House Passes SAVE Act, Which Requires Proof of Citizenship to Register to Vote
It also requires “states to remove non-citizens from existing voter rolls, while giving them necessary tools to do so.”
The House of Representatives passed Rep. Chip Roy’s (R-TX) Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, which requires proof of citizenship to register to vote.
The bill requires two things:
- Requiring states to obtain proof of citizenship – in person – before registering an individual to vote for a Federal election.
- Requiring states to remove non-citizens from existing voter rolls, while giving them necessary tools to do so.
“In order to preserve this republic, we must uphold what it means to be able to vote in a U.S. election,” Roy said after the passage. “I am grateful that my colleagues answered the call and passed the SAVE Act, as this serves as a critical first step to ensure that we maintain election integrity throughout our country.”
WATCH: @RepChipRoy's Speech Ahead of SAVE Act Vote
“ There’s nothing more sacred under the Constitution than ensuring that the people are able to have the voice in the election of the people that represent them in Washington and throughout the country. Once that is… pic.twitter.com/IW3ItXDRXD
— The Daily Signal (@DailySignal) April 10, 2025
Four Democrats voted yes:
- Rep. Ed Case (HI)
- Rep. Henry Cueller (TX)
- Rep. Jared Golden (ME)
- Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (WA)
Cueller represents Texas’s 28th Congressional District, which borders Texas and Mexico.
The bill amends Section 3 of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 by adding “documentary proof of United States citizenship.”
The documents include:
- A form of identification issued consistent with the requirements of the REAL ID Act of 2005 that indicates the applicant is a citizen of the United States.
- A valid United States passport
- The applicant’s official United States military identification card, together with a United States military record of service showing that the applicant’s place of birth was in the United States.
- A valid government-issued photo identification card issued by a Federal, State or Tribal government showing that the applicant’s place of birth was in the United States
- A valid government-issued photo identification card issued by a Federal, State or Tribal government other than an identification described in paragraphs (1) through (4), but only if presented together with one or more of the following
The documents to go with the valid government-issued photo ID card:
- Birth certificate issued by a state, local government of a state, or a tribal government
- An extract from a United States hospital Record of Birth created at the time of the applicant’s birth which indicates that the applicant’s place of birth was in the United States.
- A final adoption decree showing the applicant’s name and that the applicant’s place of birth was in the United States
- A Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a citizen of the United States or a certification of the applicant’s Report of Birth of a United States citizen issued by the Secretary of State.
- A Naturalization Certificate or Certificate of Citizenship issued by the Secretary of Homeland Security or any other document or method of proof of United States citizenship issued by the Federal government pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act.
- An American Indian Card issued by the Department of Homeland Security with the classification ‘KIC’.’’.
The bill heads to the Senate.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Dems couldn’t muster the ‘what’s it’ to even vote for this?
Of course not. Those millions of illegals were imported for a reason and this is it. Census and voting. I find it interesting that one of the proof citizenship not included is a Social security number. Considering the millions of illegals that got them under Biden this is a wise move
Illegals should not be figured into Congressional seats.
It’s outrageously unfair that illegal aliens help determine congressional seat apportionment. There’s no question that “blue” states’ congressional power and influence have been expanded, as a result — at the expense of “red” states.
The constitution says otherwise. There were no “illegals” at the time, since there were no immigration laws, but there were aliens, women, children, and other people not entitled to vote, and it would have been logical to exclude them so as to give each state an equal number of representatives per potential voter; and yet the drafters and ratifiers chose to insist that all persons be counted, regardless of whether they could vote, with the exception of those Indians who chose not to be part of the USA, and 40% of those who were permanently not free.
(Note, by the way, that contrary to popular myth, slaves did not count at 60% each; rather, 60% of slaves were counted at 100% each, and the other 40% were not counted at all. This comes to the same thing in practical terms, but for the rhetorical purposes to which the clause is put nowadays it makes a huge difference.)
I think the section is ambiguous because as you wrote there was no concept of illegals. I think it can be argued that only citizens should be counted because the entire reason for the censuses is apportionment of representatives to (at least theoretically) represent the voters who elect them.
thank you for your note. I HATE when that small detail is manipulated.
“aliens, women, children, and other people not entitled to vote, and it would have been logical to exclude them so as to give each state an equal number of representatives per potential voter”
But the issue isn’t that only VOTERS should be represented, it is that only CITIZENS should be represented. Be careful not to move the goalposts.
(Yes, I realize that blacks were not citizens back then, which is the entire reason the 60% as an issue. But women and children have always been citizens,)
ztakdot:
Then only voters should be counted, or at least only those entitled to vote. Citizens who can’t vote are not represented, so why should they be counted?
henrybowman:
But that is exactly what you are doing.
I don’t know why you think citizens who are unable to vote should be “represented”, by people they had no say in electing. But leaving that aside, the constitution could have said only to count voters, or it could have said only to count citizens, but it deliberately did not say either of those things. Instead it deliberately said that all persons must be counted, regardless of whether they’re citizens, or whether they could vote. (And remember that in some states some aliens could vote, but many citizens couldn’t.)
Where is this coming from? As far as I know blacks were citizens. The 60% issue had nothing to do with race; 100% of all free persons (including indentured servants, who would be free when their indentures expired, and also including non-voting citizens and aliens), and 60% of “all other persons”. Race was not mentioned.
Also note that the phrasing was carefully designed so as not to mention slavery; the drafters refused to legitimize the concept by mentioning it in the constitution, so rather than saying “slaves”, or even “persons who are not free”, it says “other persons”. Likewise in the importation clause, it’s careful to say “persons”, not “slaves”, even though slaves are the only kind of people who can be “imported”. Everyone else is not imported, they immigrate; only goods are imported.
“I don’t know why you think citizens who are unable to vote should be “represented”, by people they had no say in electing.”
What a curious view.
Does my Representative represent me…
1. If I voted for the other guy?
2. If I moved into this state since the last election?
3. If I am a felon having my rights infringed by the government?
4. If I am a child being abused by the government?
5. If I am a mentally disabled ward of the state?
I think the answer to all those questions is yes. You don’t?
As to whether blacks were or weren’t citizens, I don’t really remember offhand and I haven’t researched it. But I am aware of court cases like the Dred Scott decision, which flatly asserted that the Negro “had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.”
I agree in case 1 he does represent you, because you had a vote in the election that chose him. All the voters of your district, including yourself, voted on someone to represent all of you collectively, and the majority chose him.
But in cases 2-5 I think he doesn’t represent you. You were never asked, never given a choice, so in what sense can he be said to represent you? Does he care what you think, or what you need? Does he have to care?
In the antebellum South, did congressmen elected by the slave-owners of their districts represent their voters’ slaves as well?! Clearly not! Likewise in the pre-civil-rights era, in districts where black citizens were forcibly prevented from voting, the Democrats elected from those districts clearly did not represent the black people who lived there; the black people did not see them as their representatives, and they did not see any need to represent those people.
So it would have made sense for the founders to have excluded them from the count. That would have obviated the need for the awkward penalty clause in the 14th amendment, which was never implemented.
But they didn’t do so. They included everyone in the count. I see no way to distinguish these non-voters from illegal immigrants; if a state gets credit for its other non-voters, it must get credit for these non-voters too.
As Milhouse correctly stated apportionment of the Congressional seats AMONG the States filling a Census is based on total resident population. However the drawing of the Congressional Districts within the States after apportionment could be modified to require a equal # of Citizens within say 10% (+/-) in order to preclude ‘dilution of political power of voters’. SCOTUS has held this to be an import principle in redistricting decisions. A little goodwill and Congress could could pass legislation amending the VRA to include that provision. Leftists would lose their minds but would have to argue against ‘dilution of political power of voters’ and they don’t want to do that n/c it would undercut the basis of many redistricting decisions that go in their favor.
Gonna be intriguing to see what shenanigans occur or more accurately are allowed to occur in the Senate to halt or water down the legislation. If some d/prog want to filibuster then make them hold the floor in a speaking filibuster, stay in DC and get it done.
I suspect there’s a near zero chance of this ever getting to Trump’s desk under regular order. There just aren’t 60 votes for cloture in the Senate…there may not even be 50-votes. That guy in Utah is proving to be even further left than Romney was. It might be the smarter play to weave this into the Reconciliation bill. No, it won’t be permanent (anything passed by reconciliation has to sunset). But, it might be enough to get the voting rolls cleaned up by 2028 and maybe even 2026.
If there was ever “a hill to die on” this would be one the people would massively reward. Almost no one that isn’t a brain-dead prog likes the idea of non-citizens voting.
What I wonder is whether it wouldn’t be a good idea to provide something to take away the “poor people (and by that we mean blacks) can’t get IDs” argument. Maybe funding for some areas with large urban poor populations expressly to help people get copies of their birth certificates and such. How about one of the “firebrand” Senators add an amendment to do that? Force the Dems to vote against helping people get the IDs they need (for a lot more than voting)?
When I say “almost no one” it’s one of those 80/20 things where the Dems choose the side of 20 – solely to keep that one part of their vote plantation from fleeing.
They all have Id’s, otherwise they couldn’t get all the freebies
Like free rent, free health care, free drugs, free education..
Not everyone gets those things.
People old enough for their births not to have been registered probably do get those things, but they registered for them before such documents were required.
“People old enough for their births not to have been registered”
This is the XYY argument of voter IDs.
I’m in my 70s, and my birth was registered. My mother is 106 and her birth was registered. How many of these people actually could there be?
Your mother wasn’t born in a shack in some rural county, was she? There are people alive today whose birth was never registered. They never had a problem until the last few decades when there were increasing demands for documentation.
They never had a problem until the last few decades when there were increasing demands for documentation.
And a lot of that had to with the increasing involvement of government – and specifically the federal government – in their lives. Social Security, Disability, Medical programs abound.
Honestly, there aren’t that many people without a registration of their birth around any more. And there are ways (if they had a little help from friends) to even take care of those people. But so many are (IMO) afraid to start the search or won’t think it worth the effort.
When my mother moved from Virginia to Texas I helped her get a Texas ID card because she wanted to vote and Texas requires photo ID. She had a valid VA drivers license but they would not accept that. She had a passport but it was more than 2 yrs expired so they would not accept that. So she had to show her birth certificate, Marraige certificate to my dad, death certificate for my dad, marraige certificate for her second husband. All of this to prove how her name got from what was on the birth certificate to what it is now on her social security and VA license. It seems like there has to be a better way to do this. I completely agree with voter id and proving you are a citizen but for an 80 yr old woman who has married twice that is a lot of documents to keep up with over a large number of yrs and not everyone does that.
FWIW, in every state in the union, state issued IDs are already very low cost (<$5) and in many states, even free to people with low income. Presuming they can keep the GOP coalition together on this, they would have to find 6 Democrats to vote for cloture. I don't know what Republicans could offer to make that happen. Democrats are invested in making voting as 'easy' as it can be because that's how they win. Vote early, vote often.
It’s not the IDs that are the problem, when that argument is invoked (by the smarter of the leftists). It’s things like birth certificates that are supposedly hard to get. So, a small initiative to help the poor people get their birth certificates might put it “in perspective” for some.
I should add that four House Democrats did vote for this. So, I guess it’s not impossible the GOP could get a couple DNC Senators to vote for it. I just don’t think they can get six or seven. That’s a bridge too far.
The Senate rules should be altered to force a true filibuster which is really what it should be anyway. Let them stand for hours, days and weeks on end to hold the floor. No more ‘soft’ filibusters in name only. Make all Senators seeking to block legislation play MR Smith….and if they are too old, too tired or infirm or otherwise unable to stand and speak long enough to maintain it ….their constituents made a choice to elect a Senator incapable of doing so and they gotta live with consequences.
AND so that no other business can be conducted.
What we have is the “Arthur Dent” filibuster.
A group of minority senators announce a filibuster against some measure, and that they are perfectly willing to hold up the senate’s business for as long as it takes to prevent the measure from bring brought to a vote. But, they say, they’re not unreasonable; if the majority simply withdraws the measure then they won’t have to hold up anything, and the senate can proceed with its day undisturbed. Everyone wins.
You’re right that it’s never going to get a floor vote in the Senate. Attaching it to the reconciliation bill would have been smart (if the parliamentarian would have allowed it). But, doing the smart thing is something that always escapes GOP congressional leaders.
This is a no-brainer. Of course the democrats being almost uniformly anti-American don’t support. Shows they really have no brains.
A man walks into a brain store to buy a new brain. He goes up to the clerk and says: “Hello, I’d like to purchase a new brain”.
The clerk says, “Sure, here are some brains we have on sale”
“Here’s the brain of a physicist, 5 dollars.”
“Here’s our second deal for today, the brain of a politician for 10,000 dollars”.
Somewhat confused, the man asks, “Why is the brain of a politician more expensive than that of a physicist?”
“Because it’s never been used,” says the clerk.
Let me guess. The name on the brain was “Abby Normal”.
What if you’re already registered to vote and have done so for the last 55 years?
Do Have to prove my citizenship?
My husband had to bring a passport or birth certificate to renew his license in Texas
That’s most likely for Real ID.
Seems to me you should be proud to do so.
And, yes, if it’s never been proven before.
“This is outright voter suppression, a vestige of slavery,” says the impartial and open minded Sunny Hostin of the View.
She maintains that requiring voter ID will make it much more difficult for elderly people, people who don’t travel, poor people that don’t have cars, don’t have driver’s licenses, don’t have this, don’t have that……
Blah, blah, blah.
SH is impressively stupid. Someone should probably tell her that is not a compliment.
It will undoubtedly make things much more difficult for a lot of people. Merely no longer being able to register by mail or online, having to come personally into an office, during office hours, will be an inconvenience, and will put a spike in voter registration drives as they exist today.
And some small number of valid voters will inevitably not be able to vote because they won’t be able to produce the documentation on demand.
It’s still worth doing. The benefit far outweighs the cost, including effectively disenfranchising some people.
You can register at any time for the next election subject to residency requirements,
I doubt very many people don’t have access to required documents given what is required to do anything in our society today, Naturalized citizens will have them. US born can obtain birth certificates, I obtained my own online from my birth state.
Every other country or almost every other requires ID for voting. It is positively embarrassing to claim the US can’t do that. Don’t such claimers have any pride?
Naturalized citizens will have them.
You know, one thing about naturalized citizens: they had to work to get those documents to become citizens, and they are very careful about keeping a copy around.
Sort of the “legal immigrants don’t support illegal immigrants” thing. Naturalized citizens sometimes look at natural citizens and ask, “What do you mean you don’t have a copy?!”
You’d really hate my plan then. Voter registration would be conducted annually… at the muster formation of the Militia. By birth month, last digit of SSA # and last name. So born in Jan go to Militia Muster under County Sheriff organization in January on Saturday:
1st.Sat. If last name A-J and odd SSA#
2nd Sat If last name A-J and even SSA#
3rd.Sat if last name K-Z and odd SSA#
4th Sat if last name K-Z and even SSA #
Simple. All adults show up. Intake confirms Name +address with State ID +last month utility bill. Also updates data on Civilian skills, military experience, Education, Certifications, The voting rolls get updated and everyone goes home. One day per year isn’t much of a sacrifice compared to our history.
compared to our history
Uh oh. And there’s the sticking point for those immersed in the Progressivism. History started yesterday, for them.
I only don’t like it because there’s no actual militia training involved.
After the first couple of years when the intake goes far faster b/c the data has already been gathered for the majority, only needing a quick verification then we can add some basics. Maybe have everyone bring their mandatory AR and a sidearm. Quick block of instruction, functions check, clear a jam, range safety, then a go/no go weapons qual at the range. Those Citizens with a philosophical objection to violence will be trained as unarmed stretcher bearers; can’t be a medic b/c a medic must protect casualties.
That’s about all you could reasonably do in that amount of time and would probably be pushing the training schedule to get it done. Actual tactical use would be Veterans placed in leadership positions to guide/direct those without military experience and you have a force that could be used to provide defense in depth. In fixed positions would be useful, ….as an offense force not gonna be worth much.
It will be opposed by the same stupid people who opposed the new requirement to make a personal appearance to change direct deposit arrangements for Social Security.
“How DARE you make it inconvenient to me, just to keep a scammer from stealing ALL my income!”
They can figure out the bus schedule to get anywhere else, they can figure out the bus schedule to get to the DMV and get a non-driver ID.
The DMV isn’t the problem. OK, the DMV is a problem, but not really the problem for the folks who will have trouble. It’s that they don’t know how to request a birth certificate or other such document. It isn’t that hard, but some large number of folks have just never had to do it. And they get intimidated by having to figure it out (one of the effects of bureaucracy).
I was born overseas, was in the military, and traveled out of the country before I ever entered the military. So, I had to have a copy of multiple documents to do a lot of things. I was fortunate my parents were smart enough to keep several copies on hand, too. But I have had a heck of a time getting a copy of my DD-214. Go figure.
It shouldn’t take a lot to help these people get their birth certificates and such. There used to be charities that did that sort of thing.
insanity insanity I tell you!!!!!!!!
cbc/blm/msm
how can we expect poc to have proof of id ?
ok then no collecting of anyyyy tax funded programs
Typical racist. Everybody has ID. EVERYBODY.
Possibly… the homeless with mental illness or drug addictions don’t because they’ve lost it or sold it, but believe me… any elderly or disabled person has had valid ID for decades. People who ride busses have ID. People who don’t have phones have ID.
To live without ID, you would have to be utterly divorced from society in 2025, basically living way back in the woods and living on squirrels you catch bare-handed.
Literally a non-issue, but racist Dems still claim blacks are too incompetent to get ID, they juss nappy-headed lil chirrum, aftah all.
Plenty of people don’t have ID. More to the point, even among those with ID, many don’t have proof of citizenship.
Most of these can get such proof with sufficient effort. Some can’t, and some more won’t think it worth the effort just to vote.
The cost of this measure is real, but that’s OK. The benefit far outweighs it.
Pretty big hand wave. At least provide some solid documentation for your claims please.
I don’t need “solid documentation”. I personally know people who would have serious difficulties.
JB4, I knew someone who had a big problem with that too. She was married on a USAF base in Japan after the War; no record of the marriage seemed to exist outside Japan, and there seemed to be some problem in getting the Japanese record too, assuming one existed. I don’t know how she eventually resolved it.
Of what? Not having handy proof of citizenship? Yeah, among certain groups of folks, a lot don’t have an official copy of a birth certificate around anywhere. It’s primarily an age demographic.
As Milhouse says, it isn’t that difficult (unless you’re a special case – and they do exist) but many are intimidated by… the fact of having to deal with the bureaucracy. It isn’t unsolvable, but there will be some who lose out.
But the bureaucracy at the polling place is like a warm, relaxing massage.
Got it.
Dont care, Everything in life doesn’t have to be easy. If they’re unwilling to put the effort in then their vote shouldn’t count. Kind of like showing up in person to vote instead of mailing it in.
He can’t.
Because he’s spouting the leftist propaganda he believes in.
At least for the purpose of demoralizing us,
If you want the truth, there IS NO solid documentation for his claims because every time they’ve been tested they’re shown to be lies.
The only hurdle to providing ID for anyone (except illegals) is refusal to get the stuff. It’s there, but they don’t want to be bothered to get it.
Older married women could have a problem, not being able to lay their hands on a marriage record that validates their birth certificate in their maiden name.
Yes, there’s probably an age cutoff before people were told to keep a copy of all their records in a fire safe or secure, sturdy envelope somewhere. And plenty of people moved states in between some of those bits of paper.
It’s a real (if smaller than some make out) issue, but one easily solved if we can encourage people to take responsibility for themselves in this. (And help them out if they need it.)
“easily solved if we can encourage people to take responsibility for themselves”
Oh well, forget it. You won’t get a single Democrat vote for that.
You won’t get a single Democrat vote for that.
Which is why I say a Repub senator should propose some sort of program to help people get copies of all their documents. It puts all those Dems ABSOLUTELY on the wrong side of a 80/20 issue. And make it very public. It won’t sway everyone, but it might get votes for cloture – and if it doesn’t, you have a 2028 campaign ad.
There are plenty of folks who have ID but not ‘Real ID’. Some States were very late to the process.
This May Real ID goes into full effect so without it no flying commercial, no entry into military facilities among other things. Assuming the Feds don’t delay implementation again then ‘stuff’ gonna get real very quick as the crying and whining begins. Lots of sob stories inbound, bank on it. Legacy media will rum wild with stories of ‘I couldn’t board the flight to see my dying family member’ or some Parent of a child with cancer couldn’t get travel to ST Jude or whatever.
Lots bigger deal than most realize but we are 2 dozen years after 9/11 and nearly 20 years after Real.ID was passed. It’s time to bite the bullet and get it adopted into regular life.
This bill is dead on arrival in the Senate, yes?
Sen Mike Lee already introduced essentially the same bill in the Senate, and it went precisely nowhere.
So, none of this is going to take effect. Not now, and not anytime in the foreseeable future.
Literally the only effect of this bill will be for use in political ads against Democrats in the next few election cycles. Which is worth it, definitely.
But, stop pretending like they actually did something. Doesn’t even matter what the bill does – because it will never become law.
Vote tells you everything you need to know about who wants no borders.
And what the Senate does will confirm the government thinks about its current citizens.
Leave a Comment