The SAVE America Act: A Deep Dive into Its Implications for U.S. Elections
The upcoming Senate discussions on the SAVE America Act signal a pivotal moment in American election law. This legislation, referenced by President Trump in his State of the Union address, promises to transform the electoral landscape by enforcing national rules on elections. Amidst heated debates surrounding voter ID laws and federal control, what does this act truly entail?
The SAVE America Act’s name nods to unfounded theories regarding undocumented individuals voting, as highlighted by NPR’s Steve Inskeep in a conversation with Georgetown Law professor Stephen Vladeck. Trump’s call for mandatory voter ID is just the tip of the iceberg, with the legislation encompassing several other provisions. Interestingly, Trump has also hinted at federal oversight of upcoming elections, raising questions about presidential powers amid declining approval ratings. In a striking January statement, Trump reportedly suggested, “we shouldn’t have an election,” while federal agents acted under his directive to seize ballots from the 2020 election.
Steve Inskeep queried Vladeck about the legal framework enabling a federal takeover of state-run elections. According to Vladeck, Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution designates states as the primary administrators of elections. However, Congress retains the authority to establish uniform rules, as it has previously done by setting Election Day as the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.
Inskeep pressed further, asking whether President Trump could bypass Congress by declaring an emergency. Vladeck clarified, “There’s no provision in the Constitution that allows the president to act without Congress in this space.” While a national emergency declaration can unlock specific presidential powers, it does not extend to election control. “Congress has never, in its wisdom, given that power to the president,” Vladeck emphasized.
Despite these limitations, past instances suggest a president could assert a legal interpretation and act accordingly, even if temporarily. The urgency of an election timeline poses unique challenges. Vladeck noted that election infrastructure remains under state and local control, unlike tariff enforcement, which involves federal officers. Local governments manage polling sites, making it difficult for the president to directly influence outcomes. Vladeck acknowledged potential attempts to limit mail-in voting or reduce polling locations, but he stressed that these actions would likely lead to litigation.
Inskeep explored the possibility of red states aligning with the president’s demands, potentially affecting votes in blue districts. While Vladeck admitted this is a significant concern, he argued that such actions would also prompt legal challenges. “I don’t think we’re looking at the president literally directing, say, the secretary of state of Texas to not let Democrats in certain districts vote,” Vladeck remarked, suggesting a focus on obstructing mail-in voting or polling accessibility instead.
The conversation turned to the specifics of the SAVE America Act, which aims to establish federal voting standards, including requiring “documentary proof of citizenship” for voter registration. While intended to curb noncitizen voting, Vladeck pointed out that many Americans might lack the necessary documentation. “There are countless Americans who don’t have the requisite documentary proof of U.S. citizenship,” he noted, adding that this requirement could disenfranchise voters across party lines.
In a personal anecdote, Inskeep shared an encounter with a married individual concerned about being unable to use her birth certificate due to a name change. Vladeck acknowledged the potential for confusion and stressed the need to avoid disenfranchising legitimate voters. He argued that equating voter ID requirements with those for purchasing alcohol misses the mark, as the latter is not a constitutional right.
Ultimately, Vladeck warned that while the SAVE America Act is positioned as a response to voter fraud, its real impact could be widespread voter disenfranchisement. “Its unquestioned effect is going to be to disenfranchise a meaningful number of voters,” he concluded, leaving the future of the act uncertain as it awaits Senate deliberation.
Stephen Vladeck, Georgetown University Law Center. Thanks so much.
(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)
Accuracy and availability of NPR transcripts may vary. Transcript text may be revised to correct errors or match updates to audio. Audio on npr.org may be edited after its original broadcast or publication. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
