21 million Americans lack citizenship documents. Here is what SAVE Act critics say.

The SAVE Act passed the House 218-213 on February 11, 2026 and now faces a 60-vote filibuster threshold in the Senate. More than 145 organizations have signed letters opposing the bill, and 60 bipartisan election officials have spoken against it. Their arguments rest on specific data, court rulings, and operational concerns. Whatever one makes of those arguments, they deserve to be presented honestly.

The document gap

The opposition’s central claim draws on a 2023 Brennan Center for Justice analysis estimating that 21.3 million voting-age U.S. citizens (roughly 9.1%) lack ready access to citizenship documents such as a birth certificate, passport, or naturalization certificate. Of those, 3.8 million have no citizenship documents at all.

The Brennan Center, which identifies itself as “an independent, nonpartisan law and policy organization,” reports that the gap falls unevenly by race: 11% of citizens of color lack ready access to documentation, compared to 8% of white citizens.

Passport statistics sharpen the point. Only about half of American adults hold a valid passport. According to the League of Women Voters, a self-described “nonpartisan, grassroots nonprofit dedicated to empowering everyone to fully participate in our democracy,” two-thirds of Black Americans lack passports.

Opponents also raise the cost of obtaining replacement documents. A birth certificate replacement runs $10 to $30 or more depending on the state. A passport costs $130 and up. The ACLU, whose stated mission is “to realize the promise of the United States Constitution for all and expand the reach of its guarantees,” calls these fees a de facto poll tax, a financial barrier to exercising the right to vote.

The married women problem

The National Women’s Law Center, an organization that fights for gender justice in the courts, in public policy, and in our society, points to another complication: 69 million American women have changed their surnames through marriage. According to a Center for American Progress analysis of Pew Research data cited by NWLC, 84% of women who marry change their surname, meaning their birth certificate no longer matches their current legal name.

The National Organization for Women went further, calling the SAVE Act “the STOP Act: It Stops Women from Voting.” NOW, the largest organization of feminist grassroots activists in the United States according to its own website, argues that requiring a birth certificate effectively penalizes women who followed the common practice of changing their surname at marriage.

It should be noted that the SAVE Act’s bill text does include provisions allowing “additional documentation” to resolve name discrepancies. Supporters say this addresses the married-name concern. Critics counter that the bill’s language is vague on what counts as sufficient additional documentation and that the in-person presentation requirement adds a separate barrier.

The Kansas experience

Critics point to Kansas as a real-world test case. Under a proof-of-citizenship law championed by then-Secretary of State Kris Kobach, more than 30,000 eligible voters were blocked from registering over the law’s lifespan. Meanwhile, court records documented only 39 noncitizens who had successfully registered over roughly 14 years, while at most 67 instances, including attempted registrations, were identified from 1999 to 2018.

In 2018, U.S. District Judge Julie Robinson struck down the Kansas law. Her ruling included a line that opponents of the SAVE Act now cite frequently: “There is no iceberg; only an icicle, largely created by confusion and administrative error.”

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Judge Robinson’s decision. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case, leaving the lower court ruling in place.

Arizona’s experience with a similar law produced parallel results. That state’s proof-of-citizenship requirement for the state registration form survived court challenge, but the federal registration form, which relies on a sworn attestation, remains available under Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, the 2013 Supreme Court case decided 7-2.

How rare is noncitizen voting?

The opposition’s most-cited data point may be the Heritage Foundation’s own Election Fraud Database. The database, maintained by an organization whose mission is “to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense,” documents fewer than 70 cases of noncitizen voting over more than 40 years, drawn from approximately 1,567 total fraud cases.

A 2016 Brennan Center survey of election officials found 30 suspected incidents of noncitizen voting out of 23.5 million votes cast in the jurisdictions surveyed, a rate of roughly 0.0001%.

State-level investigations have produced similar numbers:

• Texas (2019): Officials flagged nearly 100,000 registered voters as potential noncitizens. Subsequent review found the vast majority were naturalized citizens who had registered after obtaining citizenship. The state withdrew its list.
• Kansas (2018): At most 67 noncitizen registration instances (including attempts) identified from 1999 to 2018, per court findings. Meanwhile, more than 30,000 eligible voters were blocked.
• Minnesota, Florida, Ohio: State investigations have consistently found noncitizen voting to be exceedingly rare, with rates in the thousandths of a percent.

Election officials push back

Perhaps the most operationally grounded opposition comes from the 60 bipartisan election officials, Republicans and Democrats, who signed a letter through Issue One calling the SAVE Act “unfunded, operationally unrealistic.”

The Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan legal organization focused on democracy challenges, flags the bill’s criminal penalty provisions: election workers who register a voter without citizenship documentation could face up to five years in prison, even if the person they registered is, in fact, a U.S. citizen.

The CLC also notes the bill’s impact on registration methods. In 2022, 7 million Americans registered to vote by mail and 11 million registered online. The SAVE Act’s in-person document presentation requirement would effectively end both methods.

Military and overseas voters face a particular burden. The U.S. Vote Foundation warned the bill would “decimate” overseas voter participation, since deployed service members and citizens living abroad cannot appear in person at an election office to present original documents.

The counterpoint

These arguments form the strongest case against the SAVE Act. But polling data tells a different story about where the public stands.

Gallup’s October 2024 survey found 84% of Americans support requiring photo ID to vote, including 67% of Democrats and 98% of Republicans. Pew Research’s August 2025 poll put support at 83%, with 76% of Black Americans and 82% of Hispanic Americans backing the requirement.

Supporters of the SAVE Act argue that the small documented numbers of noncitizen voting reflect a lack of detection tools, not a lack of occurrence. Heritage Foundation describes its Election Fraud Database as a “sampling” of proven cases, not a comprehensive count. Without systematic citizenship verification at the point of registration, supporters contend, the true scope of the problem cannot be measured.

They also point to the international landscape: 176 countries require voter identification, including democracies such as France, Germany, India, Mexico, Norway, and Sweden. Mexico issues a free national voter ID card. The United States, supporters say, is an outlier among established democracies.

—