The SAVE Act

What the SAVE Act Would Do

The SAVE Act, short for the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, is a bill that would require everyone registering to vote in federal elections to show documentary proof of U.S. citizenship in person. A passport or birth certificate would qualify; a standard driver’s license would not. It would not change who is allowed to vote, because only citizens already can. It would change what you have to produce to get on the rolls, and about 21 million eligible citizens do not have those documents within reach.

The bill does not add a citizenship requirement, because that already exists. It adds a documentary-proof requirement, and the gap between being a citizen and being able to prove it on demand is where the harm sits. Tens of millions of eligible citizens cannot put their hands on a passport or birth certificate quickly, so a rule that looks narrow on paper reaches far in practice.

What Would Count as Proof

The list of accepted documents is narrow. The bill names a short set of citizenship documents and excludes the IDs most Americans carry every day.

The requirement is in person, so a mailed, online, or voter-drive registration would not be complete until the applicant shows documents to an election official. In practice that ends those registration methods for many people, because the document has to be presented at a counter rather than uploaded or mailed. The bill also adds a private right of action, letting people sue election officials who register someone without proof.

Citizenship Is Already Required

The bill is sold as a way to stop noncitizen voting, but noncitizen voting in federal elections is already illegal. It is a crime and a deportable offense under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 and federal law at 18 U.S.C. 611, which makes voting by a noncitizen in a federal election a criminal offense.

The question the bill raises is not whether citizenship is required, because it is. The question is whether you must show a specific document to prove it. The federal voter registration form already asks every applicant to swear citizenship under penalty of perjury, which carries criminal liability for a false statement.

How Rare Noncitizen Voting Is

Every audit that looks for noncitizen voting finds the number is tiny. The repeated pattern across studies and state reviews is the same: a handful of cases out of millions.

The Brennan Center reviewed 23.5 million votes across 42 jurisdictions in 2016 and found about 30 suspected noncitizen votes, roughly 0.0001%. Georgia’s 2024 audit of 8.2 million voters found 20 noncitizens registered, of whom none voted in the November 2024 election. Utah’s 2026 review of more than 2 million registrations found 27 noncitizens, of whom 13 had voted in any election since 2018.

Set that against the number of eligible citizens the proof requirement would burden. The mismatch between the problem and the remedy is the heart of the debate.

About 21 million eligible citizens, roughly 9%, lack ready access to documents proving citizenship. About half of Americans do not hold a passport. These are citizenship-document figures, not photo-ID figures, and they describe people who are fully eligible to vote but could not produce the required paperwork on demand.

What Happened in Kansas and Arizona

Two states already tried documentary proof of citizenship, and their records show how the requirement works in practice. Kansas blocked tens of thousands of eligible citizens; Arizona’s version reached the Supreme Court and lost.

Steven Wayne Fish, a Kansas warehouse worker born on a since-closed Air Force base, could not produce a birth certificate when Kansas began requiring documentary proof of citizenship in 2013, and the state blocked his registration. He became the named plaintiff in Fish v. Kobach. The law blocked about 31,089 registrations, and the state could identify only a tiny number of suspected noncitizens, of whom just a handful had ever voted. The Tenth Circuit struck the law down, and the Supreme Court declined to revive it. Fish was a citizen the entire time; the paperwork just could not catch up with him before the deadline, and the court found the blocked registrants were overwhelmingly citizens like him.

Arizona’s law went the other way to the Supreme Court. In Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona (2013, 7-2), the Court held that states must “accept and use” the federal voter registration form, which asks registrants to swear citizenship under penalty of perjury, and cannot bolt a documentary-proof requirement onto it. That ruling is the legal wall the SAVE Act is written to get around, by changing the federal law itself.

The fight runs through six documented turns from Arizona’s 2004 Prop 200 to the Senate’s 2026 rejection. The arc moves between courts blocking proof requirements and lawmakers writing new ones.

1. 2004 Arizona starts requiring proof Prop 200 makes Arizona require documentary proof of citizenship to register.
2. 2013 Supreme Court blocks the add-on Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council, 7-2, says states must accept the federal form and cannot add a proof requirement.
3. 2013 Kansas starts its proof law Kansas begins requiring documentary proof of citizenship; about 31,089 registrations are blocked.
4. 2020 Court strikes the Kansas law The Tenth Circuit strikes the Kansas proof law in Fish v. Kobach; the Supreme Court later declines review.
5. 2025 House passes the SAVE Act The House passes the SAVE Act 220-208, and Trump's election executive order seeks proof on the federal form.
6. 2025 Court blocks the executive order A federal court permanently blocks the proof-of-citizenship part of the executive order.
7. 2026 Senate rejects the SAVE Act The SAVE Act fails in the Senate, 48-50.

Sources: Cornell LII; ACLU of Kansas; Democracy Docket; NPR.

From Prop 200 to the Senate rejection: 2004 — Arizona starts requiring proof (Prop 200 makes Arizona require documentary proof of citizenship to register.). 2013 — Supreme Court blocks the add-on (Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council, 7-2, says states must accept the federal form and cannot add a proof requirement.). 2013 — Kansas starts its proof law (Kansas begins requiring documentary proof of citizenship; about 31,089 registrations are blocked.). 2020 — Court strikes the Kansas law (The Tenth Circuit strikes the Kansas proof law in Fish v. Kobach; the Supreme Court later declines review.). 2025 — House passes the SAVE Act (The House passes the SAVE Act 220-208, and Trump's election executive order seeks proof on the federal form.). 2025 — Court blocks the executive order (A federal court permanently blocks the proof-of-citizenship part of the executive order.). 2026 — Senate rejects the SAVE Act (The SAVE Act fails in the Senate, 48-50.).

2004: Arizona’s Prop 200 made the state require documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote, the first major state experiment with the requirement.

2013: The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council that states must accept the federal voter registration form and cannot add a documentary-proof requirement on top of it.

2013: Kansas began enforcing its own documentary proof-of-citizenship law, which over the following years blocked about 31,089 registrations.

2020: The Tenth Circuit struck down the Kansas law in Fish v. Kobach, and the Supreme Court later declined to take the case, leaving the ruling in place.

2025: The House passed the SAVE Act 220-208, and President Trump’s election executive order directed officials to add a proof-of-citizenship requirement to the federal registration form.

2025: A federal court permanently blocked the proof-of-citizenship provision of the executive order, ruling the president lacks the power to set that rule.

2026: The Senate rejected the SAVE Act 48-50 when it was offered as an amendment to a funding bill.

Where the SAVE Act Stands

As of June 2026, the SAVE Act is not law. The House passed H.R. 22 on April 10, 2025, by 220-208, with four Democrats voting yes (Golden, Gluesenkamp Perez, Cuellar, Case).

In the Senate it failed. A June 2026 vote to attach it to a funding bill fell 48-50, with four Republicans (Murkowski, McConnell, Collins, Tillis) joining Democrats against it.

Meanwhile the fight moved to executive action and the states. Trump’s Executive Order 14248, signed March 25, 2025, directed the Election Assistance Commission to require proof of citizenship on the federal registration form. On October 31, 2025, a federal court permanently blocked that provision, ruling that the Constitution gives the power to set election rules to Congress and the states, not the president.

The states are split, and the map shows where you stand. Six states require documentary proof of citizenship to register now, two more have enacted it but not yet put it in force, courts have blocked four, and the other 38 states and D.C. let eligible citizens register by signing an attestation under penalty of perjury.

Proof required to register now

Enacted, not yet in effect

Enacted, then blocked by a court

Attestation only (no document required)

Sources: Ballotpedia; Brennan Center; Votebeat. Status as of June 2026.

Documentary Proof of Citizenship to Register, by State

State	Status	Detail
Alabama	Enacted, then blocked by a court	Enacted; documentary requirement blocked by a federal court (2026).
Alaska	Attestation only (no document required)	Attestation under penalty of perjury. Citizenship ballot measure pending for 2026.
Arizona	Proof required to register now	Bifurcated 'federal-only' system; parts blocked by the 9th Circuit in 2025.
Arkansas	Attestation only (no document required)	Attestation under penalty of perjury. A citizenship amendment is on the 2026 ballot, not yet approved.
California	Attestation only (no document required)	Attestation under penalty of perjury.
Colorado	Attestation only (no document required)	Attestation under penalty of perjury.
Connecticut	Attestation only (no document required)	Attestation under penalty of perjury.
Delaware	Attestation only (no document required)	Attestation under penalty of perjury.
District of Columbia	Attestation only (no document required)	Attestation under penalty of perjury.
Florida	Enacted, not yet in effect	Enacted; takes effect January 1, 2027.
Georgia	Enacted, then blocked by a court	Enacted; documentary requirement blocked by a federal court (2026).
Hawaii	Attestation only (no document required)	Attestation under penalty of perjury.
Idaho	Attestation only (no document required)	Attestation under penalty of perjury.
Illinois	Attestation only (no document required)	Attestation under penalty of perjury.
Indiana	Attestation only (no document required)	Attestation under penalty of perjury.
Iowa	Attestation only (no document required)	Attestation under penalty of perjury.
Kansas	Enacted, then blocked by a court	Proof law struck down (Fish v. Kobach); attestation restored.
Kentucky	Attestation only (no document required)	Attestation under penalty of perjury.
Louisiana	Enacted, not yet in effect	Enacted; not yet implemented.
Maine	Attestation only (no document required)	Attestation under penalty of perjury.
Maryland	Attestation only (no document required)	Attestation under penalty of perjury.
Massachusetts	Attestation only (no document required)	Attestation under penalty of perjury.
Michigan	Attestation only (no document required)	Attestation under penalty of perjury. Citizenship ballot measure pending for 2026.
Minnesota	Attestation only (no document required)	Attestation under penalty of perjury.
Mississippi	Proof required to register now	Proof required if citizenship cannot be confirmed by other records.
Missouri	Attestation only (no document required)	Attestation under penalty of perjury.
Montana	Attestation only (no document required)	Attestation under penalty of perjury.
Nebraska	Attestation only (no document required)	Attestation under penalty of perjury.
Nevada	Attestation only (no document required)	Attestation under penalty of perjury.
New Hampshire	Enacted, then blocked by a court	2025 proof law struck down by a federal court in 2026.
New Jersey	Attestation only (no document required)	Attestation under penalty of perjury.
New Mexico	Attestation only (no document required)	Attestation under penalty of perjury.
New York	Attestation only (no document required)	Attestation under penalty of perjury.
North Carolina	Attestation only (no document required)	Attestation under penalty of perjury.
North Dakota	Attestation only (no document required)	No voter registration; ID shown at the polls.
Ohio	Proof required to register now	Proof required for registrations at the BMV.
Oklahoma	Attestation only (no document required)	Attestation under penalty of perjury.
Oregon	Attestation only (no document required)	Attestation under penalty of perjury.
Pennsylvania	Attestation only (no document required)	Attestation under penalty of perjury.
Rhode Island	Attestation only (no document required)	Attestation under penalty of perjury.
South Carolina	Attestation only (no document required)	Attestation under penalty of perjury.
South Dakota	Proof required to register now	SB 175 (2026); no proof means a federal-only ballot.
Tennessee	Attestation only (no document required)	Attestation under penalty of perjury.
Texas	Attestation only (no document required)	Attestation under penalty of perjury.
Utah	Proof required to register now	HB 209 (2026), effective May 2026, for state elections.
Vermont	Attestation only (no document required)	Attestation under penalty of perjury.
Virginia	Attestation only (no document required)	Attestation under penalty of perjury.
Washington	Attestation only (no document required)	Attestation under penalty of perjury.
West Virginia	Attestation only (no document required)	Attestation under penalty of perjury.
Wisconsin	Attestation only (no document required)	Attestation under penalty of perjury.
Wyoming	Proof required to register now	Documentary proof required to register (2025 law).

The federal bill stalled, but the state-level versions keep coming, which is why the issue stays live. For the people the requirement would reach, see our brief.

Why It Matters

The SAVE Act would not change who can vote. It would change what an eligible citizen must produce to register, and tens of millions cannot produce it quickly. A rule that reads as a simple check at the counter would, in practice, fall hardest on married women whose names changed, on rural, elderly, and low-income citizens, and on anyone whose documents do not match or are hard to retrieve.

The guardrails held so far. Courts struck the Kansas law and blocked the executive order, the Senate rejected the bill, and the existing attestation under penalty of perjury already deters and punishes false claims. State-by-state versions keep coming, so the question is settled in no single place.

The Honest Disagreement

Serious people hold each side of this, and the disagreement is real. We lay out both cases and let you weigh them.

The case for the SAVE Act comes from Rep. Chip Roy, the Heritage Foundation, and the Trump administration. They argue that only citizens should vote, that public confidence in elections matters, and that signing an attestation is weaker than showing a document. Supporters say obtaining proof is a reasonable, achievable step and reject the claim that it singles out specific groups.

The case against comes from the Brennan Center, the League of Women Voters, the ACLU, and VoteRiders. They argue the requirement would block millions of eligible citizens to stop a problem that is already illegal and vanishingly rare, that it hits married women with name changes and rural, elderly, and low-income citizens hardest, and that it would end mail, online, and drive registration in practice.

The honest distinctions are worth keeping straight. Requiring citizenship, which is already the law, is not the same as requiring documentary proof at registration. Attestation under penalty of perjury is not the same as showing a document. The handful of documented noncitizen votes is not the same scale as the millions of eligible citizens burdened. Being a citizen is not the same as being able to prove it on demand. And federal elections are not the same as state elections, which set their own rules.

Election administrators raise a separate, nonpartisan objection. Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon called the requirement “a nightmare for election administrators,” and Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows pointed to the cost of training every town clerk to verify documents. The Bipartisan Policy Center notes the bill funds none of the new burden it creates. We do not declare a winner.

Frequently asked questions

Is the SAVE Act law? No. The House passed it 220-208 in April 2025, but the Senate rejected it 48-50 in June 2026. As of June 2026 it is not in effect, though similar proof-of-citizenship laws have been enacted in some states.

Can noncitizens legally vote in federal elections now? No. It is already a federal crime and a deportable offense, and audits consistently find that it is vanishingly rare. The federal form already requires applicants to swear citizenship under penalty of perjury.

Would a regular driver’s license or REAL ID work? Usually not. Most driver’s licenses and most REAL IDs do not show citizenship, so under the bill you would generally need a passport, a birth certificate, or a naturalization certificate.

Does it affect people who are already registered? It applies to registering and to updating a registration. The practical concern is the burden when records change, such as after a move or a name change, when a citizen may have to produce documents again.

What you can do

1. Tell your senators to keep rejecting the SAVE Act. Ask them to oppose any documentary-proof-of-citizenship mandate and to protect registration by mail, online, and at drives. Use the letter and call script below.

2. Ask your state legislators to reject state-level proof-of-citizenship laws. Ask them to keep attestation under penalty of perjury, which already deters false claims, rather than adding a document requirement that blocks eligible citizens.

3. Make sure your own registration is current and your documents match. If your name changed, check that your records line up before a deadline. If you hit a problem, call 866-OUR-VOTE (866-687-8683).

4. Learn the related law so you cannot be misled. Read the Voting Rights Act explainer and the gerrymandering explainer.

5. Write your representative using the letter below and ask for a clear, on-the-record position on the SAVE Act.