In Washington, a substantial piece of election legislation championed by congressional Republicans is stirring debate due to its requirement for voters to prove their citizenship when registering. This proposal has led to concerns among state election officials regarding the execution of such a requirement and the financial implications it entails.
Interviews with secretaries of state from both political parties revealed widespread unease with federal intervention in state election rules. They expressed apprehensions about the new procedures that would be necessary, including the collection and management of sensitive documents. A particular point of contention is a clause that imposes civil or criminal penalties on election officials who inadvertently register voters without citizenship proof.
Maine’s Secretary of State, Shenna Bellows, highlighted the absence of a federal database that states can utilize to confirm citizenship status, which is problematic given that current databases, like those maintained by the Social Security Administration and Department of Homeland Security, are considered unreliable. Bellows stated, “Reasonable people can agree that only citizens should be voting in our elections. If they want us to prove citizenship, then they need to build the infrastructure for that to happen.”
House Republicans, urged by President Donald Trump, are poised to fast-track the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act. This bill, mandating proof of citizenship, is part of a bundle of priority legislative measures set to bypass committee review and advance to a floor vote. However, its fate in the Senate remains uncertain, with expected Democratic resistance.
While state election officials largely support measures ensuring only U.S. citizens vote, there is an ongoing debate about the best approach. This issue is typically minor, often due to individual errors rather than organized voter fraud. Discussions focus on whether the onus of proof should be on the voter or if the federal government should enhance its data reliability for citizenship verification.
Kansas Secretary of State, Scott Schwab, expressed reservations about federal legislation’s impact, noting, “Every time there’s federal legislation, I’ve got concerns, especially when the feds talk about things that the states typically do on a year-by-year, day-to-day basis. Just because you think it’ll work in your state doesn’t mean it will work in everybody else’s state.”
Republicans argue that the current voter registration system is vulnerable, allowing non-citizens to vote based on an oath of citizenship. Concerns about illegal voting were magnified following claims by Trump, although such incidents are rare and can result in serious legal consequences. Since his November victory, Trump has continued advocating for election reforms, including the proof of citizenship requirement.
Utah’s Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson voiced concerns about federal overreach and the absence of state support in the proposed legislation. “It definitely shouldn’t be on throwing election workers or secretaries of state or county clerks in jail for accidentally registering a noncitizen to vote when we don’t have adequate tools to even verify citizenship,” she remarked.
A major issue with the legislation is funding. The bill lacks an appropriation for its execution, leaving states to shoulder the costs. Federal funding for elections has been a persistent issue for election officials. Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson commented, “If you talk to the vast majority of election officials, they will tell you that federal investment in our elections is sorely needed, especially if folks in Congress are going to be talking about things like the SAVE Act, which will only increase costs of running elections and increase federal oversight and involvement in our elections.”
Voting rights groups have expressed concern that the bill could complicate voter registration for married women who have changed their names, as their birth certificate might still display their maiden name. They also criticized requirements for providing documents in person, which could be difficult for individuals in remote areas, requiring long travel and time off work.
Under the current registration setup, voters must provide a state driver’s license number or the last four digits of their Social Security number while affirming their citizenship under oath. Some states require a full Social Security number, but Republicans argue this system allows individuals to register without adequate proof. The legislation suggests several documents, like a REAL ID-compliant driver’s license, passport, or birth certificate, as evidence of citizenship. However, less than 56% of U.S. licenses and IDs are REAL ID-compliant as of early 2024.
Presently, eight states mandate proof of citizenship for voters, with lawmakers in 17 states looking to incorporate similar requirements. However, these efforts have seen mixed outcomes. In Kansas, a citizenship requirement led to approximately 30,000 citizens being erroneously blocked from registering. Meanwhile, Georgia has successfully partnered with its motor vehicle agency for citizenship verification.
Challenges persist with federal data reliability, as noted by Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes. He highlighted issues with federal databases and cited examples in Arizona, where proof of citizenship has been problematic, particularly with U.S. nationals. Fontes stated, “We’ve got so many issues to deal with and such a poor understanding of our own laws that I think a massive shift like this is just problematic. I don’t think Congress has taken the time to ask the folks who actually do this work if what they are proposing is workable in the first place. And that’s dangerous, especially when you are criminalizing some of these activities.”
