Would the SAVE Act require a birth certificate to vote and prevent married women from voting? What we know

In early January 2026, U.S. President Donald Trump urged Republican lawmakers to pass legislation known as the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, a federal bill that would require proof of citizenship to register to vote (see 24:45). 

Following Trump’s remarks — and renewed calls to pass the SAVE Act from various Republican lawmakers on social media — House Majority Leader Steve Scalise said his caucus “was looking at” sending the Senate an even stricter version of the bill that would require photo identification (see 9:07). While the current version of the SAVE Act would require photo ID to register to vote, Scalise appeared to be referring to an additional requirement during the act of voting itself.

In response, some social media users raised alarms about the SAVE Act’s potential impact on voting rights, particularly for married women, claiming it would prevent prospective voters from using a birth certificate as proof of citizenship if the name on the document does not match their current legal name — such as women who took their husbands’ last names.

Since at least 2024, social media users on Facebook, X, Bluesky and Reddit have spread claims about the SAVE Act and its possible effects on women’s voting rights. 

Snopes readers also asked us whether claims the SAVE Act would make it harder for women to vote or restrict married women’s voting rights were true. One post readers sent to us claimed that under the SAVE Act, “married women must let their husbands vote for them.” 

The SAVE Act is a real bill introduced by U.S. Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, requiring documentary proof of American citizenship to register to vote. For many Americans, that’s a birth certificate — but should an applicant use a birth certificate to prove citizenship, they must present it alongside a government-issued photo ID. If the documents don’t match, applicants may have to produce additional documentation, which could make it more difficult to vote for married women and other people who undergo legal name changes. 

In an emailed statement in February 2025, Roy dismissed allegations about the SAVE Act disenfranchising women and other voters as “absurd armchair speculation being spun up by media outlets who care more about clicks than reality.” He pointed to language in the legislation directing states to “establish a process for individuals to register to vote if there are discrepancies in their proof of citizenship documents due to something like a name change.” 

The SAVE Act passed the House in 2024 and in 2025. It is not law as of this writing. President Donald Trump can sign the SAVE Act into law only if both chambers of Congress pass it, and in order to bypass a filibuster — a tactic used to indefinitely delay final passage of a bill — the Senate needs a three-fifths majority vote, which Republicans cannot reach without Democratic support. 

Snopes reached out to Roy, Scalise and Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee, the bill’s sponsor in the Senate, to ask for more information about what an updated effort to pass the newer version of the SAVE Act might look like. We will update this story if they respond. 

What is the SAVE Act? 

The SAVE Act would require prospective voters to bring — in person — documents proving that they are U.S. citizens each time they register to vote, including if they are looking to reregister in a different state. This would also block states from allowing voter registration online or by mail, which many currently do. 

Acceptable documents, per the bill, are passports, government-issued photo ID cards that include an applicant’s place of birth and REAL ID-compliant identification — enhanced driver’s licenses (not just a standard driver’s license) or other documents that meet standards set forth in the REAL ID Act of 2005 (see Division B). In order to receive your first passport or REAL ID-compliant ID, proof of citizenship is required — usually a birth certificate if you were born in the United States.

Military ID cards also are accepted if they are presented alongside “a United States military record of service showing that the applicant’s place of birth was in the United States.”

Any other government-issued photo ID card is acceptable only if shown with specific documents, the most common being a certified birth certificate that meets certain qualifications, such as whether it includes the date the certificate was filed with the state records office. 

Other documents accepted as proof of citizenship when offered alongside photo ID are adoption decrees, U.S. hospital birth records, consulate birth reports, naturalization certificates and American Indian Cards with the classification “KIC,” which denotes U.S. citizenship for Mexican-born members of the Kickapoo tribes of Texas and Oklahoma. 

Readers also asked Snopes whether the SAVE Act would affect people already registered to vote. The Associated Press reported that Rep. Bryan Steil, a Wisconsin Republican supporting the bill, said it wouldn’t. Nothing in the bill explicitly says it would affect voters who are already registered and do not need to update their registration. We reached out to Roy for confirmation on this and will update the story if we hear back. 

How might the SAVE Act affect women? 

As Roy told Snopes, the SAVE Act directs states to create a process for acceptable proof-of-citizenship documentation for applicants whose citizenship documents do not align with their legal name. The relevant part of the legislation is below (emphasis ours): 

(B) PROCESS IN CASE OF CERTAIN DISCREPANCIES IN DOCUMENTATION.—Subject to any relevant guidance adopted by the Election Assistance Commission, each State shall establish a process under which an applicant can provide such additional documentation to the appropriate election official of the State as may be necessary to establish that the applicant is a citizen of the United States in the event of a discrepancy with respect to the applicant’s documentary proof of United States citizenship.

However, having to produce additional documentation could likely make it more difficult for married women and other people who have legally changed their name since birth to register to vote. Marriage certificates as proof of citizenship are not explicitly listed as an acceptable form of documentation in the bill. 

A 2023 Pew Research survey found 8 in 10 American women said they took their husband’s last name, and a 2006 survey by the Brennan Center, a progressive policy think tank that opposes the SAVE Act, found only 66% of voting-age women have a document with their current legal name proving citizenship. 

What if you don’t have your birth certificate? 

Another Brennan Center survey in 2024 found that more than 9% of voting-age Americans, or 21.3 million people, don’t have proof-of-citizenship documents readily available, and 3.8 million don’t have the documents at all — “often because they were lost, destroyed, or stolen.” 

The bill also directs states to establish a process for applicants without documentary proof of citizenship to provide “other evidence to the appropriate state or local official demonstrating that the applicant is a citizen of the United States.” If the official determines the applicant has “sufficiently established United States citizenship” and the applicant signs a legally binding document attesting that they are a citizen, they may then register to vote. (Voters already attest that they are a U.S. citizen under penalty of perjury — a federal crime — when they vote.) 

But the SAVE Act does not include funding for states to implement these potential new requirements, nor does it provide guidance to states on what “sufficient evidence” looks like. Election infrastructure in the United States is reportedly chronically underfunded, and critics say state officials may struggle to implement the SAVE Act without additional funding, resulting in possible delays for voters. 

The SAVE Act would also have a disproportionate impact on demographic groups who are less likely to have proof-of-citizenship documents, including low-income citizens, voters younger than 29 and older than 80 years old, and Hispanic citizens, according to the Institute for Responsive Government, a nonpartisan think tank promoting more-efficient government.

Advocates for disability rights also expressed concern about the SAVE Act. While it directs states to offer “reasonable accommodations” to people with disabilities, it does not specify what those accommodations might be. The act is opposed by 145 civil rights organizations, including the ACLU and the League of Women Voters. 

Why do Republicans support the SAVE Act?

In a resolution passed by the Republican-controlled House, the SAVE Act received special privileges to help fast-track it through the House. In a news release, Roy claimed the legislation protects “the integrity and sanctity of American elections.” Here is his rationale, per the release:

Millions of illegal aliens remain in our country illegally and many have been given the opportunity to register to vote in federal elections. The SAVE Act would thwart Democrat efforts to cement one-party rule by upholding and strengthening current law that permits only U.S. citizens to vote in Federal elections.

In Roy’s February statement to Snopes, he said the bill is “being attacked because the policy is wildly popular with the American people, its opponents want and need illegals to vote, and they’ll use anything they can to attack it.” 

The claim that noncitizens often vote in American elections has been repeatedly debunked, including by Snopes. As we have said before, noncitizens rarely vote in American elections — some credible estimates are as low as 0.0001% for suspected noncitizen voting, less likely than the chance you’ll be struck by lightning in your lifetime.

What do the courts think? A case study in Kansas

The courts have repeatedly rejected attempts by state governments to enact proof-of-citizenship voter-registration laws similar to the SAVE Act. That includes an Arizona ballot initiative passed in 2004, a Kansas law passed in 2011 and efforts by Alabama, Georgia and Kansas to amend the federal voter-registration form to require proof of citizenship documentation in 2016.

The 2004 and 2016 efforts were found to violate the National Voter Registration Act of 1993’s requirement that states “accept and use” federal voter-registration forms, but the SAVE Act seeks to amend the 1993 act. 

Arizona tried again in 2022 to pass a documentary proof-of-citizenship requirement to register to vote, and in a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2024 that for now, Arizona can require proof-of-citizenship documents for state but not federal elections. No final opinion has been made in this case, which was sent back to a lower court. 

In contrast, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2020 that the 2011 Kansas law violated not only federal law, but the 14th Amendment, which addresses citizenship rights and equal protection under the law. The Supreme Court refused to hear the case. That case’s plaintiffs included five American citizens who were denied voter registration because they couldn’t produce the right documents. One plaintiff was “born on a decommissioned Air Force base” and had difficulty finding his birth certificate; another “credibly testified” that paying for a new birth certificate would “impact whether she could pay rent.” 

Kansas’ law “grew into one of the biggest political fiascos in the state in recent memory,” The Associated Press wrote. Kansas Secretary of State Steve Schwab, the state’s top election official who championed the law as a legislator, “now says states and the federal government shouldn’t touch it,” according to the AP.

Court documents say more than 31,000 Kansans were denied voter registration because they couldn’t provide documentary proof of citizenship — representing 12.4% of new voter registrations between Jan. 1, 2013, and Dec. 11, 2015. 

Sources