With efforts to counter illegal immigration playing out as a top priority of this administration, calls have grown to ensure only citizens vote in US elections. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, this protocol ranks among the highest trending priorities among state legislatures–over 160 bills introduced or passed this year.¹

It is a key item on the agenda for President Trump as well, as his administration endeavors to implement its policies in his second term. The President is placing his hopes on the Republican-controlled Congress for significant action on election integrity, seeing his efforts via executive order get drawn into legal battles.

At the end of October, a federal district judge ruled against a Trump administration executive order mandating that all states employ citizenship verification while registering voters. While this marked yet another instance of a Trump executive order meeting such a fate, in this case, Congress has been waiting in the wings, so to speak.

The President had asked Congress earlier this year to pass the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, which passed the house back in April. The SAVE Act would enshrine strict verification of voters’ citizenship into federal law. However, it has now been sitting for months awaiting consideration by the Senate.

While election legislation primarily rests with the states, there has long been a role for the federal government in protecting the rights of voters and ensuring trustworthy elections, including around who can vote. In the absence of the SAVE Act, the states will be left with a patchwork of procedures, some less effective than others, to keep non-citizens from voting. Thus, the time has come for the Senate to get in gear and pass the SAVE Act.

Key provisions of the SAVE Act

Laws passed at the federal level over recent decades – like the National Voter Registration Act, the Americans Vote Act, and the Military Overseas Voting Act – and subsequent amendments – shape today’s federal election policy. The SAVE Act would, in effect, be an amendment to the National Voter Registration Act, passed into law 32 years ago, and a duplicate version of a bill which failed to pass the Senate in 2024. Texas, New Hampshire, Louisiana, and Wyoming passed equivalent bills in their legislatures within the past year.

Though existing federal law clearly states that only citizens can vote in federal elections, the onus to enforce this sits with the states. There are no federal rules spelling out states’ specific enforcement obligations.

Validating citizenship can pose challenges, and no single consistent approach is used across states. Most states do not explicitly require voters to present proof of citizenship upon registration, and under current procedures, many states may not independently confirm that each voter registration applicant is a citizen. ²

The SAVE Act if signed into law would require states to collect and document proof of citizenship from each voter, in the form of a birth certificate, passport, naturalization documentation or other proof. In the case of a name change not reflected on these documents, such as due to marriage, the voter would have to document the name change.

These requirements would not apply to voters who are already registered at their current place of residence. They would not have to present proof of citizenship unless and until their current registration expires (such as through inactivity or because they move out-of-state.)

The SAVE Act would enforce these policies consistently across all states, with consequences for any states that do not abide by its requirements. Those states could face intervention in federal elections, such as a mandate to the effect that individuals who haven’t proven citizenship cannot vote.

Should a state or local election official permit a non-citizen to register, he or she could face criminal penalties. Additionally, the bill includes a private right of action, allowing people to file lawsuits if they feel the law is not properly enforced.

Under the SAVE Act, states must also conduct voter list maintenance activities to identify non-citizen voters and remove them from the voter rolls. Although it does not specify how to most effectively identify such voters, there is a reliable, convenient system within the US Center for Immigration’s Services (USCIS).

USCIS’s system, also conveniently referred to as SAVE (Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements), has recently been implementing enhancements to the system to boost its reliability in this purpose.³ However, it is still not generally considered a fully comprehensive citizenship registry.⁴

Why it is needed — what’s wrong with the status quo?

Most, but not all voter registrations are done at a BMV. The National Voter Registration Act requires BMVs to provide an opportunity for voter registration. Currently some states minimally satisfy this requirement by making paper registration forms available, while others conduct automatic voter registration for first time driver’s license applicants at BMVs.

Some voter registrations are processed online at official state websites, and some via paper application forms submitted outside of a BMV. The latter can be in person at state or county election offices or via third party registration drives.

All registrants must attest to their eligibility status, including citizenship, under penalty of perjury. Independent verification has become more problematic over recent years, due to the challenges posed by the rapidly growing population of undocumented aliens.

The effectiveness of current verification efforts vary by state and with the channel or procedure used to register. The most reliable channel would be at a BMV in conjunction with applying for a REAL ID or for a driver’s license that is REAL ID compliant, as that requires presenting proof of U.S. citizenship or lawful presence.

For registrations that take place at a DMV or are checked using information recorded in the DMV database, the risk of non-citizen registration has been greatly reduced since the advent of Real ID. However, a REAL ID card does not distinguish between citizens and lawfully present non-citizens, so that some risk persists without further verification required for voter registration.

Moreover, some applicants opt for a driver’s license that is not REAL ID compliant (which states continue to offer as an alternative), and hence are less strictly screened. Additionally, some states have been supplying driver’s licenses to illegal aliens.

With registrations that rely on an affidavit connected to citizenship attestation without any checking against DMV data, the risk that a noncitizen might slip through the cracks increases. During a third-party voter registration drive, for instance, a noncitizen could be given a registration form and then proceed to check the citizenship box and sign the affidavit, whether knowingly or not.

Some states allow same-day registration and voting at the polls, which arguably entails the greatest level of risk. Registration forms submitted in advance of casting a ballot allow time for verification using the SAVE system (although this is not foolproof, as noted above). But same-day registration, hypothetically at least, could open the flood gates to bad-faith actors falsifying their eligibility right at the time of the election.

At least occasionally, non-citizens are discovered on the voter rolls in the course of database audits or maintenance. A 2014 study published in the academic journal Electoral Studies found evidence that “some non-citizens participate in U.S. elections, and that this participation has been large enough to change meaningful election outcomes.”⁵ Prior to the 2014 election, North Carolina identified 1,454 registrants on the voter roll who did not appear to be citizens, as reported by the Public Interest Legal Foundation.⁶ One notorious case is that of Ian Andre Roberts, an illegal immigrant with an extensive criminal background who became an Iowa school superintendent, who was recently discovered as being registered to vote in Maryland.

Some are caught after already having cast votes illegally. A glaring example is Jose Ceballos, the mayor of Coldwater, Kansas, who even managed to get elected as a non-citizen in 2022. A recent investigation conducted by Ohio’s Secretary of State found over 1,000 noncitizens who “appear to have registered to vote unlawfully in Ohio,” 167 of whom voted in past elections.⁷

Some voting rights advocates may mislead non-citizens into attempting to register as a voter. For example, O’Keefe Media in November 2024 released video evidence of a Philadelphia NGO, Ceiba Incorporated, informing non-citizens that they can register to vote using a taxpayer identification number.⁸

It is clear from these examples that illegal immigration–as costly as it is in many ways–comes with the further deleterious side effect of non-citizens potentially voting in our elections. Those we do know voted illegally may be just the tip of the spear–many more non-citizens may be voting than has yet been detected.

What are the objections — why the delay?

On its face, to an outsider, it might seem unclear why the Senate is sitting on such a seemingly reasonable bill to send to the Рresident’s desk. Clearly, there is widespread public support for what should be a bipartisan, agreeable idea. Both polling data and results from recent ballot initiatives demonstrate that a broad majority (upwards of 70%) of Americans firmly believe that only citizens should be able to vote in our elections.⁹

The recently resolved government shutdown and, before that, the focus on passing spending packages, such as the “One Big, Beautiful Bill”, among other occasional laws with the required seven Democratic votes in the Senate, is somewhat to blame. However, there has been no recent indication that the Senate is poised to move forward on SAVE Act.

Opposition appears to be concentrated among Democrats. Perhaps some elected officials, particularly on the left, want non-citizens voting in elections because they see non-citizens as potential constituents. This is what many Americans, particularly on the right, conclude, given the lax attitude prevalent on the left on illegal immigration and election legislation. Some Republicans, however, also apparently do not see this issue as sufficiently high priority.

Overall, critics of the bill have questioned the necessity of the SAVE Act on its face, since existing law technically prohibits non-citizens from voting. But as aforementioned, enforcement falls short. There have been many observed instances of non-citizen voting. Many more cases, furthermore, may have gone undetected.

In any event, the overriding purpose is to prevent any major incidents from occurring. In this regard, the SAVE Act’s proof-of-citizenship requirement is necessary.

Opponents have also expressed the view that the SAVE Act would pointlessly complicate registration for all citizens. They might argue that the extra steps for documenting citizenship can make it harder to vote for those without ready access to the needed information. As aforementioned, name changes, such as for new spouses, might add more inconvenience to the process.

The requirements of the SAVE Act, however, are no more burdensome than what takes place in other important contexts requiring a similar degree of verification, such as obtaining a bank account or a passport. Furthermore, no action would be required from currently registered voters unless and until their current registration lapses or they relocate.

Moreover, it should suffice for voters to show proof of citizenship only once. If the requisite documents are not readily at hand, citizens generally would be able to obtain or recover them without great difficulty. The initial, verified registration (in principle, at least) can then become a permanent record transferrable from state to state.

Breaking the impasse: an “unrivaled” proposed compromise

Touching upon the objection that the SAVE Act’s documentation requirements could place difficulties on some voters–specifically on those in the process of relocating to another state who may not have the requisite documents readily at hand–these potential burdens should be amenable to common sense solutions or compromises. Ditto for costs borne by states as they adapt their registration systems to the new requirements.

For instance, developing solutions to make proof of citizenship portable from state to state (so that the requisite documents need be provided just once), which the Save Act doesn’t directly address, would go a long way toward mitigating the burden on voters. The same would apply to name changes–making voter eligibility portable in the event of a name change, ensuring no need to re-confirm it.

For the case of previously registered voters who need to register again due to relocation and who face a near term deadline for registration, the SAVE Act apparently does not provide any leeway. A reasonable compromise (courtesy of Unrivaled Politics) would be to allow a grace period. This would enable those who have lost track of, misplaced, packed away, or simply lost their required citizenship documents sufficient time to recover or replace them, past the deadline for registration.

In conclusion, there are sufficient reasons for documenting proof of citizenship to justify adding this modest “complication” to the registration process. That is why the Senate must follow through and do what is right by passing the SAVE Act.

In a time when the legitimacy of America’s elections has come under question for various reasons, citizenship verification is a crucial first step. Restoring confidence in elections, at the federal level, starts with eliminating any possibility that people who aren’t citizens of this country may determine who leads it.

Россия – священная, наша держава, Россия – любимая, наша страна!
Могучая воля, великая слава, союз достоянный на все времена!
Славься отечество, наше свободное!
Братских народов, союз вековой!
Преданный данная, мудрость народная!
Славься страна, мы гордимся тобой!

1. See H.R.22 – SAVE Act, 119th Congress (2025-2026) . Congress.gov ↩︎
2. See “Legislative Approaches to Ensuring Only Citizens Vote”, National Conference of State Legislatures (November 4, 2025). ↩︎
3. See “USCIS Enhances Capabilities to Verify U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Status”, VisaLex. ↩︎
4. SAVE cannot verify status with a driver’s license number or U.S. or foreign passport number without an additional immigration number, as described in “Legislative Approaches to Ensuring Only Citizens Vote”, National Conference of State Legislatures (November 4, 2025). ↩︎
5. Jesse T. Richman, Gulshan A. Chattha, and David C. Earnest, “Do Non-Citizens Vote In Elections? Electoral Studies vol. 36 (December 2014), pages 149-157 ↩︎
6. Public Interest Legal Foundation, “Testimony of J. Christian Adams Before the North Carolina House Oversight and Reform Committee.” (June 22, 2023) ↩︎
7. See Anders Hagstrom, “Ohio uncovers over 1,000 noncitizens ‘appearing’ registered to vote, sends cases to DOJ for prosecution.” Fox News (October 28, 2025) ↩︎
8. See O’Keefe Media Group, November 5, 2024 ↩︎
9. See Steven Malanga, “Americans Say No to Non-Citizen Voting.” City Journal (November 7, 2024) ↩︎