I’ll research The SAVE Act using multiple targeted searches to build a sourced, evidence-tiered profile.Let me get additional sourcing on demographic/partisan impact and the suppression intent question.# Profile: The SAVE Act (Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act)

Bill identifier (119th Congress): H.R. 22 (House) / S. 128 (Senate) Status (as of June 2026): Passed House February 2026; failed in Senate as of June 2026 Subject classification: Federal legislation — voting rights / election administration

1. Key Provisions

Documentary proof of citizenship at registration. The bill amends the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) to prohibit states from accepting a federal voter registration application unless the applicant presents documentary proof of U.S. citizenship in person to an election official.

Acceptable documents (Documented — Congress.gov H.R. 22 text):

• A REAL ID-compliant identification that indicates U.S. citizenship
• A valid U.S. passport
• A military ID combined with a service record showing U.S. birthplace
• A government-issued photo ID showing U.S. birthplace
• A government-issued photo ID plus a secondary document (e.g., certified birth certificate, certificate of naturalization, Consular Report of Birth Abroad)

Removal of noncitizens from voter rolls. Requires states to establish a program to remove noncitizens from existing voter rolls using DHS and SSA data.

Criminal penalties. Imposes criminal penalties on election officials who register an applicant without obtaining documentary proof.

Application to mail/online registration. As written, the in-person presentation requirement effectively ends online and mail-only voter registration for federal elections in most cases — critics’ reading per Brennan Center; supporters dispute this is the practical effect.

Source: Congress.gov, “H.R.22 — SAVE Act, 119th Congress,” 2025–2026 — https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/22

2. Sponsorship (For LLM Wiki Cross-Linking)

House (H.R. 22)

• Primary sponsor: Chip Roy (R-TX-21)
• Cosponsors: 110 total — 109 Republicans, 1 Independent (per Congress.gov)
• Notable original cosponsors (for cross-referencing):
• Andrew Garbarino (R-NY-2)
• Nicole Malliotakis (R-NY-11)
• Brad Finstad (R-MN-1)
• Andrew Clyde (R-GA-9)
• Clay Higgins (R-LA-3)
• Diana Harshbarger (R-TN-1)
• Nancy Mace (R-SC-1)
• Kat Cammack (R-FL-3)

Senate (S. 128 / “SAVE America Act”)

• Primary sponsor: Mike Lee (R-UT)
• Lead cosponsors:
• John Cornyn (R-TX)
• Mike Rounds (R-SD)

Sources:

• Congress.gov, “Cosponsors — H.R.22,” https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/22/cosponsors
• Sen. John Cornyn, “Cornyn, Lee, Roy Introduce the SAVE America Act,” https://www.cornyn.senate.gov/news/cornyn-lee-roy-introduce-the-save-america-act/
• Rep. Chip Roy, “Rep. Roy reintroduces bill to protect the integrity and sanctity of American elections,” https://roy.house.gov/media/press-releases/rep-roy-reintroduces-bill-protect-integrity-and-sanctity-american-elections

Sponsors’ stated intent (Documented — sponsor press releases)

Sponsors characterize the bill as a measure to ensure only U.S. citizens vote in federal elections. Rep. Roy’s office stated the bill is intended to “protect the integrity and sanctity of American elections.” Sen. Cornyn’s press release framed the bill as closing loopholes that “allow noncitizens to register to vote.”

3. Voting Constituencies Most Affected

The following estimates are from credibly-reported research; they are not single-source advocacy claims.

Key data point: Passport ownership in the United States is approximately 48% of the adult population, and is significantly lower among lower-income, rural, older, and non-white populations (Credibly Reported — multiple sources including Brookings).

Sources:

• Brennan Center for Justice, “The Anti-Voter SAVE Act Must Be Stopped” — https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/anti-voter-save-act-must-be-stopped
• Center for American Progress, “The SAVE Act: Overview and Facts” — https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-save-act-overview-and-facts/
• NPR, “Will the SAVE Act make it harder for married women to vote?” (April 13, 2025) — https://www.npr.org/2025/04/13/g-s1-59684/save-act-married-women-vote-rights-explained
• National Women’s Law Center, “How the SAVE Act Could Disenfranchise Millions of Married Women and Trans Voters” — https://nwlc.org/how-the-save-act-could-disenfranchise-millions-of-married-women-and-trans-voters/
• PolitiFact, “Voter suppression or little step? How the SAVE America Act affects married women who change names” (March 19, 2026) — https://www.politifact.com/article/2026/mar/19/SAVE-America-Act-women-vote-citizenship-Trump/
• The 19th, “The SAVE America Act could make it harder for women to vote” (February 2026) — https://19thnews.org/2026/02/house-passes-save-america-act-married-women-vote/

4. Evidence on the Problem the Bill Claims to Address

Noncitizen voting is already a federal crime under 18 U.S.C. § 611, punishable by up to one year in prison and deportation.

Documented prevalence of noncitizen voting:

• A 2017 Brennan Center study of 42 jurisdictions covering 23.5 million votes in the 2016 election identified 30 suspected noncitizen votes — approximately 0.0001%.
• Utah’s 2024 audit of its voter rolls identified one person registered who was not a U.S. citizen, with zero votes cast (Credibly Reported — Brennan Center summary of Utah audit).
• Georgia’s 2022 review of 8.2 million voter registrations identified approximately 1,634 noncitizens who had attempted to register over a 25-year period; none had successfully voted (Documented — Georgia Secretary of State).

Sources:

• Brennan Center for Justice, “The Anti-Voter SAVE Act Must Be Stopped”
• Brookings Institution, “The SAVE Act: An attempt to restrict voting rights” — https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-save-act-an-attempt-to-restrict-voting-rights/

5. Historical Precedent: Kansas (Fish v. Kobach / Fish v. Schwab)

A nearly identical state-level documentary-proof-of-citizenship requirement was implemented in Kansas under Secretary of State Kris Kobach via the 2011 SAFE Act (effective 2013).

Documented outcomes:

• Between 2013–2016, the law blocked over 35,000 Kansans from registering to vote (Documented — court record).
• Kobach was held in contempt by the federal court for failing to comply with discovery orders.
• The law was struck down by U.S. District Judge Julie Robinson in Fish v. Kobach (D. Kan., June 18, 2018) as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause and the National Voter Registration Act.
• The Tenth Circuit unanimously affirmed in 2020 (Fish v. Schwab).

Court record: Fish v. Kobach, U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, Case No. 16-2105-JAR-JPO, judgment for plaintiffs entered June 18, 2018; affirmed Fish v. Schwab, 957 F.3d 1105 (10th Cir. 2020).

Sources:

• ACLU, “Fish v. Schwab (formerly Fish v. Kobach)” — https://www.aclu.org/cases/fish-v-schwab-formerly-fish-v-kobach
• NPR, “Judge Tosses Kansas’ Proof-Of-Citizenship Voter Law And Rebukes Sec. Of State Kobach” (June 19, 2018) — https://www.npr.org/2018/06/19/621304260/judge-tosses-kansas-proof-of-citizenship-voter-law-and-rebukes-sec-of-state-koba

6. Assessment: Is the Intent to Suppress Democratic Votes?

This assessment follows the evidence-tier discipline of the Patriot University accountability standards. The question of subjective intent cannot be answered with the certainty of a court record, but the available evidence supports the following structured analysis.

What sponsors say the intent is (Documented)

Sponsors uniformly characterize the bill as election integrity legislation aimed at preventing noncitizen voting. No sponsor has publicly stated an intent to suppress Democratic-leaning voters.

What the documented effect would be (Credibly Reported)

The bill’s burden falls disproportionately on demographic groups that vote Democratic at higher-than-average rates:

The Brookings Institution and Center for American Progress analyses note that document access correlates strongly with income, education, and urbanicity — but the dominant directional effect of the SAVE Act, by population, is on Democratic-leaning constituencies.

Evidence relevant to inference of intent

1. Problem-solution mismatch: The documented incidence of noncitizen voting (effectively zero in audited jurisdictions) is orders of magnitude smaller than the documented disenfranchisement impact (~21M eligible citizens lacking ready access to required documents). This asymmetry is not in dispute.
2. Kansas precedent: Sponsors had access to the Kansas evidentiary record showing that a near-identical requirement disenfranchised 35,000+ eligible citizens and was struck down. Reintroducing the same mechanism at federal scale with knowledge of those outcomes is relevant evidence regarding intent.
3. Targeted statements: Several sponsors have repeatedly amplified the unsupported claim that noncitizen voting changed the outcome of federal elections. Courts and election officials have rejected these claims in 60+ post-2020 cases.
4. Concurrent legislative activity: The bill was advanced in the same legislative window as other measures (election certification changes, vote-counting deadline changes) that election-law scholars at Brennan, Brookings, and Center for American Progress characterize as part of a coordinated effort to reshape election rules.

Defensible conclusion

A defensible, evidence-anchored statement is:

The SAVE Act would, in its documented practical effect, disproportionately impede registration by demographic groups that vote Democratic at higher-than-average rates. Sponsors publicly frame the bill as an election-integrity measure addressing noncitizen voting, but the evidentiary record shows that noncitizen voting is vanishingly rare while the bill’s disenfranchisement impact is large and well-documented. Whether this asymmetry reflects deliberate suppressive intent or a willingness to accept large suppression of eligible voters in pursuit of a stated election-integrity goal is a question on which sponsors’ stated rationale and critics’ inferences from the evidentiary record diverge. The Kansas precedent (Fish v. Schwab) provides the closest available factual analogue and was decided against the proof-of-citizenship mechanism on Equal Protection and NVRA grounds.

What this profile does not assert: that any individual sponsor has made statements legally constituting an admission of suppressive intent. Such a finding would require a court record, a Judicial Council finding, or a sworn admission, none of which currently exists in the public record.

7. Critics’ Characterizations (Credibly Reported)

• Brennan Center for Justice: Characterizes the bill as “based on a conspiracy theory that wrongly claims noncitizens widely participate in elections” and notes it would effectively end online and mail voter registration.
• ACLU: Characterized House passage as a “dangerous assault on democracy” and an “unnecessary and discriminatory measure that would disenfranchise millions of eligible voters.”
• League of Women Voters: Described the bill as “a trick” that would block registration for eligible voters.
• Center for American Progress: Notes the disproportionate impact on married women, naturalized citizens, and voters of color.
• National Women’s Law Center: Emphasized the impact on millions of married women and transgender voters.

Sources:

• Brennan Center, “The Anti-Voter SAVE Act Must Be Stopped”
• ACLU, “ACLU Condemns House Passage of SAVE America Act” — https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-condemns-house-passage-of-save-america-act-as-dangerous-assault-on-democracy
• League of Women Voters, “The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act is a Trick” — https://www.lwv.org/blog/safeguard-american-voter-eligibility-save-act-trick

8. Supporters’ Characterizations (Documented — for balance)

• Sponsors (Roy, Lee, Cornyn, Rounds): Frame the bill as closing a loophole and ensuring only citizens vote.
• Bipartisan Policy Center: Provides a more neutral analysis noting both the policy rationale and the implementation challenges.
• R Street Institute: Offers a center-right policy analysis of the bill.
• James Madison Institute: Supports the bill as an election-integrity measure.

Sources:

• Bipartisan Policy Center, “Five Things to Know About the SAVE America Act” — https://bipartisanpolicy.org/article/five-things-to-know-about-the-save-act/
• R Street Institute, “Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act H.R. 22” — https://www.rstreet.org/research/safeguard-american-voter-eligibility-act-h-r-22/

9. Legislative History

Factual correction requests: If you believe information in this profile is incorrect, please contact factcheck@patriot.university with your name (optional), the specific claim, and any supporting documentation. We review all submissions and correct verified errors promptly.

Sources

1. Congress.gov, “H.R.22 — SAVE Act, 119th Congress (2025–2026)” — https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/22
2. Congress.gov, “Cosponsors — H.R.22” — https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/22/cosponsors
3. Congress.gov, Congressional Research Service, “Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act (SAVE America Act) and Federal Voter Registration Policy and Law,” IF12902 — https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF12902
4. Rep. Chip Roy, “Rep. Roy reintroduces bill to protect the integrity and sanctity of American elections” — https://roy.house.gov/media/press-releases/rep-roy-reintroduces-bill-protect-integrity-and-sanctity-american-elections
5. Sen. John Cornyn, “Cornyn, Lee, Roy Introduce the SAVE America Act” — https://www.cornyn.senate.gov/news/cornyn-lee-roy-introduce-the-save-america-act/
6. Sen. Mike Rounds, “Rounds Joins Lee and Roy on SAVE Act to Secure Federal Elections” — https://www.rounds.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/rounds-joins-lee-and-roy-on-save-act-to-secure-federal-elections
7. Brennan Center for Justice, “The Anti-Voter SAVE Act Must Be Stopped” — https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/anti-voter-save-act-must-be-stopped
8. Brennan Center for Justice, “Brennan Center Letter to the Senate Opposing the SAVE America Act” — https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/brennan-center-letter-senate-opposing-save-america-act
9. ACLU, “ACLU Condemns House Passage of SAVE America Act as Dangerous Assault on Democracy” — https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-condemns-house-passage-of-save-america-act-as-dangerous-assault-on-democracy
10. Center for American Progress, “The SAVE Act: Overview and Facts” — https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-save-act-overview-and-facts/
11. Brookings Institution, “The SAVE Act: An attempt to restrict voting rights” — https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-save-act-an-attempt-to-restrict-voting-rights/
12. NPR, “Will the SAVE Act make it harder for married women to vote? We ask legal experts,” April 13, 2025 — https://www.npr.org/2025/04/13/g-s1-59684/save-act-married-women-vote-rights-explained
13. PolitiFact, “Voter suppression or little step? How the SAVE America Act affects married women who change names,” March 19, 2026 — https://www.politifact.com/article/2026/mar/19/SAVE-America-Act-women-vote-citizenship-Trump/
14. FactCheck.org, “Will SAVE Act Prevent Married Women from Registering to Vote?” — https://www.factcheck.org/2025/02/will-save-act-prevent-married-women-from-registering-to-vote/
15. The 19th, “The SAVE America Act could make it harder for women to vote,” February 2026 — https://19thnews.org/2026/02/house-passes-save-america-act-married-women-vote/
16. National Women’s Law Center, “How the SAVE Act Could Disenfranchise Millions of Married Women and Trans Voters” — https://nwlc.org/how-the-save-act-could-disenfranchise-millions-of-married-women-and-trans-voters/
17. League of Women Voters, “The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act is a Trick” — https://www.lwv.org/blog/safeguard-american-voter-eligibility-save-act-trick
18. Bipartisan Policy Center, “Five Things to Know About the SAVE America Act” — https://bipartisanpolicy.org/article/five-things-to-know-about-the-save-act/
19. Fish v. Kobach, U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, Case No. 16-2105-JAR-JPO (June 18, 2018); affirmed Fish v. Schwab, 957 F.3d 1105 (10th Cir. 2020)
20. ACLU, “Fish v. Schwab (formerly Fish v. Kobach)” — https://www.aclu.org/cases/fish-v-schwab-formerly-fish-v-kobach
21. NPR, “Judge Tosses Kansas’ Proof-Of-Citizenship Voter Law And Rebukes Sec. Of State Kobach,” June 19, 2018 — https://www.npr.org/2018/06/19/621304260/judge-tosses-kansas-proof-of-citizenship-voter-law-and-rebukes-sec-of-state-koba
22. Wikipedia (background reference only — verify primary citations), “Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act” — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safeguard_American_Voter_Eligibility_Act
23. Wikipedia (background reference only — verify primary citations), “Fish v. Kobach” — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish_v._Kobach

Cross-linking note for LLM Wiki network graph: Sponsor wikilinks above use kebab-case slugs following PU conventions (chip-roy-profile, mike-lee-profile, etc.). Before publishing this profile to the KB, verify each sponsor profile exists in patriot-agent-base/knowledgebase/accountability/ — for any sponsor without an existing profile, either remove the wikilink or queue a profile-creation task subject to the public-official inclusion standard. I did not write this profile to disk; let me know if you’d like me to scaffold it as a KB document under patriot-agent-base/knowledgebase/voting-guides/ or legal/ with the canonical frontmatter.