House Republicans on Wednesday approved legislation that would impose new proof-of-citizenship requirements for voters ahead of the midterm election season, a measure their opponents said is designed to make voting harder for eligible Americans. The package, called the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility, or SAVE America Act, passed on a mostly party-line 218-213 vote as the House moved quickly on a top Trump administration priority that faces strong resistance in the Senate.
The bill would require Americans to provide documentary proof of citizenship when they register to vote, most commonly through a valid U.S. passport or birth certificate. It would also require voters to present valid photo identification before they can cast ballots, a requirement some states already have in place. Federal law already requires that voters in national elections be U.S. citizens, but AP reported there is not a documentary proof requirement under existing federal rules.
Republicans said the measure is needed to prevent voter fraud. Experts cited by AP said voter fraud is extremely rare and that very few noncitizens ever slip through; the AP report also stated that fewer than one in 10 Americans lack paperwork proving they are citizens. In committee and floor debate, Rep. Bryan Steil, a Republican from Wisconsin, said some colleagues would call the proposal “voter suppression or Jim Crow 2.0” but argued “those allegations are false,” adding that the bill would strengthen enforcement of existing laws barring noncitizens from voting.
Democrats countered that the change is broad, timed to disrupt election administration, and would result in eligible voters being removed from the rolls. Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, the top Democrat on the House Rules Committee, told lawmakers during a hearing ahead of the floor vote, “Let me be clear what this is about: It’s about Republicans trying to rig the next election,” and said, “Republicans are pushing the Save America Act because they want fewer Americans to vote. It’s that simple.” The AP report described the fight as shadowed by ongoing election-related legal and administrative disputes connected to the Trump administration’s push to challenge or investigate past results.
AP said the legislation is a revised version of a similar bill the House approved last year that sought to clamp down on allegedly fraudulent voting, including by noncitizens. That earlier version won support from four House Democrats but stalled in the Republican-led Senate; in the revised bill, AP reported that only one Democrat, Rep. Henry Cuellar of Texas, voted for it. In this version, AP reported, the process would also address cases in which a voter’s name may have changed, including during marriage.
A central part of the bill would require states to share voter information with the Department of Homeland Security so that the federal government can verify the citizenship of names on voter rolls. Elections officials and some lawmakers have raised concerns that the data-sharing requirement could be intrusive and could lead to people being unlawfully purged if citizenship checks go awry.
State election officials and voting experts said the bill’s timing could create operational problems. Critics said the rules would take effect immediately if both chambers pass the bill and the president signs it, even as primary elections are beginning next month. AP reported that voting experts warned that more than 20 million eligible U.S. citizens of voting age do not have proof of their citizenship readily available and that almost half of Americans do not have a U.S. passport.
In the Senate, Republicans face a difficult path to advancing the legislation under filibuster rules that generally require 60 votes. AP reported that some Republicans, led by Sen. Mike Lee of Utah, are exploring whether the bill could be debated through a “standing filibuster” approach that would lower the practical barrier to allowing debate to continue. AP also reported that Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana said, “I think most people’s minds are open” and that “My mind’s certainly open,” while Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska said she is flat out against the measure.
Murkowski argued the bill conflicts with constitutional authority states have to regulate “times, places, and manner” for federal elections, and she said “one-size-fits-all mandates from Washington, D.C., seldom work in places like Alaska.” She also warned that new federal requirements imposed as states are already preparing could negatively impact election integrity by forcing officials to scramble without the necessary resources. Karen Brinson Bell of Advance Elections, a nonpartisan consulting firm, told lawmakers the bill adds requirements for election officials without additional funding, saying, “Election officials have a simple request of Congress — that you help share their burdens not add to them.”