LETTER FROM THE EDITOR: Concerns about the SAVE Act

There’s a lot of talk right now about the SAVE Act, a proposal in the other Washington with the fancy buildings and national museums to ensure only qualified Americans can vote. Honestly, that’s a good thing. We don’t want or need non-citizens voting in our elections. They should be, and are, secure. Data from secretaries of state throughout the nation show that our elections are secure with very little voter fraud.  

Still, we do need to ensure that a random person who doesn’t have the right to vote doesn’t. I think just about all Americans agree with that.  

The concerns I have with the SAVE Act – full name, Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act – is that it may go so far with the notion that it disenfranchises Americans who should be able to vote. It appears to overcorrect the situation at hand and oversteps the bounds of what the federal government can legally do - maybe. Under the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 indicates, “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.” 

Note the old spelling of the word choosing in the last sentence. Language has shifted in the last 250 years or so, but that’s beside the point.  

So, the states have the power, but Congress does too? I’ll let y’all mull that over.  

My concern is this: How many American citizens don’t have proof of citizenship, and of those that don’t, how many can easily obtain those documents?  

According to a University of Maryland study, about 21 million Americans don’t necessarily have easy access to citizenship documentation. For example, and I hold myself to blame for this, I do not currently have a copy of my birth certificate. I know I was born in Plains, Mont., in 1975 and the date and all that. But under the SAVE Act, I’ll likely need my birth certificate to register to vote. A certified copy cost me $16 plus a processing fee. I can manage that and the document is headed my way. 

But what about the folks that can’t afford that $16? The senior citizens with limited incomes who are having to choose between food and medicine? The young, single mom with multiple mouths to feed?  

There’s also a concern about women needing more documentation than men. A woman may be born Jackie Smith, but then she marries John Doe. Now she’s Jackie Doe, or Jackie-Smith-Doe. Not only does she need her photo ID and birth certificate, she needs her marriage certificate. Add to that a divorce and subsequent remarriage, and she may need divorce decrees and the newest marriage certificate. While the current version of the SAVE Act would only require new documentation when updating a registration or for brand new registrations, here are a few things that could trigger the new documentation requirements: changing your address; changing your name; changing your party affiliation or otherwise modifying your voter record.  

Address changes would impact renters more than homeowners. Name changes would affect women more than men, as noted above.  

Digging around online, there’s also a pretty extraordinary cost to the SAVE Act. Nobody seems to have a solid number, but with the diversity of elections systems in each state, the logistics involved in getting information into a federal database, and other issues, the overall figure is in the billions of dollars.  

Is it worth spending money to secure elections? Yes. Is it worth that much more considering the relative lack of election fraud in the U.S.? I don’t know. I don’t think so.  

The Heritage Foundation, a conservative nonprofit that, among other right-leaning political activities, tracks voter fraud has only found 15 cases of proven voter fraud in Washington state since 2004. For perspective, Washington had about 3.5 million registered voters in 2004 and that number has grown to a bit more than 5 million. So, the rate of proven voter fraud in our state is 0.000428% to 0.00002%. That’s not enough to modify the overall result of a statewide election.  

I think we need to debate the issue, and we should constantly be working to ensure the security of elections. However, I don’t think we should be spending billions to put the SAVE Act into place – especially without giving voters time to get their paperwork together – when we have more serious election security concerns such as foreign governments interfering with our elections, as multiple Republican and Democratic administrations in D.C. have said is the case. 

I encourage all of our readers to review the SAVE Act for themselves, identify the documentation they’ll need to continue to legally vote if it is enacted, and obtain those items. Honestly, they’re just practical things to have handy anyhow.  

Take care, and thank you for your readership.  
R. Hans “Rob” Miller
Managing Editor
Columbia Basin Herald
Basin Business Journal 

ID Requirements under the SAVE Act:  

REAL ID-compliant ID that explicitly indicates U.S. citizenship 

Valid U.S. passport or passport card 

U.S. birth certificate (certified copy OK) 

U.S. Military ID with service records showing U.S. birthplace 

- Many U.S. military members are noncitizens 

Government issued ID showing U.S. place of birth 

- May be federal, state or tribal  

Other government ID if accompanied by birth certificate or a hospital record of birth created at the time of birth