State-by-State In-Person Voter ID Changes Required Under the SAVE America Act

With the SAVE America Act unlikely to reach the 60-vote threshold needed in the Senate, House Republicans have discussed using the reconciliation process to enact election policy changes. In late June, House Speaker Mike Johnson stated:

The only path, I think, to get [the SAVE America Act] done, because you’re never going to get seven Democrats to join 53 Republicans in the Senate to do that … you have to put it on a reconciliation bill. We believe that if you create a grant program that ties it to reconciling the budget, and you allow blue states, if they come to their senses and they want to avail themselves of election integrity proposals and ideas and policies, they can draw down from a federal fund, and use those funds.

A media report several days later stated that, “House Republican leaders…want to create a $4 billion grant program to incentivize states to have citizenship and voter ID requirements.” On July 15, the House released its budget resolution, the first step in a reconciliation process. The resolution provides for up to $10 billion in spending under the jurisdiction of the Committee on House Administration, an amount that appears to be for election policy-related matters.

As is standard, the budget resolution does not contain any details on policy changes, as those come in the final legislation that can only proceed after both chambers pass the same budget resolution. It is unclear whether this budget resolution can pass the House or Senate, and the prospects of a final bill that would enact actual policy changes under this resolution are even less certain.

This analysis focuses on what steps states across the country and the ideological spectrum would have to take to overhaul their election laws to qualify for a grant program tied to the ID requirements proposed in the SAVE America Act. This analysis does not touch on the documentary proof of citizenship requirements in the SAVE America Act, nor the bill’s requirement for mail ballot voter ID, which very few states currently require.

Currently, not a single state meets the restrictive ID criteria in the bill, though Ohio comes close. Meeting these requirements would reduce voter access in nearly every state, pull resources from other critical election infrastructure and security priorities, create significant bureaucratic burdens for voters and administrators alike, and override policies that have been carefully tailored by state legislatures to fit the populations of their states.

In large, rural states like Alaska where residents may have to travel to vote, having flexible backup ID options is critical when many voters have an eligible ID but may have simply forgotten to bring it with them. In a 2021 study in Michigan, researchers found that of voters who signed an affidavit of identity due to lack of photo ID, more than 95% were in the DMV database and had been issued a Michigan license or state ID card; they just did not have it with them at the polls.

Below is a comparison of current voter ID requirements in each state. For reference, here are the only forms of ID that would be accepted under the SAVE America Act¹:

Only one state, Ohio, would have to make only minor tweaks to its election law to receive funds under such a proposal, as its current ID standard closely mirrors the SAVE America Act.

35 other states that already have photo ID or other document requirement frameworks would be forced to make major revisions to state law, further narrowing their approved ID options. These changes would include banning a wide variety of ID types: most concealed carry permits, local government employee IDs, government IDs issued by non-DMV agencies including many states’ voter ID cards, student IDs, non-photo alternatives paired with other identifiers, and flexible fallback provisions.

14 states (plus Washington, D.C.) would have to entirely overhaul their “no document” signature-matching protocols and their use of non-photo alternative documents to access funds from such a program. In these states, election officials still verify each voter’s identity before issuing a ballot. Depending on the state’s law, voters may be required to state their name and address (and sometimes their date of birth), sign a poll book or affidavit under penalty of law, or both. Election officials then compare the information or signature the voter provides with the voter registration record, registration list, or electronic poll book, depending on the state. In many states that require a signature or signed affidavit, election officials also compare the voter’s signature with all signatures they have submitted when renewing drivers licenses and updating their voter registration. Every state also provides a way for election officials, poll watchers, or other individuals to challenge a voter’s identity or eligibility when appropriate.

State-by-State In-Person Voter ID Laws vs. SAVE America Act

Recap

The SAVE America Act’s voter ID provisions, whether implemented as a mandate or as funding conditions, would require changes to voter ID laws in nearly every state in America. As currently drafted, the bill provides no federal funding to overhaul state and county election systems and no transition period for such changes. If restructured as a grant program, implementation would require significant funding and additional time and training for election officials and staff. This would shift authority over voter ID standards from states to the federal government. Such changes will have significant consequences on the ways that state and local governments run secure and fair elections.

^{1. In addition to passing the SAVE America Act, the House may take up the recently introduced Voter ID Act, which the Committee on House Administration approved on a party line vote on June 24. That bill’s text is identical to the voter ID section of the SAVE America Act, and while it may attract more Senate support than the SAVE America Act, it is similarly extremely unlikely to garner the necessary 60 votes.}