Estimates vary, but even after President Donald Trump’s deportations, somewhere between 10 and 18 million illegal immigrants still live in the United States, and as New Jersey Gov. Mikie Sherrill’s announcement last week shows, thousands of them are illegally voting in our elections.
The Washington Examiner has editorialized in support of the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act before, going so far as to endorse the use of the Senate’s Rule 19 to defeat a talking filibuster.
That was nearly six months ago. The policy questions surrounding the SAVE Act remain substantially the same, but the administrative calendar has changed dramatically.
The legislation would do much more than instruct voters to show identification at polling places. It would require documentary proof of citizenship when people register to vote. In addition, it would impose a national photo-identification standard for federal voting and alter the procedures used for mail registration, online registration, and provisional ballots. It would also require election officials to verify documents, revise voter-registration systems, and conduct additional voter-list maintenance.
These are all worthwhile reforms. But implementing those changes consistently across thousands of state and local jurisdictions would require new regulations, computer programming, forms, manuals, public notices, and worker training. Local officials would need guidance on which citizenship documents qualify, how to handle changed names, and what to do when an applicant lacks a passport or readily available birth certificate. Officials accustomed to verifying residence and identity would also need procedures for examining naturalization papers, consular birth records, and other citizenship evidence.
The photo-identification provisions would require another set of changes. No state’s existing identification law precisely matches the SAVE America Act’s proposed national requirements. Even states with long-standing voter-ID laws would therefore need to revise their rules, retrain election workers, and explain the new standards to voters.
The legislation’s timing provisions would make that task especially difficult. The act would take effect upon enactment rather than after a transition period. The Election Assistance Commission would have only 10 days to issue implementation guidance, and the legislation does not provide states with implementation funding. These administrative changes will take months to complete properly.
Election Day is Nov. 3, but the operational election calendar begins much earlier. Under federal law, states generally must transmit absentee ballots to military and overseas voters at least 45 days before a federal election. That deadline falls on Sept. 19.
Before then, officials must finalize ballot procedures, update databases, print instructions, test equipment, and train personnel. Early voting begins in some jurisdictions not long afterward. Registration activity is already underway, and voters are already relying on rules published by their states.
Changing those rules in August or September could create different requirements for people registering only weeks apart. It could also produce inconsistent implementation among states or even among counties within the same state, as officials interpret hurried federal guidance while defending their decisions in court.
This is not an argument against requiring voter identification. It is possible to regard citizenship verification as legitimate while concluding that major election-law changes should not take effect in the closing weeks of an election cycle. The relevant distinction is between the substance of a reform and the date on which it becomes operational.
GROCERY STORE SOCIALISM ALREADY FAILING IN CHICAGO
The Senate has already voted on the proposal repeatedly, Republicans remain short of the 60 votes needed to advance it, and Senate leaders say they also lack the votes to abolish or circumvent the filibuster. Even immediate Senate action would leave local election offices with only weeks to reconstruct systems developed over years.
Passage of the SAVE Act was never going to save the Republican Party from losing the House of Representatives in 2026, if that is indeed their fate, as Trump claims. But it is a reasonable and desirable constitutional reform that would help restore faith in elections. It deserves to become law. Just not 50 days before ballots start heading out.