At the beginning of 2025, Representative Roy Chip of Texas reintroduced the “Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act” – a misleading name, like most GOP bills. It has garnered media attention since it has a real chance of becoming federal law due to Republicans controlling the entirety of Congress in addition to the Presidency. Back in 2024, the SAVE Act managed to pass the House 211-198 but fell after being blocked by the then-Democratic Senate and threats by President Joe Biden to veto it as soon as it landed in the Oval Office. To become law, the SAVE Act merely needs a 51% majority in Congress before it will be signed by Donald Trump.
What is the SAVE Act?
In its own words, the SAVE Act “requires individuals to provide documentary proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections.” But what exactly does that mean?
If passed, the SAVE Act will require all citizens to show physical proof of their American citizenship in one of three ways to get their ballot: a valid US passport, a REAL ID, or a birth certificate proving their American birth – and that option must match their current legal name on their other documents, like Driver’s License, military ID, bills, etc. Currently, only two of those options work since REAL IDs do not indicate citizenship status. The real harm and intent of the SAVE Act is aimed at American women, although it disproportionally affects anyone in rural areas. According to Statistics in 2022, 68.9% of American women have been married, widowed, or divorced – but very few women get their birth certificate amended after changing their legal name via marriage. It’s burdensome and unnecessary since it’s not been required for any other legal process where an amended Driver’s License or similar ID could be used. USA Today reports that 51% of Americans have a valid passport – a number that has steadily increased throughout the decades but remains disproportionate based on communities with access to income or transportation. Ultimately, the SAVE Act will require all voters to present either a birth certificate or passport that matches their current legal name. These requirements directly target all women, but especially women in rural communities, and bar their ability to vote in future elections.
How common is voter fraud? Donald Trump and his allies would have you believe that fraud is rampant, breaking the systems that American democracy is founded on. These claims have been repeatedly debunked – but Trump is an accomplished propagandist, immediately circling back to argue mainstream media and whistleblowers must be in cahoots with his opponents if they refuse to side with him despite his lack of evidence. The facts are relatively simple: voter fraud is rare, and intentionally doing so leads to felony charges and deportation that noncitizens do not believe is worth the risk. Still, election fraud is a viable tactic in employing fascism – Trump asserted for months leading up to the 2020 election that fraud could be the only reason he lost, encouraging his fanbase to attack the national capital in his defense.
To this point, elections have always been a state issue – with certain national protections in place to streamline the process, individual states have the authority to determine requirements for elections. These laws are why “red” states are largely just suppressed rather than genuinely conservative – the surprise 2020 outcome in Georgia occurred because grassroots organizers worked for months to help Black voters get registered to legally vote despite the strict laws Georgia set to deter voters. Depending on the state you live in, you may not be able to register online, vote by mail, vote early or overseas, or use drop boxes. Many suppressive states intentionally purge voter registration records without notice to require voters to reapply for each election – which catches would-be voters off-guard on election day since they’ve been deleted from the records and it’s passed the deadline to re-register.
Given the changes the SAVE Act would make, states on both sides of the political spectrum have made statements about the act being an overreach by the federal government and not possible without additional funding. Democratic Michigan Secretary of State Joselyn Benson told the Associated Press, “If you talk to the vast majority of election officials, they will tell you that federal investment in our elections is sorely needed, especially if folks in Congress are going to be talking about things like the SAVE Act, which will only increase costs of running elections and increase federal oversight and involvement in our elections.” Republican Lieutenant Governor Deirdre Henderson elaborated that “it definitely shouldn’t be on throwing election workers or secretaries of state or county clerks in jail for accidentally registering a noncitizen to vote when we don’t have adequate tools to even verify citizenship.” When confronted about whether these changes would impact women, Representative Roy deflected, pointing out a provision in the SAVE Act that would allow for individual states to accept additional documents to prove one’s citizenship if there is a discrepancy on their birth certificate. However, this provision is vague and does not outline what documents would be permissible in its current form. More importantly, the SAVE Act causes more burden than it can claim to solve, given that voter fraud does not regularly happen – which is exactly why major nonpartisan groups such as the League of Women Voters denounce the bill.
“The House and Senate introduced the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, which would require citizenship documentation to register to vote even though voters in every state are already required to affirm or verify their citizenship status when registering.
The SAVE Act would create one more barrier to the voting process, as many eligible voters do not have easy access to the necessary documents.”
– League of Women Voters, 3/4/2025
Will the SAVE Act Impact Trans Voters?
Most likely, yes – at least in some form. However, the SAVE Act will largely impact married women over any other demographic. I would argue that any legislation that aims to create barriers to voting is generally bad, and the SAVE Act creates that barrier by exploiting possible discrepancies between one’s legal and current name.
That being said, nearly any adult can legally change their name in the United States – you don’t need a specific reason to do so.* Married women typically don’t change their birth certificates because they don’t need to when updating their other documents – but for transgender folks, birth certificates are often the very first thing that gets updated after a legal name change since it’s an integral part of updating other forms like Social Security, passports, state IDs, Driver’s Licenses, school documents, bank statements, voter registration, etc. For non-married-related changes, it’s just a matter of paperwork to file with your local county court with a filing fee and possible newspaper publication. Since birth certificates are one of the first documents updated, transgender voters shouldn’t have much trouble with these steps.
The only way that the SAVE Act would further impact transgender Americans would be if another law was implemented to ban legal name changes for trans-related purposes. While possible, this type of law is unlikely and would only occur if the United States has reached a genocidal stage where transgender people are fleeing for refuge elsewhere. Federal laws and previous court precedents have established that laws must be applied equally to all citizens – so a law that purposely discriminates against one’s transgender status would violate our understanding of democracy.
*The only people completely barred from changing their legal name are those committed to identity fraud. Many states have higher restrictions and time limits for individuals with non-fraud felonies, but it’s still possible. Some states have laws that allow folks with identity fraud charges to change their legal name if it’s for transition purposes.
What Happens if the SAVE Act is Passed?
If the SAVE Act is passed and signed into law by President Trump, it can still be deemed unconstitutional in court. The Constitution was created with intentional checks and balances to allow the three branches of government to co-run the country – the Supreme Court has the authority to strike down any law passed by Congress if they believe it violates the Constitution.
The issue with these checks and balances is that the Supreme Court has been stacked with personal picks by President Trump in his previous term, tilting a court that is supposed to be nonpartisan with a conservative supermajority. However, this doesn’t mean the Court would necessarily rule in favor of Trump and the GOP – the Court has cautioned that Trump’s recent actions in his 2024 term to ignore court rulings against his executive orders will lead the Supreme Court to side against him in favor of democracy and the sanctity of the Constitution.
If passed, individuals negatively impacted by the SAVE Act’s restrictions would likely sue on the basis that it violates their constitutional rights. Convincing the Supreme Court that the SAVE Act is unconstitutional is difficult, but not impossible – especially if legal organizations taking up the case lean into arguments about the act infringing on women’s equal right to vote, existing precedents by the Court that separate is not equal, or that the act creates unnecessary and purposely discriminatory barriers like Jim Crow laws before the civil rights movement.