– FROM BIPARTISAN POLICY CENTER (BPC), JULY 17, 2026

https://bipartisanpolicy.org/article/five-things-to-know-about-the-save-act/

This page was originally published on February 2, 2026 and last updated on July 17, 2026.

The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE America) Act requires voters to provide documentary proof of citizenship at the time of registration and a photo ID at the time of voting.

Both parties agree that voter registration should permit all eligible citizens—and only eligible citizens—to register and vote in federal elections. Although instances of noncitizen registration and voting are rare, the SAVE America Act’s goal of ensuring that only citizens can register to vote is important. But there are easier, more cost-effective ways to improve citizenship verification that don’t create new barriers for eligible voters.

Here’s what you need to know about the SAVE America Act:

1. Citizenship is already a requirement to vote, and instances of noncitizen voting are rare.
2. Many eligible citizens don’t have access to documentary proof of citizenship.
3. There are better ways to verify citizenship that put the responsibility on government, not voters.
4. The SAVE America Act could have unintended consequences for election officials and election administration.
5. The SAVE America Act’s photo ID requirements are more restrictive than any state law currently in place.
6. The SAVE America Act needs more time and resources to be implemented well.

The SAVE America Act was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives in February 2026. Congress is now weighing a scaled-back version through the budget reconciliation process. Instead of a blanket mandate, this version takes an incentive-based approach: No state would be required to adopt documentary proof of citizenship or photo voter ID, but states that meet the requirements would qualify for federal funding. The House set aside $10 billion for this purpose in its July 15, 2026, budget resolution. Because the resolution specifies only the total dollar amount, the details of the framework are still undetermined. For perspective, that $10 billion is nearly double everything Congress has allocated for election administration since 2002 combined.¹

1. Citizenship is already a requirement to vote, and instances of noncitizen voting are rare

In effect, the SAVE America Act introduces a documentation requirement for a law that has existed for decades: the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 explicitly prohibits noncitizens from voting in federal elections.

To do so, the SAVE America Act amends the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 by introducing a requirement for individuals to provide proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections.

Registration and voting attempts by noncitizens are routinely investigated and prosecuted by the appropriate authorities, and there is no evidence that attempts at voting by noncitizens have ever been significant enough to impact any election’s outcome. In fact, there is ample evidence to indicate that registration and voting by noncitizens is few and far between.

Utah, for example, performed a citizenship review of its entire voter registration list from April 2025 through May 2026. After a time-intensive, multi-step review of more than 2 million registered voters, they identified only 27 confirmed instances of noncitizen registration.²

Additionally, many state election offices began using U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ (USCIS) Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements program in 2025 to verify voter citizenship. Records from this program show that just 0.04% of voter verification cases are returned as noncitizens.

The actual rate of noncitizens may be even smaller than this data suggests. Travis Couty, Texas, for example, reported that 25% of the voters that USCIS flagged as potential noncitizens had already provided proof of citizenship when registering to vote.

2. Many eligible citizens don’t have documentary proof of citizenship

BPC’s analysis finds that about 12% of registered voters lack the types of documentation that would be required under the SAVE America Act.³

The SAVE America Act defines acceptable forms of documentary proof of U.S. citizenship for federal elections as:

• Real IDs indicating that the applicant is a U.S. citizen
• Valid (unexpired) U.S. passports
• Military identification cards along with service records indicating place of birth in the U.S.
• A valid government-issued photo ID presented together with one of the following documents:
  • a certified birth certificate
  • a Record of Birth extract
  • an adoption decree showing a U.S. place of birth
  • a Consular Report of Birth Abroad
  • a Naturalization Certificate or Certificate of Citizenship
  • an American Indian Card with the classification “KIC”

Many of these documents are relatively uncommon in the general population. For example, only five states issue Real IDs that indicate U.S. citizenship.

As a result, most Americans who would need to provide documentary proof are likely to rely on one of two common pathways: an unexpired U.S. passport or a government-issued photo ID paired with a birth certificate.

Furthermore, birth certificates often lack information that matches a person’s current identity. For instance, someone who has changed their name through marriage or court order may need to present a third document (such as a marriage certificate) to join their proof of citizenship (e.g., birth certificate) with their proof of identity (e.g., driver’s license), further decreasing the likelihood that a voter will have the appropriate documentation on hand to successfully register.

Even if voters were to provide documentary proof of citizenship, verifying the authenticity of those documents is an inherently complex task, one that election officials and motor vehicle departments often do not have the resources or training to perform.

Kansas offers a case study of how a documentary proof requirement would likely play out in practice. Before the law took effect, noncitizen registration in Kansas was exceedingly rare, accounting for about 0.002% of registered voters. After adoption, the documentary proof of citizenship requirement prevented roughly 31,000 eligible citizens, or 12% of all applicants, from registering to vote. In short, the law prevented far more citizens from registering to vote than noncitizens.

3. There are better ways to verify citizenship that put the responsibility on government, not voters

Recent voter citizenship verification proposals tend to take one of two approaches:

1. Front-end verification, where the burden is on the voter to prove their citizenship by providing documentary proof to a state or local official. This is the approach the SAVE America Act takes.
2. Back-end verification, where election or other government officials, such as those at the department of motor vehicles, consult existing government data to verify a voter’s citizenship status.

Both models have trade-offs. Front-end verification risks burdening eligible voters who lack ready access to proof of citizenship, while back-end verification hinges on the accuracy, completeness, and interoperability of government databases. Between the two approaches, we encourage policymakers to prioritize back-end verification over front-end verification because it places the responsibility on government officials rather than voters to prove citizenship.

Under a back-end approach, it’s essential that states give voters identified as potential noncitizens ample opportunity to prove their citizenship, given that many government databases are outdated or otherwise incorrect. Instead of automatic cancellation after a short notice period, BPC recommends election officials place voters flagged as potential noncitizens into a “challenged” or “pending verification” status. Under this approach, a voter would remain registered but be required to affirm their citizenship before they can vote again.

For more on back-end verification, see What Adding Motor Vehicle Data to USCIS’s SAVE System Means for Election Administration and Modernizing Voter List Maintenance: An Evidence-Based Framework for Access and Integrity.

4. The SAVE America Act could have unintended consequences for election officials and election administration

For voters who register by mail, the SAVE America Act requires documentary proof of citizenship to be delivered in person to an election office, effectively nullifying the benefits of mail registration.

At the same time, the legislation does not clearly specify how documentary proof must be submitted for online registration, leaving election officials without clear guidance on acceptable delivery methods. This ambiguity increases the risk of inconsistent implementation across jurisdictions and places election officials in the position of making high-stakes judgment calls without clear statutory direction.

The SAVE America Act also exposes election officials to heightened legal and personal risk. It establishes criminal penalties for officials who register an applicant who fails to present documentary proof of citizenship, even if that applicant is in fact a U.S. citizen. The bill also authorizes private individuals to sue election officials under the same circumstances.

Together, these provisions could encourage overly cautious behavior (e.g., not accepting applications to register when an election official isn’t familiar with the type of documentation provided) and further strain an election workforce already facing high turnover and burnout.

5. The SAVE America Act’s photo ID requirements are more restrictive than any state law currently in place

BPC recommends that all states request or require voters to show identification at the polls. However, we suggest that states accept a broad range of identification types—including photo IDs, non-photo IDs, utility bills, bank statements, government checks, paychecks, or other government documents that show the name and address of the registered voter.

The Institute for Responsive Government recently conducted a review of each state’s voter ID laws and found that not a single state meets the ID requirements of the SAVE America Act. They explain that “In large, rural states like Alaska where residents may have to travel to vote, having flexible backup ID options is critical when many voters have an eligible ID but may have simply forgotten to bring it with them. In a 2021 study in Michigan, researchers found that of voters who signed an affidavit of identity due to lack of photo ID, more than 95% were in the DMV database and had been issued a Michigan license or state ID card; they just did not have it with them at the polls.”

6. The SAVE America Act needs more time and resources to be implemented well

The SAVE America Act requires significant changes to each step of the voter registration process: how voters register, how their identities are verified, and how list maintenance is performed on an ongoing basis. These changes would be costly and time consuming, taking months—if not years—to achieve.

Despite the administrative difficulty of implementation, the SAVE America Act prioritizes expediency over precision. The act becomes effective on the date of enactment, giving states no time to adjust processes. It also requires that the U.S. Election Assistance Commission offer implementation guidance to states within just 10 days of enactment. Further, the SAVE Act offers no funding to states to assist with implementation costs.

BPC recommends that policymakers avoid making major changes in an election year given the likelihood that they result in administrative errors and create confusion for voters.

Appendix: Comparison of the SAVE, SAVE America, and MEGA Acts

The SAVE America Act is not new; it is an expanded version of the SAVE Act first introduced in May of 2024. The House is also considering a third piece of legislation, the Make Elections Great Again (MEGA) Act, which includes both the documentary proof of citizenship and photo ID requirements of the SAVE America Act, as well as broader changes to election technology and mail voting.

The throughline between each of these bills is the requirement that new registrants provide documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote. The documentary proof of citizenship requirements are largely the same across the three bills; therefore, the major points of this article apply to each piece of legislation.

Footnotes

1. Between 2002 and 2026, Congress allocated $5.065 billion total in federal election funding. ⤴

2. On May 27, 2026, the Utah Lieutenant Governor’s office further explained that in addition to the 27 confirmed instances of noncitizen registration, “there are 5,007 registrants whose citizenship status we were unable to confirm, many of whom registered to vote years before driver license or Social Security numbers were required. This week, these individuals will receive notice of the new citizenship requirements in state law. To be eligible to vote in upcoming state and local races, they will need to show proof of citizenship to their county clerks, otherwise they will receive a federal-only ballot.” Those individuals registered prior to the Help America Vote Act of 2002 and are very likely U.S. citizens. The office continued to note that they “also identified 25 registered voters who are probable noncitizens. These individuals will have 30 days to provide proof of citizenship before being removed from voter rolls by their respective county clerks.” ⤴

3. This rate is roughly consistent with analyses performed by other groups. The University of Maryland’s Center for Democracy and Civic Engagement, for example, previously found that as many as 9% of voting-age citizens, or 21.3 million people, cannot readily access documentary proof of citizenship. This piece builds on that work by linking a birth certificate to photo ID possession (as the SAVE America Act does), and by providing additional subgroup analysis. ⤴

from  NYT  Caroline Soler Polling  researcher- July 7

Recent polling on the congressional generic ballot shows Democrats with a modest advantage. The party out of power typically gains ground in midterm elections, and these early surveys suggest this may be taking shape ahead of 2026. Democrats lead in the vast majority of recent polls, though by single-digit margins. However, with redistricting efforts underway in several states, the national vote share that Democrats need to retake the House will depend on the extent of these changes.