Moderate Democrats Reverse Course on GOP Voter ID Legislation
WASHINGTON — Moderate Democrats who previously endorsed a Republican proposal to impose strict voter identification requirements are now distancing themselves from a new GOP-backed effort aimed at cracking down on alleged voter fraud. The earlier bill, known as the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, mandated that voters provide proof of citizenship during registration. In contrast, the updated legislation, titled the SAVE America Act, goes further by requiring both citizenship proof at registration and photo identification at polling stations on Election Day.
Key Differences and Democratic Opposition
Centrist Representative Jared Golden, a Democrat from Maine who backed last year's proposal, emphasized the distinction between the two policies. "This is voter ID at the ballot box. It's totally different than registration," Golden told HuffPost. "They're totally different policies." Progressive organizations, such as Indivisible, have mobilized voters to pressure Golden and other Democrats—including Representatives Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington, Henry Cuellar of Texas, and Ed Case of Hawaii—to reject any new versions of the legislation if advanced by Republicans.
Addressing a Phantom Threat
Both bills target the largely unsubstantiated concern of noncitizens voting in federal elections, an act that is already illegal and occurs infrequently. Despite this, public opinion polls show widespread support for voter ID requirements, leading some Democrats to initially align with such measures. House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Republican from Louisiana, described the new bill as "identical" to the original SAVE Act, but with the added step of voters presenting ID twice. However, the updated legislation also includes a provision requiring states to submit voter rolls to the Department of Homeland Security for purging noncitizens, and it complicates mail-in voting processes.
Burden of Paperwork and Practical Concerns
To assist voters in complying with a rule that mandates a copy of their ID with mail ballots, the new bill would obligate states to install free photocopiers or imaging devices in government buildings like courthouses, libraries, and police stations. Representative Gluesenkamp Perez criticized this requirement as overly burdensome. "Call me a perfectionist, but if your legislation requires government to provide free photocopy services, you have not written a good piece of legislation," she stated on social media. Meanwhile, Representative Cuellar indicated he is "still looking at it," and a spokesperson for Representative Case did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Legislative Hurdles and Broader Implications
Even if the bill passes the House, its prospects in the Senate appear slim, where it would need unanimous Republican support and at least seven Democratic votes. Already, Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska has declared her opposition, citing states' rights. "Not only does the U.S. Constitution clearly provide states the authority to regulate the 'times, places, and manner' of holding federal elections, but one-size-fits-all mandates from Washington, D.C., seldom work in places like Alaska," Murkowski said on social media. In response to inquiries, Speaker Johnson denied that the legislation aims to undermine confidence in upcoming elections, where Republicans are anticipated to perform poorly. "I'm not saying that you can't agree to the veracity yet from an election," Johnson explained. "I'm saying we have an obligation, we have a responsibility and a duty to do everything within our power—I mean the Congress and all of us as citizens—everything within our power to ensure that that is free and fair and safe and legal in every way possible."
