In a significant legislative move, the U.S. House of Representatives, primarily led by Republicans and supported by some Democrats, passed the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, aimed at tightening citizenship verification for federal election voters.
The Hill reported that last Wednesday, the passage of the SAVE Act in the House materialized with a vote count of 221-198, witnessing a crossover of five Democratic representatives aligning with the predominantly Republican favor.
This piece of legislation underscores a growing partisan divide over voter eligibility, reflecting former President Donald Trump’s vocal criticism of current voting practices.
Speaker Mike Johnson, a staunch advocate of the legislation, has positioned the act as a necessary measure to combat what he alleges is rampant illegal voting by noncitizens.
"Even though it’s already illegal, this is happening," Johnson contended, amplifying a narrative of election security concerns among conservatives. Johnson further articulated, "We all know, intuitively, that a lot of illegals are voting in federal contractions. But it’s not easily provable. We don’t have that number. This legislation will allow us to do exactly that—it will prevent that from happening. And if someone tries to do it, it will now be unlawful within the states."
While the bill garners support from some quarters, it faces stern opposition from others who see it as a direct threat to the voting rights of U.S. citizens, particularly from minority communities.
Critics argue that, rather than securing the vote, the SAVE Act may inadvertently suppress legitimate voters by imposing rigorous and potentially discriminatory eligibility checks.
A study by the Brennan Center for Justice casts doubt on the premise of widespread noncitizen voting, indicating only minimal instances of such occurrences. This research contrasts sharply with Speaker Johnson’s assertions, suggesting that the problem might be overstated by proponents of the bill.
Representative Chip Roy, who introduced the bill, frames it as a defensive response against what he sees as a concerted attempt by Democrats to exploit liberal border policies and lax election integrity to fundamentally alter American democratic demographics.
"Radical progressive Democrats know this and are using open border policies while also attacking election integrity laws to fundamentally remake America," Roy argued, implying a strategic manipulation of demographics to benefit one political agenda over another.
Juan Espinoza, a senior civil rights advisor at UnidosUS, highlighted the dangerous precedents such rhetoric sets, particularly about Latino voters.
Espinoza stressed, "We’re seeing heightened threats against elections officials and voters at the polls, especially in places where Latinos are a growing and significant part of the eligible voting population." He further condemned the propagation of what he considers a harmful myth of noncitizen voter fraud which "undermines Latino voters."
Despite its passage in the House, the SAVE Act is forecasted to face rejection in the Senate where Democratic opposition remains robust.
Moreover, President Joe Biden has indicated a firm intent to veto the bill, should it ever reach his desk. This political posture sets the stage for potential executive-legislative clashes should the bill gain unexpected momentum in the upper chamber.
As the narrative unfolds, the broader implications of the SAVE Act not only concern voter eligibility but also the foundational aspects of American democracy.
With former President Trump calling on Republicans to either "pass the Save Act, or go home and cry yourself to sleep," the political stakes and rhetoric surrounding this legislation continue to escalate.
The public and lawmakers alike remain deeply divided on the SAVE Act. While some view it as a necessary step towards securing elections, others see it as an overt attempt to disenfranchise vulnerable voter segments. How this pans out could define the contours of U.S. federal elections for years to come.