Not true for blue states. The SAVE Act is to bring the blue controlled states back in line with honest elections. South Carolina does it right and is red.
The Save Act
- Thread starter TigerGrowls
- Start date
Here's the thing, you really don't care if it makes it harder, in fact, we know you hope it does keep more libs from voting but I have a feeling this will backfire on you since blue collar workers and rural Americans (i.e. Trump's base) will be impacted as much as anyone.
I don't feel like typing this out so here's your answer.
The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act (and its updated SAVE America Act version) introduces strict federal requirements for proof of citizenship and identification. Critics and voting rights groups argue these changes will create significant hurdles for millions of eligible citizens.
Key ways the act may make it harder to vote include:
1. Proof of Citizenship for Registration
- Mandatory Documentation: You must provide documentary proof of U.S. citizenship (DPOC) to register for federal elections.
- Limited Acceptable IDs: Standard driver's licenses (even REAL IDs in most states) generally do not indicate citizenship and would not be accepted alone.
- Impact on Registration Methods: The act effectively guts mail-in and online registration because even if you apply through these methods, you may be required to present your citizenship documents in person at an election office.
2. Burdens for Specific Groups
- Married Women: An estimated 69 million women lack a birth certificate that matches their current legal name due to marriage. They would likely need to provide additional original documents, like marriage licenses, to prove their eligibility.
- Low-Income and Rural Voters: Roughly 21 million Americans lack easy access to a passport or birth certificate. Those in rural areas or without reliable transportation would struggle with the required in-person registration visits.
- Students: Many students rely on voter registration drives or campus-based registration, which would be eliminated or severely restricted under the new in-person requirements.
3. Stricter In-Person and Mail Voting Rules
- National Voter ID: The bill would implement a federal photo ID requirement to vote in person that is more restrictive than current laws in almost every state.
- Mail Ballots: In some versions, mail-in voters would be required to include a photocopy of their identification both when requesting and returning their ballots.
4. Systemic Barriers
- Voter Roll Purges: The act mandates that states frequently purge voter rolls using federal databases. Critics warn this could lead to eligible citizens being mistakenly removed right before an election.
- Chilled Election Administration: Election officials could face criminal penalties and prison time if they register someone who fails to present the exact required documentation—even if that person is a valid U.S. citizen. This may cause officials to be overly restrictive when processing applications.
You didnt answer yourself and even the AI answer is weak because there is no defense. I have been married to my wife over 30 years and she has never been denied at the voting booth in GA,NC, or SC.
Well duh, we won't have the same rules if the Act passes and since her maiden name won't match her current name, she will have to re-register in person with extra documentation like her marriage license. Think about how many people will not know to do that because they're unaware of it or they're unable to get to the office with the proper documents.
Another rule that a lot of people won't know about until it's too late is they have to re-register if they have a change of address and that alone will apply to 29 million Americans.
"Approximately 29 million voting-age Americans move in a typical calendar year.
This high level of mobility means that nearly 11% to 12% of the adult population changes their residence annually. While overall U.S. mobility has been declining over several decades, recent data shows a slight uptick or stabilization as of 2024–2025. "
Don't play dumb just because you think this will help your side - it won't.
However, the bill could create challenges in practice for women (and others) who have changed their names due to marriage:
You prove its right.
- Acceptable proof of citizenship often relies on documents like a birth certificate (which typically shows a maiden name) or a passport (which would reflect the current legal name if updated).
- If a woman's current legal name (married name) doesn't match her birth certificate, she may need additional supporting documents (e.g., a marriage certificate or court-ordered name change decree) to link the two and satisfy election officials when registering or updating registration.
- Voting rights groups and analyses (from sources like the Brennan Center, Center for American Progress, and others) estimate this could affect tens of millions of married women—around 69 million who lack a birth certificate matching their current name—making registration or updates more burdensome, costly, or difficult, especially since the bill emphasizes in-person submission in many cases and limits options like mail or online registration without proof.
Yes, if the SAVE Act (or closely related legislation like the SAVE America Act) passes in its described form, a registered voter who moves would effectively be required to re-register with documentary proof of U.S. citizenship.
The SAVE Act amends the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require individuals to provide documentary proof of citizenship (such as a U.S. passport, birth certificate plus photo ID, or certain other specified documents) when applying to register to vote in federal elections. States would generally be prohibited from accepting or processing a voter registration application without this proof presented (often in person, with limited alternatives for mail or online methods).
Importantly, updating voter registration for a change of address (i.e., when someone moves to a new location, even within the same state) typically involves submitting an application or form that is treated as a registration application or update under current systems. Multiple analyses and summaries of the bill explicitly state that this proof-of-citizenship requirement would apply anytime someone updates or re-registers, including for address changes:
- Frequent movers would face the added burden of providing these documents in person every time they move.
- Military voters would need to present documentation every time they re-register when their family moves.
- The requirement applies to every "application to register to vote," which includes re-registrations and changes of address in many jurisdictions.
- Proof of citizenship would be required every time a voter registers or updates their registration (e.g., change of address, name, or party affiliation).
Current law allows voters in most states to update their address relatively easily (often online, by mail, or at the polls), without re-proving citizenship each time after initial registration. The SAVE Act would impose this new hurdle on such updates, potentially requiring in-person submission of citizenship documents.
Note that as of February 2026, versions of this legislation (including the SAVE Act and the related SAVE America Act) have passed the House in various forms but face significant opposition in the Senate and have not yet become law. The exact final text could vary if amended, but the core proof-of-citizenship requirement for registration applications—including those triggered by moving—has been a consistent feature across descriptions.
Your turn!
Why do people have a problem with proving citizenship? No need to answer, we know. The voter rolls will not be automatically purged. If it passes, there will be enough time and resources for citizens to make sure all documentation is in place. Additionally, it will come down to individual states and how they audit and implementation. I know that my wife would gladly overcome the challenges with her birth certificate and married name. We live in the greatest country in the world, and most would do what is necessary to make it safer and secure future elections.
No you don't know because the motive is to keep non-citizens from voting, something they already can't do. Not to mention, all types of voting fraud is minimal, almost always detectable and has never been known to affect an election outcome so this is much ado about nothing other than Trumpublican' paranoia that someone is stealing their vote.
This is being done to suppress the vote, hopefully Democratic votes, and that's why only Republicans are sponsoring the bill. And you're wrong that we would have time to get this implemented correctly in time for the mid-terms, dead wrong.
Your wife is not all women
Expected nonsense. I agree that my wife is not "all women" but she is in the vast majority of women that would do the same. Of course that's my opinion and you will have the opposite. What is your wife's opinion if married?
There are some MAJOR improvements to the recently passed House “version” of the SAVE Act, compared to the “version” that was passed back in April of 2025.
It perfectly explains why the democrats are so panicked and fighting desperately to stop it.
(Brave search engine)
“The original SAVE Act, passed by the House in 2025, primarily required Americans to provide documentary proof of citizenship—such as a passport or birth certificate—when registering to vote in federal elections.”
“It focused on verifying citizenship at the registration stage.
The newer version, the SAVE America Act, passed in February 2026, expands on this with stricter requirements.”
“In addition to proof of citizenship at registration, it requires voters to present government-issued photo ID both when voting in person and when requesting or submitting absentee ballots.”
“It also mandates that states verify voter eligibility using the Department of Homeland Security’s SAVE program and imposes criminal penalties on election officials who register voters without proper documentation—even if the individual is a citizen.”
Can you see the SETUP?
Not only proof of citizenship at registration, but must provide photo ID when voting and there are going to be “criminal penalties” for election officials who do not comply.
And it’s all CONNECTED to the DHS SAVE program that “verifies” proof of citizenship.
Federal Law overseeing federal elections.
This is why the SAVE Act is directly CONNECTED to the DOJ lawsuits to acquire voter registration rolls in blue states.
When the SAVE Act is passed, it will then FORCE the blue states to turn over their voter registrations and will also deter election officials from breaking federal election laws.
Checkmate.
Dpic...over 70% of registered democrats favor passing the SAVE Act. It's not disputed. Your democrats leaders were elected to enact the will of the people.
It feels like the Left are ignoring the elephant in the room.
Blue voters are overwhelmingly in favor of voter-ID, yet 99% of Dem politicians are against it.
Has there been any outrage from blue voters towards Dem politicians? Have they asked themselves why Dem politicians are opposed to secure elections?
It feels like blue voters and MSM talking-heads are refusing to acknowledge that the only possible explanation for opposing the SAVE America Act, is to cheat. And if the Dems are using illegals and mail-in ballots to cheat in elections, wouldn’t that mean democracy is an illusion? Wouldn’t that disprove the entire foundation of the Democrat Party? They claim they do everything in defense of “democracy”, yet they cheat in elections? How does that make any sense?
The Dems completely desecrated the sanctity of US elections, for their own political and financial gain. The Democrat Party is anti-democratic. How ironic.
The point is that you are seeking to impose burdens on the exercise of a constitutional right. You will no doubt argue that the burden is slight, but we have seen how easily Republicans find it to make such burdens a whole lot heavier.
Repos will make it costlier, harder and more time consuming to obtain ID's. That's obvious. Anything they can do to limit voting by likely Democratic Party voters.
Next question?
now maybe in California it's hard to get an ID..in the rest of the country, you can just go to DMV..
Isn't California led by a democrat governor? Couldn't he make it easier to get ID?
This entire debate is specious in my opinion. Heck there's already info that people going to town hall in Georgia needed ID to get in to hear their senator argue against ID to vote, needed ID to get into democrat convention last year. This is one of those things where instead of arguing one way, just pass a bill to make getting ID easier. Heck, we've passed bills to make voting easier, what's one more step?
We know why they are opposed. This argument is silly. It's way past time to secure elections. Even with proving citizenship, I'm sure they have a plan in place to overcome it. That's what they do.
Here is AI’s conclusion.
“In short, voter ID requirements do not appear to boost turnout and may have neutral or modestly suppressive effects in some scenarios, but the evidence does not support the idea that states with these laws experience larger voter participation.”
Makes sense to me. The people who don’t put in The effort to get an ID, don’t usually care enough to vote anyway. Explains why there is no correlation.
“In short, voter ID requirements do not appear to boost turnout and may have neutral or modestly suppressive effects in some scenarios, but the evidence does not support the idea that states with these laws experience larger voter participation.”
Makes sense to me. The people who don’t put in The effort to get an ID, don’t usually care enough to vote anyway. Explains why there is no correlation.
Personally I think Trump is going to have Tulsi reverse tamper the machines and switch votes to Republicans going forward.
We The People need the save act so government officials from EITHER party can’t tamper with the votes. No, I d on t trust republicans either
What odds can I get going forward that democrats claim the mid-terms were stolen after voting against ID? We all know it’s coming.
Will democrats be able to claim stolen election after voting against voter identification?! We all know it’s coming.
We The People need the save act so government officials from EITHER party can’t tamper with the votes. No, I d on t trust republicans either
What odds can I get going forward that democrats claim the mid-terms were stolen after voting against ID? We all know it’s coming.
Will democrats be able to claim stolen election after voting against voter identification?! We all know it’s coming.
One thing you CAN trust about Republican party leadership is if they were to try and put in the fix, they would phuk it up.
I just bought some beer and you wouldn’t believe what I had to do to buy it.
Think Kansas has a similar law to the SAVE Act and it lowered turnout by about 12% (The SAVE Act isn’t just ID like you keep saying).
100%. The people in this thread who keep saying the Save Act is just requiring people to show ID are just showing their ignorance (that happens when you get your news from Twitter).
If the Republicans included funding to make it easier for everyone to get access to things like birth certificates, this would be a no-brainer.
It's honestly insane how often it's been repeated in this thread that the Save Act is about requiring a Driver's License to vote. Like truly insane
Well, I was really hoping that you would give it your blessing ...
I understand, you can't compete for minority voters, so you want to do everything you can to limit the number of them who vote. ID requirement (accompanied by new rules making it harder to get an ID); stationing IC goons around polling precincts "to make sure nothing goes wrong with the vote;" gerrymandering to get dilute minority votes wherever possible, attempts to ban motor voter and Saturday voting (i.e., "souls to the polls"). It's anti-American and pathetic, but understandable. That's how Trump Cultists roll.
This is a good strategy for Republicans. Make democrats defend their losing position on the world stage.
You are against ID because black people cant use computers and get an ID? Get on the stage and tell everyone that. It will be like free advertising for republicans.
I’m all for the filibuster in the traditional sense, like when Strom Thurmond used to speak for hours on end. The filibuster where you don’t even have to stand to speak is stupid and not how it was traditionally used.
You are against ID because black people cant use computers and get an ID? Get on the stage and tell everyone that. It will be like free advertising for republicans.
I’m all for the filibuster in the traditional sense, like when Strom Thurmond used to speak for hours on end. The filibuster where you don’t even have to stand to speak is stupid and not how it was traditionally used.
I’m telling yall, Trump is going to work with Putin to fix elections for Republicans in the future.
Democrats should support the Save act!
Democrats should support the Save act!