The SAVE America Gets the “What” Right but the “How” Wrong

Voter ID and citizenship verification are not fringe ideas. Strong majorities of Americans on both sides of the aisle support them in principle, and passing prudent voter ID and citizenship verification requirements may be a worthwhile step toward rebuilding Americans’ confidence in elections, even if scant evidence exists that these measures will reduce fraud.

The new SAVE America Act (H.R. 7296) seeks to address these concerns, but in doing so, reflects much of what makes Congress dysfunctional: urgency and partisan messaging substituting for deliberation and pragmatic design.

The SAVE America Act, introduced by Rep. Chip Roy (R-Tex.), builds upon the SAVE Act Rep. Roy introduced last year by adding a voter ID mandate to the prior bills’ citizenship verification requirements. At a high level, the goals are straightforward: only U.S. citizens should vote, and voters should verify their identity at the polls. The difficulty lies in how the bill attempts to achieve those goals.

The most immediate issue is the timeline. The bill would take effect immediately upon enactment, and it gives the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) just 10 days to roll out new guidance to the states. Moreover, states would need to update their systems and practices in time for the next federal election. While many Americans would be excited to see new election integrity practices adopted in time for the upcoming 2026 election, this approach is unworkable in practice. Updating voter registration systems to manage citizenship verification, training local officials, and communicating changes to voters takes time, not to mention money, that has not been provided by Congress nor budgeted by the states.

The tight deadlines are not just an administrative concern. Late-breaking changes to election rules inevitably invite litigation, emergency injunctions, and inconsistent enforcement across states. A rushed rollout that produces confusion or uneven application could undermine confidence rather than create it. If the SAVE America Act is about shoring up voter confidence, a delayed but credible system that is ready for  implementation in 2028 would be far more preferable.

Beyond the unworkable timelines, the bill also places significant burdens on voters themselves. As written, it would require every voter to gather documents such as birth certificates, marriage certificates, or military records to establish citizenship. While these requirements are often portrayed as targeting specific groups to shape the electorate, the larger problem is more practical than partisan. Considering the state and federal agencies already possess much of this information, the administrative burden should be on the government, not voters. A more thoughtful approach might mirror Arizona’s rollout of citizenship verification, which minimized the impact on voters by relying on administrative data matching.

The voter ID provisions raise similar concerns. The bill requires that identification documents indicate U.S. citizenship on the face of the ID. Yet only five states offer an ID with such a designation. Even REAL ID-compliant licenses, often marked with a gold star, only verify lawful presence and not citizenship. As a result, states would need to redesign ID systems in order for the most common form of voter ID, driver’s licenses, to be compliant—yet another reason why the rushed rollout is unworkable.

Unfortunately, the bill’s drafting problems are not limited to substance. There are also signs that the SAVE America Act is more of a messaging vehicle than a finished piece of legislation. One provision of the bill refers to the “Department of War,” a name that no longer exists in statute despite its recent re-emergence. This may seem trivial, but if the goal is to imbue trust in government administration, the bill should emphasize professionalism, not partisan signaling.

The political context of the bill helps explain its current momentum. Allegations of widespread voter fraud, high-profile election investigations, and a standoff over Department of Homeland Security funding have created pressure for swift action. But the context only explains the urgency; it doesn’t justify it. This bill would benefit from a Schoolhouse Rock approach to lawmaking with hearings, public feedback, amendments, and bicameral scrutiny. The founders’ intended legislative process would likely catch and potentially rectify many of the issues highlighted here, ensuring that the new security measures actually serve to build trust in elections.

The problems with the SAVE America Act are less about whether the goals are legitimate—they are—but instead whether this bill advances them competently. A better approach would establish prudent implementation timelines, reduce burdens on voters, and rely upon legislative processes that build trust. Election confidence is built slowly and lost quickly. Legislation that values speed and symbolism over competence risks undercutting its very intent.