Podcast Summary: Tangle – FULL EPISODE - The Friday Edition: The SAVE Act - Separating Truth from Fiction

Podcast Information:

• Title: Tangle
• Host/Author: Isaac Saul
• Description: Independent, non-partisan politics news featuring diverse political arguments on current events and interviews with political figures.
• Episode: FULL EPISODE - The Friday Edition: The SAVE Act - Separating Truth from Fiction
• Release Date: April 18, 2025

Introduction

In this special Friday Edition of Tangle, Senior Editor Will K. Back delves into the recently passed SAVE Act (Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act)—a legislative proposal that mandates proof of U.S. citizenship for voter registration in federal elections. This episode aims to dissect the bill’s implications, scrutinize the surrounding debates, and present expert insights to separate fact from fiction.

Background of the SAVE Act

Timestamp [02:11]

Will K. Back introduces the SAVE Act, highlighting its passage in the House of Representatives on April 10, 2025, with a vote of 220-208, including support from all Republicans and four Democrats. The bill seeks to overhaul the current voter registration system by enforcing documentary proof of citizenship, such as passports or birth certificates, paired with a government-issued photo ID. Unlike existing federal laws that rely on self-attestation of citizenship, the SAVE Act mandates in-person verification.

Key Provisions:

• Proof of Citizenship: Requires documentary evidence for federal voter registrations.
• Affirmative Process: Directs states to establish processes for removing non-citizens from voter rolls.
• Alternate Verification: Mandates states to provide alternative methods for applicants to prove citizenship.

Arguments For and Against the SAVE Act

Supportive Perspectives (Right-Leaning Arguments)

Timestamp [02:11] – [14:47]

Supporters argue that the SAVE Act is a necessary measure to bolster election security. They contend that current registration processes are insufficient to prevent non-citizens from voting, despite federal laws prohibiting it. Will K. Back emphasizes that the bill aligns with efforts to ensure only eligible citizens participate in federal elections.

Notable Supportive Quote:

"The SAVE act will help provide that extra safeguard."
— Joe Burns, Elections Lawyer and Former Deputy Director of Election Operations at the New York State Board of Elections [Timestamp: 05:45]

Proponents also argue that similar measures are commonplace in other Western democracies and dismiss concerns about disenfranchisement for minor documentation discrepancies, such as name changes after marriage.

Critical Perspectives (Left-Leaning Arguments)

Opponents label the SAVE Act as voter suppression aimed predominantly at Democrats and marginalized communities. They argue that the bill imposes unnecessary barriers, potentially disenfranchising millions, including women who have changed their names or individuals with lower socioeconomic statuses.

Notable Critical Quote:

"The SAVE act is a Trojan horse to try to undermine faith in our elections."
— Alex Frazier, Vice President of Advocacy Programs at Issue One [Timestamp: 13:30]

Additionally, critics highlight the administrative burden the bill places on state and local election offices, which are often underfunded and unprepared for such sweeping changes.

Expert Insights

Proponents’ Views

• Joe Burns advocates for the bill as a common-sense measure to ensure voter eligibility, emphasizing its role as an additional safeguard.

  "Given the many controversies with voting and elections in recent years, supporters of the bill like myself see it as an extra safeguard."
  — Joe Burns [Timestamp: 05:45]

• Chris MacIsaac from R Street contends that the majority of potential voters have the necessary documentation and that issues can be mitigated through education and support.

  "The vast majority of people are in this second camp. They have the documents, they're just not available tomorrow."
  — Chris MacIsaac, Resident Fellow at R Street [Timestamp: 07:15]

Opponents’ Views

• Sarah Gonski from the Institute for Responsive Government critiques the SAVE Act as overly disruptive, arguing that it imposes excessive burdens on election officials without providing adequate resources.

  "The SAVE act is pretty far over on the most disruptive side of the continuum."
  — Sarah Gonski, Senior Policy Advisor [Timestamp: 09:50]

• Walter Olson of the Cato Institute warns that the bill’s stringent penalties and unrealistic timelines could hinder election administrators and potentially decrease overall election security.

  "The bill has a combination of terrifying penalties... And I think anyone could have warned them, folks, this is a big change."
  — Walter Olson, Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute [Timestamp: 11:30]

• Alex Frazier argues that the SAVE Act undermines trust in elections by suggesting a significant problem of non-citizen voting that, according to evidence, is nearly non-existent.

  "This is a Trojan horse to try to undermine faith in our elections."
  — Alex Frazier [Timestamp: 13:30]

Key Questions Explored

1. How Common is Noncitizen Voting?

Timestamp [16:53] – [25:56]

Investigations and studies reveal that noncitizen voting is exceedingly rare. For instance, a Brennan Center study found only 30 suspected cases out of 23.5 million votes (0.0001%) in the 2016 election across 42 jurisdictions. Similarly, audits in states like Georgia and Ohio identified minimal instances, none of which influenced election outcomes.

Notable Statistics:

• Ohio Audit: 653 alleged noncitizens referred; 6 indicted.
• Arizona, Alabama, Texas, Virginia: Reported thousands but faced subsequent challenges and retractions.

Notable Quote:

"Non citizen voting is not a threat to US Election integrity."
— Walter Olson, Cato Institute [Timestamp: 24:10]

2. Have We Tried This Before?

Timestamp [25:56] – [29:13]

The SAVE Act would introduce the first federal proof of citizenship requirement for voter registration. Previous efforts, such as the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002, and state-level voter ID laws have shown mixed results. Kansas’s similar attempt resulted in over 30,000 blocked registrations, with officials admitting 99% were U.S. citizens.

Notable Comparative Insight:

• Kansas SAVE-like Law: Blocked 30,000 registrations, 99% were citizens.
• Arizona & Tennessee: Existing state laws are still evolving with ongoing impacts.

3. Who Would Be Impacted by the SAVE Act?

Timestamp [29:13] – [40:15]

The bill affects various groups, including:

• First-Time Voters: Must provide in-person proof of citizenship.
• Voters Changing Status: Individuals updating their registration must present documentation.
• Noncitizens: Prohibited from registering; any attempt would require fraudulent documentation with criminal penalties.
• Individuals with Changed Names: Approximately 69 million married women and others, such as transgender citizens, may need additional documentation like marriage licenses.
• Town Clerks and Election Officials: Face increased administrative burdens to verify documentation.
• Individuals Without Passports: Over 140 million U.S. adults lack passports, necessitating alternative IDs and supporting documents.

Notable Quote:

"The SAVE act would require any voter who is moving, changing their name or otherwise updating their voting status to physically go to their local government with documentation to prove their citizenship."
— Will K. Back [Timestamp: 25:56]

4. Are States Prepared to Implement the SAVE Act?

Timestamp [30:11] – [40:15]

Experts unanimously agree that states and municipalities are not equipped to handle the SAVE Act's requirements without significant support. Election officials warn of the immense administrative load, including extended office hours and additional staff needs, without corresponding federal assistance.

Notable Quote:

"Most election officials... would need to extend their office hours... which is not just a partisan talking point from Democratic politicians either."
— Will K. Back [Timestamp: 30:11]

5. Impact on Mail-In and Absentee Voting

Timestamp [29:13] – [40:15]

While the SAVE Act does not directly alter mail-in or absentee voting mechanics, it affects those registering by mail or online. Voters must now provide in-person documentation, complicating registration for individuals in rural areas or those with mobility issues.

Notable Quote:

"Rural voters live several hours from the county seat... which would require them to make an appointment, get in a car, drive all the way there."
— Sarah Gonski [Timestamp: 36:45]

Host’s Analysis and Take

Timestamp [40:15] – [41:14]

Isaac Saul, Executive Editor of Tangle, provides a nuanced take on the SAVE Act. He aligns with the bill’s objective to prevent noncitizens from voting but expresses deep skepticism about its implementation. Saul emphasizes the lack of preparedness among local governments and the disproportionately small issue the SAVE Act aims to address. He underscores that the bill’s immediate effect without a phased approach could overwhelm election systems and inadvertently erode trust in the electoral process.

Notable Host Quote:

"These issues, combined with severe criminal penalties for election officials who make a mistake, could actually make our elections less secure by making it more difficult for election officials to do their jobs."
— Isaac Saul [Timestamp: 37:20]

Conclusion

The episode concludes with a comprehensive examination of the SAVE Act, presenting a balanced view that encapsulates both support and opposition. While the bill aims to enhance election integrity, the lack of preparation and minimal evidence of noncitizen voting pose significant challenges. Tangle encourages listeners to reflect on the necessity and feasibility of such legislative measures in strengthening democratic processes.

Closing Remarks

Will K. Back thanks the audience for tuning in and invites feedback. Listeners are reminded of an upcoming break in observance of Easter Sunday and encouraged to engage with Tangle's content through memberships and newsletter subscriptions.

Notable Quotes with Timestamps:

• "The SAVE act will help provide that extra safeguard." — Joe Burns [05:45]
• "The SAVE act is a Trojan horse to try to undermine faith in our elections." — Alex Frazier [13:30]
• "Non citizen voting is not a threat to US Election integrity." — Walter Olson [24:10]
• "Rural voters live several hours from the county seat... which would require them to make an appointment, get in a car, drive all the way there." — Sarah Gonski [36:45]
• "These issues... could actually make our elections less secure by making it more difficult for election officials to do their jobs." — Isaac Saul [37:20]

For More Information: Visit readtangle.com to explore more episodes, subscribe to the newsletter, and consider supporting Tangle through premium memberships.