[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 56 (Wednesday, March 25, 2026)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1629-S1630]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SAVE AMERICA ACT
Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, I am going to speak about two topics--the
SAVE Act and the war in Iraq. I would like to start with the SAVE Act.
We are debating the SAVE Act, the SAVE America Act. In my view, that
[[Page S1630]]
will actually undermine our elections and sow distrust in the
elections. But I want to present letters and calls I have received from
Vermonters, including our town clerks and their experience and their
judgment about what this will do.
We are very proud in Vermont that we have a very high voter
participation rate and no fraud, and that is a point of pride that is
shared among Republicans, among Independents, and among Democrats.
These are the words of a town clerk in Vermont:
I have serious concerns regarding the SAVE Act,
specifically the barrier it creates for voters and the
unnecessary administrative and infrastructure burden it will
place on election officials.
If the SAVE Act is enacted, it will put a disproportionate
burden on women, low-income families, and anyone who has
changed their name since birth. Requiring the documentation
to prove a name change can be difficult. It can be expensive.
Many women do not have just one name change, and they may
have several due to multiple marriages or divorces, each
requiring additional documentation to create a paper trail.
Even if the government were to provide a free ID, the
underlying documents needed to obtain that ID are rarely
free.
Consider the practical reality. What if a voter loses their
documentation in a house fire or a flood?
By the way, we had three floods 3 years in a row on July 14.
They lack the time or resources to replace these documents
in time to cast their vote.
By the way, that matters to Vermonters of all political persuasions.
Furthermore, if a voter is struggling to put food on their
table and does not have a copy of their birth certificate,
they should not be forced to choose between feeding their
children and exercising their right to vote.
Would voters be forced to use provisional ballots, and if
so, how much more time would my office--
This is the clerk's office--
need to spend processing those after the polls close?
Recently, I had an 85-year-old woman come into my office,
deeply distressed. She doesn't have a driver's license, a
passport, or any other documents that are required under the
SAVE America Act. Yet she has voted in every election her
entire life. She is terrified that her right to vote will be
stripped away.
In a small community like ours, we know our neighbors.
Requiring her to produce a birth certificate she hasn't seen
in decades ignores the reality of local governance.
And as an election official, I also have significant
concerns regarding the logistical challenges this creates.
How are we to verify the authenticity of various out-of-state
documents? What system will I be provided--
This is the clerk--
to ensure these documents are legitimate?
Federal databases are not always updated in real time. If
the act requires verification against the federal database,
any lag in the system would wrongly flag eligible citizens as
ineligible.
Managing the nuances of local, primary, and federal
elections is already a complex task, even for the most
seasoned officials. This act represents yet another unfunded
mandate.
Our taxpayers are demanding lower taxes, and how can we
implement this massive administrative shift without raising
taxes or diverting funds for other essential services?
Elections are the heartbeat of our community, and as an
election official, my priority is ensuring that every
eligible neighbor can cast their vote without undue hardship.
The SAVE America Act threatens to turn a straightforward
civic duty into a costly, bureaucratic nightmare for our town
and its residents. We must ensure that our laws protect the
right to vote for all citizens, regardless of their age, sex,
income, or life circumstances, rather than creating an
unfunded mandate that our taxpayers cannot afford.
Another former town clerk wrote:
I am thoroughly horrified by the onerous requirements for
registering to vote. As a former town clerk, I have always
believed that a well-functioning democracy should do
everything in its power to encourage people to vote, not
throw up roadblocks that effectively block millions of people
from doing so.
Though no one wants noncitizens to be allowed to vote in
federal elections, multiple studies have demonstrated that
this is an extremely rare event.
From a cost-benefit standpoint, the SAVE America Act makes
no sense. I believe the risk of harm to millions of current
and future voters vastly outweighs the risk of noncitizen
voting, which is a relatively minimal issue.
Mr. President, that is what is called Vermont common sense.
If Congress and the public believe that showing a valid ID
at the polling place is something that should be implemented
across the country, this should be proposed in new
legislation that will be delayed until at least 2028 so that
everyone is given the opportunity to obtain a federal
identification card, which can be used for the purposes of
voting.
It is ironic that the Republicans, who have historically been opposed
to a national ID card, are now the ones screaming the loudest for
documentation.
There is absolutely no reason that the bill should specify
that a valid driver's license or a REAL ID card should not
qualify as sufficient documentation to establish one's
eligibility to vote. I believe this is simply a callous
attempt to disenfranchise millions of people of color and
those of lower socioeconomic status, as well as women who
have chosen to change their names upon marriage.
Another clerk writes:
As a former town clerk who managed many Federal elections
over the course of my career, I always felt comfortable with
the Vermont registration form that asked a number of
questions of people who are required to sign an affidavit as
to the accuracy of their residency and citizen status. The
penalties for perjury are severe, and there is little to no
incentive for a noncitizen to risk their status in the United
States by illegally attempting to vote.
Many voter registrations take place through the Department
of Motor Vehicles, and the creation of the so-called motor
voter system has vastly improved the ability of officials to
ensure that voter lists are accurate and up to date.
Additionally, the Vermont election management system is an
online registration system that requires either a Social
Security number that can be cross-checked or a valid Vermont
driver's license number. Both of these systems are fully
functional in Vermont and offer convenience for residents as
well as enhanced accuracy in the maintenance of voter lists
in the conduct of elections.
The clerk continues:
I would venture to suggest that the SAVE Act, in its
current form, would render those systems obsolete and create
a huge problem for town clerks, members of the board of civil
authority, and voters by disallowing driver's licenses and
REAL ID cards as an acceptable form of identification. Both
of these systems would be rendered unusable. Voters in my
State, they have called, they have emailed, and they have
written to me with their concerns.
Another Vermonter, a Vermonter from Stowe:
I am writing to voice my concern over the protection of my
voting rights and the voting rights of millions of other
married women.
I recently needed to renew my passport. I, fortunately,
have my original birth certificate, but found out I no longer
had an original copy of my marriage license. It took me
significant time, effort, and money to obtain the original,
and then to have the passport expedited in order to get it on
time for my trip. We are talking months. I was fortunate that
I had my birth certificate and, as I would imagine, that many
people do not.
In her view, this bill is outrageous.
One Vermonter in Hinesburg said:
I am hearing rumblings that the Senate will be taking
action on the SAVE Act that, unfortunately, passed in the
House.
In this person's view, this is a voter suppression bill.
Personally, I have already purchased copies of my birth
certificate and my marriage license, even though I have a
passport, because I wanted to be damned sure I can vote. But,
obviously, there are many people who won't be able to access
their needed proof of eligibility. If this bill goes through,
they will therefore be denied one of their basic rights as
Americans.
``I am pretty sure you are going to vote no on this,'' she says to
me. ``I just wanted to let you know that I am against it too.''
By the way, she is right. I want this Vermonter to know they are
right.
Another voter in Winooski:
Please vote no to the SAVE Act. It's a solution in search
of a problem because voting by undocumented people does not
happen in any significant degree in this country.
It will disenfranchise millions of voters. It is
essentially a poll tax on anyone who has changed their name
at any point in their life, which means many women, amongst
others, will be unable to vote.
We have watched SCOTUS erode the Voting Rights Act of 1965
by degrees.
The SAVE Act will be a death blow--
in the opinion of this writer--
to the work of so many to enable people to vote, that some
even sacrifice their life for. And it is further endangered
by the lies about this act.
I am listening to my constituents. We all need to listen to our
constituents and our local leaders. We cannot advance a bill that will
disenfranchise voters. We cannot block access to the ballot box. We
cannot limit voices, nor can we stop, nor should we stop, nor should we
impede people from voting. I cannot and will not support the SAVE Act.
____________________