Although it is generally agreed that a system should be put into place to keep voting citizen-exclusive, the SAVE America Act does more harm than good. If passed, the SAVE America Act would create a new registration system for voting that requires voters to have specific proof, such as a passport or birth certificate to prevent non-citizens from voting. This seems like a solid idea on paper, but a large percent of U.S. citizens do not have the time nor the means to get these documents, limiting previously eligible voters. The law is currently being pushed to pass by the Trump administration as Trump said the law will “guarantee the midterms” for the Republican party. In February, the law made it into the House of Representatives, and if the law becomes official, voters will have about seven months to obtain proof of citizenship effective early April.

According to the Brennan Center, “More than 21 million Americans lack ready access to the documents [required to vote].”

This lack of access will most likely demotivate voters because it would increase the amount of time and resources needed to be able to vote. According to the American Presidency Project, only 63.1 percent of eligible voters actually voted in the 2024 election, which lags behind other democracies around the world. The SAVE America Act would only make the process harder for the people who deem voting a worthwhile Act.  

The Act, meant to combat non-citizen voters, is more effective against voting citizens. The Bipartisan Policy Center describes a case study conducted in Kansas that proved that only 0.002 percent of votes came from noncitizens, while the law prevented 12 percent of eligible voters from voting.

Junior Moses Schollett noted that “needing multiple proofs of citizenship is more of a restriction [on] certain [marginalized] groups, as opposed to cracking down on voter fraud.” The implementation of the SAVE America Act could decrease the amount of voters even more, especially in communities that are already under-represented.

The law would heavily impact marginalized groups, including married women, people of color and low-income families. If the population is unproportionally accounted for, it will increase frustration among the people and further divide society. This split of representation holds future implications, including the possibility of an increased wealth gap and less social equity overall.

If the law gets passed, it will go into immediate effect– giving voters around seven months to obtain the proper identification. On average, it takes about 4-6 weeks to get a passport with the current influx of requests.

Junior Emma Mason shared a personal experience regarding obtaining a passport; she had an appointment scheduled months ahead, and only after she got the appointment, it took a further 4-6 weeks to get the passport. If the requests were to increase, the time would increase and hold more people back from the proper identification needed to vote. Other complications, such as access to transportation, DMV availability, and personal obligations can make this timing far more difficult.

The White House posted a report describing the support for the Act across political groups, the poll showed that the Democratic party was split at 50 percent while 91 percent of the Republican party supported the Act. Based on government votes, it seems that the SAVE America Act may result in a bigger inequality in the Republican to Democrat voting ratio. The law seems to be limiting groups that typically fall into the Democratic party. This has caused some to wonder what other purposes the law aims to serve.

Overall, the law does more damage to eligible voters and marginalized groups than it does to eliminate the problem of non-citizen voting.  While the problems presented by this Act may now seem miniscule, it reveals deeper intentions beneath the current administration. The SAVE America Act, alongside ICE, shows that President Trump is setting a clear line against immigrants within the United States. Not only does the prejudiced nature of the law spark conversation, but the spending required for this seemingly counterproductive plan continues to fuel debate among many U.S. residents.