 1: Legislative Timeline and Procedural Milestones of H.R. 22

Date	Action	Chamber	Outcome / Status	Source(s)
January 3, 2025	Introduction of H.R. 22	House	Referred to House Administration	1
March 31, 2025	Rules Committee Hearing	House	Initial Meeting Announcement	10
April 1, 2025	Record Vote on H. Res 282	House	Rejected (206-222)	10
April 7, 2025	Second Rules Committee Meeting	House	Reported by 9-2 vote	10
April 10, 2025	Final House Passage	House	Passed (220-208)	1
April 10, 2025	Received in the Senate	Senate	Referred to Rules Committee	2
January 23, 2026	Renewed Lobbying Push	Senate	Stalled; Pressure from RSC	4

The legislative intent is also linked to a broader political movement focusing on the potential for non-citizen voting in the wake of increased migration. Proponents cite local jurisdictions, such as New York City, that have attempted to allow non-citizens to vote in municipal elections as a catalyst for federal intervention.7 Senator Mike Rounds emphasized that the rule of citizen-only voting has been "loosely enforced in blue states for far too long," suggesting that H.R. 22 is necessary to impose a uniform, rigorous federal standard that overrides state-level leniency.3 This motivation is further bolstered by public opinion data; an October 2024 Gallup poll found that 83 percent of American voters support a requirement for proof of citizenship during voter registration.5

The Verification Mechanism: Defining Documentary Proof

H.R. 22 fundamentally changes the definition of what constitutes an acceptable application to register to vote. The bill amends Section 3 of the NVRA to create an exhaustive list of "documentary proof of United States citizenship" (DPOC).11 This shift moves the United States toward a more European-style national registration model, albeit one managed by the states under federal mandate.1

Table 2: Hierarchy of Acceptable Documentary Proof under H.R. 22

Document Type	Specific Requirements	Notes on Accessibility	Source(s)
REAL ID (Citizenship Marker)	Must explicitly indicate U.S. citizenship.	Not all REAL IDs indicate citizenship.	1
U.S. Passport	Valid and unexpired.	Only 48% of citizens possess one.	11
Certified Birth Certificate	Issued by State/Local/Tribal gov; must have seal/signature.	Often requires fees and separate ID to obtain.	1
Naturalization Papers	Issued by DHS/Secretary of State.	Critical for naturalized citizens.	1
Government Photo ID (Birthplace)	Must show applicant was born in the U.S.	Standard driver's licenses often fail this.	1
American Indian Card	Classification 'KIC' issued by DHS.	Vital for Tribal citizenship verification.	11

A critical insight into the bill's mechanics is the exclusion of standard identification. Standard driver's licenses and state-issued ID cards, which are the most common forms of identification used by Americans, would no longer be sufficient for registration because many states issue these documents to non-citizens who are legal residents.1 This exclusion creates a "documentation gap" where an individual may have the ID required to board a plane or drive a car but lacks the specific papers required to exercise their right to vote.1

Furthermore, the bill imposes a rigorous "in-person" requirement. Section 2(b) stipulates that states shall not process an application unless DPOC is presented with the application.11 In practice, this means that while an individual might submit a registration form by mail, the registration remains "incomplete" and the individual "shall not be registered" until they physically present their birth certificate or passport to an election official.1 This provision is a second-order reaction to the proliferation of mail-in and online registration systems, effectively re-localizing the gatekeeping function of the election office.13

The Opposition Argument: Disenfranchisement and Redundancy

The debate surrounding H.R. 22 is characterized by a fundamental disagreement over the existence of the problem the bill seeks to solve. Opponents, including civil rights organizations like the ACLU and the Brennan Center for Justice, argue that the bill is an unnecessary redundancy.7 They point to the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which already makes it a federal crime for non-citizens to vote in federal elections, a crime punishable by imprisonment and deportation.1

Evidence from existing state-level verification programs suggests that non-citizen voting is statistically anomalous. Data from the USCIS Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program, which many states began using in 2025, shows that only 0.04 percent of voter verification cases are returned as non-citizens.14 In Travis County, Texas, it was found that 25 percent of those "flagged" by federal databases as potential non-citizens had already provided proof of citizenship at registration, illustrating the high rate of "false positives" in automated verification systems.14

The core of the opposition's argument is that the bill's requirements will sweep in and block millions of eligible citizens. The Brennan Center reports that approximately 9 percent of voting-age citizens—21.3 million people—do not have immediate access to their birth certificates, passports, or naturalization papers.4 The opposition highlights that the bill's primary "victim" is not the non-citizen attempting to fraud the system, but the eligible American citizen who has lost their papers, changed their name, or lacks the financial resources to navigate a new bureaucratic hurdle.20

Demographic Impact: Who Gets Affected?

The impact of H.R. 22 is not distributed equally across the American electorate. By requiring specific documents and in-person visits, the bill creates a "socioeconomic sieve" that disproportionately filters out specific demographic groups.

Married Women and Name Change Obstacles

The largest single group affected by the SAVE Act is married women. Approximately 80 percent of married women change their legal name, yet their birth certificates—the primary form of DPOC for those without passports—still reflect their maiden names.13 Conservative estimates suggest that 69 million women nationwide do not have a birth certificate that matches their current legal name.4 H.R. 22 does not provide a mechanism for using marriage certificates to "bridge" the name gap, leaving it to individual state regulations that may vary wildly in their permissiveness.18

The Elderly and the Documentation Gap

Senior citizens, particularly those over the age of 80, represent another high-risk group. Approximately 14.1 percent of citizens in this age bracket lack access to citizenship documents.16 Many seniors were born at home or in rural settings where birth records were not strictly centralized, or they may have lost their original records over decades of life.4 Furthermore, seniors are the demographic group least likely to possess an unexpired passport.4

Youth and Low-Income Voters

Younger voters (ages 18-29) are three times more likely than older voters to have difficulty accessing their DPOC.16 This is often due to higher rates of mobility, a lack of established record-keeping, and the high cost of obtaining passports or certified copies of records.16 Financial status is a primary predictor of document access; only 1 in 5 Americans earning less than $50,000 per year possesses a valid passport.13 For these individuals, the $100+ cost of obtaining a passport or the fees associated with vital records requests act as a functional poll tax.20

Table 3: Access to DPOC by Demographic and Socioeconomic Status

Demographic Group	Lack Access to DPOC (%)	Passport Possession (%)	Source(s)
All Citizens	9.0%	~47%	13
Low Income (<$50k) data-preserve-html-node="true"	High Disparity	20.0%	13
High School Education or Less	High Disparity	25.0%	13
Ages 18-29	24.3%	Low	16
Ages 80+	14.1%	Low	16
Hispanic (Georgia Study)	16.0%	Low	16
White/Black (Georgia Study)	10.0%	Medium	16

Technological Fractures and the End of "Motor Voter"

H.R. 22 represents a direct challenge to the technological advancements in voter registration achieved over the last three decades. The NVRA was designed to integrate registration into the daily life of citizens through "Motor Voter" programs and mail-in forms.1 The SAVE Act effectively deconstructs this integration.

The Obsolescence of Online and Automatic Registration

Since the late 2000s, 42 states have implemented online voter registration (OVR) systems to reduce administrative costs and increase accuracy.13 These systems typically verify identity via driver's license numbers. Because standard licenses do not prove citizenship, OVR systems would either need to be redesigned to accept digital uploads of birth certificates—a major cybersecurity risk—or eliminated entirely for federal registration.17 Automatic Voter Registration (AVR), which has surged in popularity since 2015, would also be crippled, as the "automatic" nature of the system is incompatible with a requirement for the citizen to physically bring a passport to a specific government office.13

Disruption of Address Updates

Administrative systems that currently update voter rolls automatically when a citizen changes their address (e.g., through the DMV or the National Change of Address database) would be disrupted.18 Under H.R. 22, every "application to register to vote" requires DPOC.18 In many jurisdictions, a change of address is treated as a new application. This means that a citizen who has been registered for 40 years could be required to produce a birth certificate just to update their address after moving to a new apartment.18

Financial Impact: The Cost of Verification

The financial impact of H.R. 22 is a multifaceted burden shared by the federal government, state and local authorities, and individual taxpayers.

The Unfunded Mandate on States

One of the most significant criticisms of H.R. 22 from election administrators is that it provides "no funding to states to assist with implementation costs".14 State and local governments are already struggling with the escalating costs of cybersecurity and aging voting equipment.16 The SAVE Act requires them to:

• Redesign registration forms and digital portals.
• Hire and train staff to verify a vast array of documents (birth certificates from 50 states, tribal papers, naturalization certificates).
• Perform ongoing "voter roll purges" using expensive federal database access.12

The annual nationwide cost for voter registration at the county level is already estimated at $1 billion.23 Implementing a DPOC requirement would significantly increase this figure. In Kansas, the implementation of a similar law was described as a "costly and time-consuming" process that took years to stabilize, only to be struck down by courts.14

The Economic Burden on the Voter

For the individual, the SAVE Act increases the "cost of voting." A study by All Voting is Local found that a first-time voter spends approximately $105.53 to vote, when accounting for ID fees, travel time, and registration efforts.22 Under H.R. 22, this cost would rise as citizens are forced to pay for certified copies of vital records (averaging $15-$30) or passports ($140+), and lose wages while traveling to and waiting at election offices.4

Table 4: Estimated Costs for Election Administration and Voter Compliance

Category	Estimated Cost	Detail / Frequency	Source(s)
Annual County Registration	$1 Billion	Nationwide total for 3,000+ counties.	23
First-Time Voter Cost	$105.53	Includes travel, time, and ID fees.	22
Updating Registration	$18.18	Average time/cost for address change.	22
State-Issued ID Fee	$33.99	Average cost for basic photo ID.	22
Naturalization Outreach	$1.10 per voter	Follow-up costs for "non-definitive" records.	23
Proposed Federal Grants	$400 Million	Requested by experts to fund modernization (unfunded in bill).	16

Unintended Consequences and Long-Term Effects

The passage of H.R. 22 would likely trigger a series of systemic shifts in the American political landscape, many of which may not have been the primary focus of its authors.

The Rise of the "Two-Tiered" Electorate

If the SAVE Act passes, states that do not adopt identical DPOC requirements for state and local elections would be forced to maintain separate voter rolls.24 This would create a confusing "two-tiered" ballot system where some voters are eligible to vote for Governor but not for President.24 This complexity increases the risk of administrative errors, where eligible federal voters are accidentally given state-only ballots, or vice versa.16

Workforce Burnout and Legal Intimidation

The bill establishes criminal penalties for election officials who register an applicant without proper DPOC, even if that applicant is an eligible U.S. citizen.2 This, combined with the "private right of action," creates a high-stakes environment for low-wage election workers and volunteers.12 The long-term effect may be a further exodus of experienced election administrators, leaving the system more vulnerable to errors and partisan manipulation.14

Geographic and Partisan Disparities

Passport ownership data suggests a significant "partisan geography" to the bill's impact. High rates of passport ownership are concentrated in "blue" states like New Jersey (80%) and New York, while the lowest rates are in "red" states like West Virginia (20.7%) and Mississippi.13 Paradoxically, the SAVE Act may end up suppressing more Republican-leaning voters in rural, low-income areas than Democratic-leaning voters in affluent coastal cities.13

Judicial Prospects and the 2026 Midterms

The future of H.R. 22 is inextricably linked to the 2026 midterm elections. As of February 2, 2026, House Republicans are aggressively lobbying the Senate Rules Committee to schedule a markup.5 The bill's supporters believe that passing the SAVE Act before the midterms is a "top priority" to ensure the integrity of the 2026 results.4

However, even if the bill were to become law, it would face immediate and formidable judicial challenges. The precedent set in Fish v. Kobach, where the Kansas DPOC law was struck down for violating the NVRA and the 14th Amendment, suggests that federal courts would look skeptically at a law that blocks tens of thousands of citizens while finding almost no instances of non-citizen voting.7 The "failsafe" processes suggested in H.R. 22—allowing for affidavits or "other evidence"—are viewed by legal experts as too vague to provide a real protection against disenfranchisement, especially given the criminal penalties hanging over officials who might accept that evidence.14

Conclusion: The Transformation of Democratic Access

H.R. 22 represents a paradigm shift in the American understanding of the "right to vote." For decades, the trend in federal policy has been toward the removal of barriers and the modernization of registration through technology. The SAVE Act reverses this trajectory, prioritizing a high-friction verification model as a defense against a statistically rare occurrence.1

The bill's importance lies not just in its text, but in what it signals about the future of federalism. By imposing a strict documentary standard on the states without providing the necessary funding, the federal government is asserting a new level of control over the "time, place, and manner" of elections.2 For the 21.3 million Americans who lack the required papers, H.R. 22 represents a potential closing of the democratic door.4 For its proponents, it is a necessary wall built to protect the sanctity of the ballot.7 As the 119th Congress progresses, the SAVE Act remains the primary flashpoint in the struggle to balance the security of the vote with the universality of the franchise.

Works cited

1. Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act - Wikipedia, accessed February 6, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safeguard_American_Voter_Eligibility_Act
2. H.R.22 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): SAVE Act, accessed February 6, 2026, https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/22
3. Rounds Joins Lee and Roy on SAVE Act to Secure Federal Elections, accessed February 6, 2026, https://www.rounds.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/rounds-joins-lee-and-roy-on-save-act-to-secure-federal-elections
4. Oppose the SAVE Act - Passed House (UPDATED 1/23) - 5 Calls, accessed February 6, 2026, https://5calls.org/issue/save-act-voter-suppression/
5. House Republicans Demand Senate Act on SAVE Act After Nearly 300 Days of Stalling, accessed February 6, 2026, https://rsc-pfluger.house.gov/media/press-releases/house-republicans-demand-senate-act-save-act-after-nearly-300-days-stalling
6. All Info - H.R.22 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): SAVE Act, accessed February 6, 2026, https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/22/all-info
7. SAVE Act (H.R. 22) - IssueVoter, accessed February 6, 2026, https://issuevoter.org/bills/4485/hr22-119-save-act-hr-22
8. Rep. Roy, Senator Lee Launch the “SAVE America Act” in Renewed Push for Election Integrity, accessed February 6, 2026, https://roy.house.gov/media/press-releases/rep-roy-senator-lee-launch-save-america-act-renewed-push-election-integrity
9. Titles - H.R.22 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): SAVE Act, accessed February 6, 2026, https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/22/titles
10. H.R. 22 - Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act - House Rules Committee, accessed February 6, 2026, https://rules.house.gov/bill/119/hr-22
11. Text - H.R.22 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): SAVE Act, accessed February 6, 2026, https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/22/text
12. HR22 | US Congress 2025-2026 | SAVE Act - Legislative Tracking | PolicyEngage, accessed February 6, 2026, https://trackbill.com/bill/us-congress-house-bill-22-save-act/2586195/
13. The SAVE Act Would Disenfranchise Millions of Citizens - Center for ..., accessed February 6, 2026, https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-save-act-would-disenfranchise-millions-of-citizens/
14. Five Things to Know About the SAVE Act - Bipartisan Policy Center, accessed February 6, 2026, https://bipartisanpolicy.org/article/five-things-to-know-about-the-save-act/
15. What You Need to Know About the SAVE Act | Campaign Legal Center, accessed February 6, 2026, https://campaignlegal.org/update/what-you-need-know-about-save-act
16. The SAVE Act: How a Proof of Citizenship Requirement Would Impact Elections, accessed February 6, 2026, https://responsivegov.org/research/the-save-act-how-a-proof-of-citizenship-requirement-would-impact-elections/
17. The SAVE Act: Overview and Facts - Center for American Progress, accessed February 6, 2026, https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-save-act-overview-and-facts/
18. SAVE Act Would Undermine Voter Registration for All Americans ..., accessed February 6, 2026, https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/save-act-would-undermine-voter-registration-all-americans
19. The Lasting Effects of Voter Suppression | Brennan Center for Justice, accessed February 6, 2026, https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/lasting-effects-voter-suppression
20. The SAVE Act: A Threat to Voter Rights and State Autonomy - Pennsylvania Policy Center, accessed February 6, 2026, https://pennpolicy.org/research_publication/the-save-act-a-threat-to-voter-rights-and-state-autonomy/
21. The Xenophobic Rumors Driving the SAVE Act & Threats to Voting Rights, accessed February 6, 2026, https://www.lwv.org/blog/xenophobic-rumors-driving-save-act-threats-voting-rights
22. All Voting Report: The Cost of Voter Suppression APRIL 2024, accessed February 6, 2026, https://allvotingislocal.org/wp-content/uploads/All-Voting-Report_-The-Cost-of-Voter-Suppression-APRIL-2024.pdf
23. The Costs of Modernizing Voter Registration Systems, A Case Study of California And Arizona - ACLU, accessed February 6, 2026, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/publications/022415-aclu-voterregcostsonline_0.pdf
24. Save Act – Voters Not Politicians, accessed February 6, 2026, https://votersnotpoliticians.com/save-act/