You are here > Home > News Columns HOME > NEWSPAPER COLUMNS> The U.S. Senate should pass the SAVE Act and Secure Elections
|
Essentials: A Path Forward | Senate Should Pass |
Krauthammer; Donald Trump is a pragmatist | |
 Published by The Galveston County Daily NewsPublished: June 18, 2026 | |||
|
The Republicans have a majority in the U.S. Senate but not all hold the same views as their constituents. According to Gallup polls, 84% of voters want to require a photo ID in order to vote. And yet, Senate Majority Leader, John Thume (R-SD) can't seem to get the SAVE Act across the goal line. The SAVE Act would require a photo ID in order to vote in all federal elections and require the proof of citizenship for those registering to vote. With the lack of federal action, states are taking steps to safeguard the integrity of their own election process. Arizona enacted legislation requiring documentation of citizenship — (i.e., a birth certificate, passport, etc.) — to vote in state and local elections. Individuals who fail to show documentation and who use the standard federal registration form are placed on a "federal-only" voter roll. The federal National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) only requires that a voter be a U.S. citizen but stops short of requiring proof thereof. Consequently Arizona "Federal-only" voters would only be allowed to vote on congressional races. A legal battle is brewing over these requirements. The Supreme Court is being asked to weigh in to overturn a decision by the left-leaning Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that blocked Arizona from implement its proof of citizenship requirement. Article I, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, says states have the primary authority over election administration, the "times, places, and manner of holding elections." The Arizona law bars "federal-only registrants" from voting in state and local elections and presidential races because the voter hasn't provided citizenship proof, giving them ballots with only congressional races. [Under the U.S. Constitution individual states elect "Electors" who, in turn, vote to select a President and Vice President. Arizona contends this places the presidential race under the "State and Local" category of voting.] The Republican National Committee contends the NVRA doesn't prohibit states from implementing stricter guidelines for state and local elections. It's request to the high court is focusing exclusively on defending major, commonsense safeguards — the mandatory proof of citizenship for voter registration — narrowing the case to the most critical election integrity measures. This targeted legal strategy ensures the High Court can deliver a definitive, clean ruling on the state's fundamental authority to verify citizenship and secure voter rolls against unlawful registration. If the Supreme Court hears the case on its merits, oral arguments will be scheduled in the upcoming term beginning in October. A definitive ruling from the bench would reverberate far beyond Arizona's borders, establishing a legal precedent for other states seeking to implement parallel proof-of-citizenship requirements. In the last legislative session in Austin, the state senate passed SB-16 which is similar to Arizona's law. The Texas House slow-walked the measure and failed to act before the session ended. The best outcome to ensure voting integrity is for the U.S. Senate pass the SAVE Act. If they fail to do so, the Arizona, and now Texas, approach is the best alternative. |
|||
About the Authors/Columnists 2026 Bill and Mark have written over 300 guest columns and editorials together over the last ten years for numerous publications across the country and they continue to do so. Bill lives in Texas and Mark in Idaho. Both gentlemen ran against each other in the 2012 Republican Primary for Texas Congressional District 14. Since then they have become close friends and colleagues | |||
  Feedback from a retired teacher living in Pennsylvania- I Definitely want to have the SAVE Act passed. I find Arizona's solution to be creative and worth copying! Since 2020 we have voted in Pennsylvania either in person or absentee. VOTING IN PERSON: When voting in person no photo ID is required and we must vote in our designated precinct. When we come in, we give the poll workers our name and they go to a big book, find our name, and have us sign in the book. Presumably they check the signature printed in the book against our in-person signature. So, no photo ID is required, and I think it should be. Passing the SAVE Act would address this and improve the integrity of our elections. VOTING EARLY: Prior to the election anyone can start voting in the Election office up to two weeks prior to Election Day. In reality it is "EARLY Voting" even though they don't call it that… You just make an appointment to have your precinct's papers set up, or you show up and vote in the voting booth they have set up for this purpose. ABSENTEE VOTING: Anybody can decide to vote absentee here in our state and no photo ID is required in this process. There are no restrictions. For most absentee ballots, the ballot is sent to you by mail; you fill it out and return it. Once the election office receives the ballot, a verification or acceptance email is sent to the voter. Unlike some states where you are required to sign the carrier envelope so election officials can verify that it was actually you voting, no such signature is required here in Pennsylvania. The concern I have with this process is it opens the opportunity for ballot harvesting (i.e., where a person could go to a nursing home and collect a bunch of blank mail-in ballots, fill them out in favor of their candidate, mail them in, and nobody would be the wiser). This doesn't directly relate to your column about requiring proof of citizenship, but it's a concern and something our elected officials need to look at and fix. IN VIRGINIA: We used to live in Virginia and at least when voting in person, they require a photo ID. Most people show their driver's license. Some show their government ID cards. Viriginia gives the poll book users a list of acceptable photo IDs that are deemed acceptable. Many are University IDs. The issue in Virginia is the kinds of IDs they accept. A student ID is okay I guess but I don't think they are very secure. Anybody could create one. It would be better to limit the kinds of IDs to federal documents like a passport or state documents like a driver's license or birth certificate. But we no longer live in Virginia and so we don't have a dog in that fight! Thanks for writing this column. It focuses on some important issues; issues that people need to think about – The integrity of our voting processes. Comment from former Chief of Staff for a Member of Congress currently living in Arizona:Your article is good but falls short in a couple of respects. One of the issues I have is it fails to mention or address the "800-pound gorilla" in the room: What is the likelihood of our "Democrat Governor, Democrat Secretary of State, and Democrat Attorney General," who were all elected through this corrupt Arizona voting system, agree to the change? The other "800-pound gorilla" in the room which wasn't mentioned in the article is both of our Democrat U.S. Senators were "elected" using this corrupt voting system. Why would they vote for the SAVE America Act when the only reason they were "elected" was because of this corrupt system? If our elected politicians decide not to fix our corrupt voting system and America's only hope is going to the court system, especially the U.S. Supreme Court, the best we can hope for is a band-aid fix. Comment from a former elected official in ArizonaThose who oppose The Republican National Committee's legal challenge against those who want to invalidate Arizona's requirement for proof of citizenship are effectively trying to decouple voting rights and citizenship. This is an existential threat to America's standing as a constitutional republic. I can't think of any private club that does not link official membership and the ability to hold office in the organization much less to vote for those who seek to hold office in the organization. The purpose of such a requirement is to maintain a continuity of purpose and values of the organization. The same rationale is true for holding to the founding values of America - "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness". Any policy, law, or attempt to decouple citizenship and voting rights is nothing less than an attack on America and her citizens. Comment from a former federal official from VirginiaI see several issues that the Arizona law is attempting to address: - The first is that the U.S. Senate seems incapable to ensuring the integrity of our elections by passing the SAVE Act. - The alternative was -- at a minimum -- to protect the integrity of our state's elections by requiring proof of U.S. citizenship for all but the federal races. - The question, why would anyone object to making sure only U.S. citizens are voting in our elections? The answer is most likely because the Democrats, with their desire for open border policies, want to be able to count on support at the ballot box from non-citizens, even though federal law makes it clear it is illegal for non-citizens to vote. Then again, if a person is in our country illegally, they probably don't mind breaking the law a second time! - Finally, doing what Arizona has done gives them a perfect opportunity to clean up their voter registration rolls. I would include looking for cases where people have died or moved out of state and make sure these people removed from out voter rolls as well. My hope is that the Supreme Court will accept the case brought by the Republican National Committee and will find Arizona's law constitutional.
| |||