Veterans Accessibility Advisory Committee Act of 2025 (S. 1383)
Data as of August 23, 2026 · Refresh this data →
Sponsored by Sen. Scott, Rick [R-FL] · 7 cosponsors
Plain-English Summary
Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act or the SAVE America Act This bill requires individuals to provide documentary proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote, and requires photo identification to vote, in federal elections. Specifically, the bill prohibits states from accepting and processing an application to register to vote in a federal election unless the applicant presents documentary proof of U.S. citizenship. The bill specifies what documents are considered acceptable proof of U.S. citizenship, such as identification that complies with the REAL ID Act of 2005 that indicates U.S. citizenship, a valid U.S. passport, or a valid government-issued photo identification card that shows the applicant's place of birth was in the United States. Further, the bill (1) requires states to accept and process a voter registration application in the event of a name discrepancy in the applicant's documentation, as long as the applicant provides additional documentation; and (2) requires states to establish an alternative process to demonstrate U.S. citizenship. Within 30 days of the bill's enactment, each state must take affirmative steps on an ongoing basis to ensure that only U.S. citizens are registered to vote, which shall include establishing a program to identify individuals who are not U.S. citizens using information supplied by certain sources. Further, each state must submit its complete official list of eligible voters to the Department of Homeland Security for comparison with the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements system, which is used to verify immigration status. Individuals who are identified as noncitizens must be given the opportunity to provide documentary proof of U.S. citizenship. Additionally, states must remove noncitizens from their official lists of eligible voters. The bill (1) provides for a private right of action for certain violations, and (2) establishes criminal penalties for certain offenses. The bill prohibits a state or local election official from providing a ballot for a federal election to an individual who does not present valid physical photo identification. An individual who does not present the required identification must be permitted to cast a provisional ballot. However, an election official may not determine that the individual is eligible under state law to vote in the election unless, not later than three days after casting the provisional ballot, the individual presents (1) the identification required, or (2) an affidavit attesting that the individual does not possess the identification because of a religious objection to being photographed. Further, an election official may not allow for voting methods other than in-person voting unless the individual submits the ballot with (1) a copy of their photo identification, or (2) the last four digits of their Social Security number with an affidavit attesting that the individual is unable to obtain a copy of a valid photo identification after making reasonable efforts to obtain a copy. This prohibition shall not apply to overseas military voters or individuals provided the right to vote other than in person under the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act. State and local government officials must provide, to the extent practicable, public access to a digital imaging device for the purpose of allowing individuals to use the device at no cost to make a copy of their valid photo identification.
Current Status
Considered by Senate (Message from the House considered). (consideration: CR S1647)
What Problem This Addresses
The bill seeks to address concerns about non‑citizen voting by mandating that voters provide proof of citizenship and a valid photo ID when registering for federal elections, and by requiring states to cross‑check voter rolls with DHS databases.
Outlook
As of the latest action on March 26, 2026, the measure has been considered by the Senate but no further motion has advanced it; the bill’s future passage is uncertain and may depend on further committee referral or floor debate.
Arguments From Supporters
Proponents argue the legislation will strengthen election integrity by ensuring only eligible citizens cast ballots in federal contests. They contend that the verification process and DHS comparison will reduce fraud and increase public confidence in the electoral system. Supporters also note exemptions for overseas military voters to preserve voting access for service members.
Arguments From Opponents
No organized opposition is evident in the recorded legislative history; formal statements from advocacy groups or dissenting legislators have not been identified in the available actions.
Where Both Sides Agree
Both supporters and any potential critics acknowledge the importance of protecting the integrity of federal elections and agree that overseas military voters should retain voting access under existing accommodations. There is consensus that any changes should comply with existing voting‑rights statutes.
Core Disagreement
Supporters favor mandatory citizenship documentation and state reporting to DHS, while critics (where identified) worry about the administrative burden, privacy implications, and potential disenfranchisement of eligible voters lacking the required ID. Disagreement also exists over whether the bill’s private right of action and criminal penalties are appropriate.
Constitutional Basis Cited
The sponsor did not cite a specific constitutional authority; however, the bill could face challenges under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause and the Elections Clause of Article I, which grant states primary authority over voter qualifications. Courts may also scrutinize the requirement to submit voter rolls to DHS for compliance with privacy and federalism principles.
Economic Considerations
Implementation could impose significant short‑term costs on state election agencies for system upgrades, training, and DHS data matching, potentially running into millions of dollars annually. Over the longer term, the administrative expenses may be offset by reduced costs associated with fraud investigations, though the net fiscal effect remains uncertain.
Sections beyond the plain-English summary are AI-synthesized analysis based on the sourced legislative record from Congress.gov, read, edited where needed, and approved by a human editor before publication. Full methodology: Editorial & Methodology.
← All Records