Passage of the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act will not save the Republican Party from losing the House of Representatives in 2026, as President Donald Trump claims. But it is a reasonable and desirable constitutional reform that would help restore faith in elections. It deserves a vote on the Senate floor.
According to the best estimates available, there were about 16 million illegal immigrants in the country when Trump took office, some 6 million of them having entered during President Joe Biden’s maladministration. The Trump administration claims it has deported some 600,000 and that another 1.9 million have left voluntarily, meaning the illegal population now hovers around 13.5 million.
Noncitizen voting is rare, but does happen. In 2024, Ohio brought indictments against 6 noncitizens for illegally voting in federal elections, and in Texas, 33 noncitizens were referred to the attorney general’s office for the same crime. A 2014 study of the 2008 election found that 6.4% of noncitizens voted that year, which was enough to give Democrats the 60 Senate votes they needed to pass Obamacare along purely partisan lines.
The SAVE Act would require states to collect proof of citizenship from anyone registering to vote. Acceptable evidence includes a Real ID, a passport, or a birth certificate. The bill also mandates in-person voter registration, the establishment of state verification programs, and strict penalties for noncompliance.
The House passed the SAVE Act last year with mostly Republican votes plus four Democrats. Most Democrats oppose the bill, claiming that voters in racial minority groups lack access to the required identification documents. This is false and also an insult to minority group voters who are as capable of obtaining suitable identification as anyone else. Democrats also argue that the law will burden women who change their names after marriage. But that is also false, for the law allows them to use the same documents needed to change their name with the Social Security office in the first place.
Unfortunately, some conservative publications have argued against the bill, claiming that it would amount to a federalization of elections. Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution says, “The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof.” But then it continues, “but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations.” Congress altered the regulations again and again over the centuries, including the Presidential Election Day Act of 1845, which set the Tuesday after the first Monday in November as Election Day.
More recently, Congress passed the National Voter Registration Act in 1993, which was opposed by Sens. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA) because they feared it would be used by Democrats to weaken election integrity laws in Republican states. It has been used to do exactly that, including Arizona v. Arizona Inter Tribal Council, in which the Supreme Court struck down Arizona’s proof-of-citizenship requirement. Conservative SAVE Act opponents say the National Voter Registration Act should be repealed, which is a good idea so far as it goes, but it does not go very far, for repeal is not happening. The NVRA even contains some good provisions that anti-SAVE Act Republicans say they support, such as mandatory voter roll maintenance. The SAVE Act would keep these good requirements and add more. Conservatives who want secure and uncorrupted elections should not oppose that. There are many ways that election procedures are shaped by Washington for the nation, and ensuring that only citizens vote is an obvious necessity ripe for congressional action.
Senate Democrats will never allow the SAVE Act to reach the Senate floor for an up or down vote, and some conservatives are pushing Senate leadership to use Rule 19, otherwise known as the “two speech rule,” to force Democrats into a talking filibuster that they would eventually be forced to abandon once every Democrat had given two speeches against the SAVE Act. This is a different mechanism than Rule 22, which is how most filibusters are ended with 60 votes.
RENTS FALL AS TRUMP’S DEPORTATIONS RISE
Using Rule 19 to force a talking filibuster would not be a rule change, but it would force a weekslong battle of wills and logistics between Senate Democrats and Republicans. Senate Republicans would need to ensure a quorum of 47 Republican Senators was on hand 24/7 to defeat any motion to adjourn, while every Senate Democrat spoke twice. With the age and slim majority of Senators, there is no guarantee Senate Republicans would prevail. It is understandable why Senate leadership is hesitant to proceed with the plan.
Even if Senate leadership decides the SAVE Act is not worth attempting a talking filibuster, they should force the Democrats to go on record voting against even debating the bill through Rule 22. If Democrats believe existing safeguards are sufficient, they should defend that position openly. Confidence in elections grows when rules are clear, enforced, and publicly defended.
