Opponents of legislation requiring proof of citizenship when registering to vote have used misleading arguments to warn that the bill would somehow infringe on voting rights.
Only four Democrats joined with Republicans in the House last week to pass the Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility Act, which would also require states to remove noncitizens from their voter registration records.
While fighting against the SAVE Act, Democrats have deployed some of the same rhetoric about voter suppression that they’ve used in past battles over election reforms despite few of their predictions coming to fruition in the wake of those bills.
A modern-day poll tax
Poll taxes, or a flat tax charged to everyone who wants to vote, have been illegal since the 1960s. Southern states used poll taxes to discriminate against black people prior to the passage of the Voting Rights Act and the addition of the 24th Amendment to the Constitution, both of which outlawed the practice.
Opponents of voter identification laws have been likening ID requirements to poll taxes for years, arguing that because obtaining identification usually involves paying a small fee, requiring a voter to show an ID means he or she must indirectly pay to cast a ballot.
That argument is not convincing, however. People must obtain an ID to drive, work, purchase alcohol, board an airplane, and partake in a wide range of government services and private sector activity. The fee a person pays to obtain a driver’s license is not related to elections, nor does the money typically fund elections.
What’s more, the SAVE Act involves an arguably less burdensome ID requirement than some traditional voter ID laws, compelling states to verify a voter’s citizenship in person at the time he or she registers to vote, but not each time he or she heads to the polls.
Williams’s argument about the SAVE Act imposing a poll tax is based on the cost an American must pay to obtain a passport, which is currently $130, according to the State Department.
But passports, like drivers licenses, are not necessary for voting. And the SAVE Act does not require a person to show a passport to register to vote; individuals can provide a number of different documents to prove he or she is a citizen, including a birth certificate or naturalization papers.
Blocks 70 million women to vote because they changed their name after marriage
Democrats have focused much of their criticism on the possibility that married women may face additional hurdles when registering to vote if they have legally changed their last name and it no longer matches the surname on their birth certificate. They claim that the SAVE Act would prohibit those women from using their birth certificates or passports from registering to vote, disenfranchising millions of people.
However, House Republicans have countered that their legislation does not rule out letting married women use their marriage certificate or other documents explaining the name discrepancy.
“No one will be left unable to register to vote due to a name change,” Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-GA)’s office noted in a post about the bill.
Instead, the SAVE Act directs states to establish their own process for married women and other people who have changed their names to prove their citizenship when registering to vote.
That could leave states with different policies about what documents are required for U.S. citizens in this unique situation.
NO ONE IS BUYING THE DEMOCRATS’ GENDER WAR ATTACKS ON VOTER ID AND THE SAVE ACT
But states already operate under a patchwork of voting laws that differ on everything from the rules around mail-in ballots to the months when early voting begins. States requiring different combinations of documents from married women to satisfy the proof-of-citizenship obligation under the SAVE Act would therefore not depart from the status quo of state-administered elections.
Women are already required to present identifying documents when legally changing their last name after marriage, so many who have pursued such a change would already have on hand the documents they need, or at least have an idea of where to get them.
It’s already illegal for noncitizens to vote in federal elections
Verifying that registered voters are U.S. citizens is something “few states currently do,” according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
While it is illegal for noncitizens to vote in federal elections, there are few guardrails against it in practice. Some cities, states, and the District of Columbia allow noncitizens to vote in state and local elections, and noncitizens can get registered to vote on accident when Department of Motor Vehicles offices offer registration opportunities to ineligible people.
Because noncitizens can obtain driver’s licenses that don’t indicate their immigration status, poll workers could struggle to identify a noncitizen casting a ballot in a federal election, even in states with existing voter ID laws.
Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX), who introduced the SAVE Act, has called the current proof-of-citizenship requirement a “box-checking exercise.” That’s because the federal voting registration form features a box that registrants check to affirm that they are U.S. citizens, without having to provide any additional proof. Checking the box without actually having citizenship can result in criminal penalties, but detecting and enforcing such fraud is rare.
Noncitizens have successfully registered to vote in some states, highlighting what Republicans say is the need for legislation like the SAVE Act. In Pennsylvania, for example, state officials acknowledged in late 2018 that they had discovered more than 11,000 noncitizens who had registered to vote.
Purges registered voters
The SAVE Act does not ask states to remove eligible voters from their rolls.
Instead, the voter roll maintenance provisions of the bill offer states access to Department of Homeland Security and Social Security Administration databases to ensure the voter roll clean-ups target noncitizens.
Names would only be removed from voter rolls if states have “verified proof they’re ineligible,” according to Heritage Action.
States are already required by federal law to maintain up-to-date voter rolls by removing the names of people who have died or moved to a different state. However, some states routinely fail to do so, and a handful of blue states have actively resisted efforts to remove ineligible voters, sparking lawsuits.