Pros and Cons of SAVE Acts

Republican lawmakers at the federal level continue to push for some version of the SAVE Act. Such proposals have been called “show your papers for voting” by its opponents. Most proposals would require a more formal version of ID, such as birth certificate, or passport which requires a birth certificate. The left has accused the GOP of undermining Americans’ freedom to vote.

Allegedly, more than 21 million Americans lack ready access to those documents. Half of Americans don’t have a passport, and millions lack access to a paper copy of their birth certificate. The left claims such requirements would disenfranchise Americans of all ages and races, especially younger voters and those of color. I disagree.

According to the American Bar Association, everyone born in a hospital has been issued a birth certificate for decades. Everyone is required to show one when applying for a social security number, a passport, a driver’s license, initially enroll in a school, and even some jobs. How does this burden the young or those of color as opposed to others? It could, however, burden the millions of women whose married names aren’t on their birth certificates, meaning a copy of various marriage licenses could be required.

I also disagree with the argument it could put a burden on state and local election officials or expose them to significant legal risk. To the best of my knowledge, election officials are temporary government employees. One generally sues the company, not the employee, barring intentional malfeasance in a death or lifelong injury. Then again, we are a “sue-happy” nation.

One new SAVE Act bill directs states to hand over their voter rolls to the Department of Homeland Security. In the case of a federal election, yes, the federal government should have access. However, it shouldn’t be DHS, who may use it for Trump’s ill-enforced deportation fiasco.

One bill would also require a narrow list of photo ID. Student ID’s would be excluded, as would tribal IDs that have expired. Supposedly most tribal IDs don’t even have expiration dates. Besides, how does an expiration date change who you are? It’s nonsense. It would even require voters in some states to show their passport or birth certificate each time they voted. More nonsense.

Another bill would have also mandated proof of residence. That’s irrelevant for a presidential election, but understandable for congressional seats. Since most people who move from one place to another usually do so over short distances, this seems more like a state issue for verifying which district one may vote in.

While arguably good intentioned to make sure only American citizens vote, fact is very few non-citizens vote. Even in Republican states such as Louisiana and Utah, the rarity of such votes have been confirmed.

Sometimes simple is best. Birth certificates are ubiquitous in today’s world; require one for a driver’s license or comparable photo ID. For those born outside the U.S., require a Certificate of Naturalization. Make it once and done, never again, barring some unusual circumstance such as a long expired ID to the point one’s looks have completely changed.

Source used: Brennan Center