Election officials warned Thursday that the SAVE America Act could saddle the state with tens of millions of dollars in new costs and erect fresh barriers for eligible voters already accustomed to convenient mail-in balloting.
Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs joined U.S. Sens. Alex Padilla of California and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, along with secretaries of state from Minnesota, Connecticut and Michigan, for a virtual briefing to spotlight the legislation’s potential fallout as it faces Senate debate. The bill, which passed the House earlier this year, would require documentary proof of U.S. citizenship — such as a passport or certified birth certificate — for voter registration in federal elections and impose stricter identification rules that could disrupt Washington’s all-mail system.
Hobbs said early estimates showed the measure would drive up election costs in Washington by $35 million to $40 million for the 2026 midterms alone, with another $20 million needed to update the state voter database and $3.6 million for a last-minute public education campaign. Counties would face millions more in annual paperwork burdens, he added, while individual voters — especially older residents or those without home printers — would struggle to submit copies of identification with mail ballots or navigate name-change documentation.
“The SAVE Act doesn’t save anything,” Hobbs said. “All it does is cost Americans the ability to access the ballot box. In fact, in my state, we started to assess the actual costs and burden to Washingtonians. The SAVE Act would require expensive operational, technological, and administrative changes to Washington state’s election system at state and county levels. In addition to the millions of additional dollars to operate the elections, it would add burden of showing papers, ID, for every time you vote.”
The virtual press conference by Democratic lawmakers came as U.S. Senate Republicans, at the urging of President Donald J Trump, opened extended debate on the bill earlier this week. President Trump has described the legislation as essential to preventing noncitizens from voting, once telling allies that Republicans “will never lose again” if it passes and threatening to withhold his signature on other bills until it reaches his desk.
The SAVE America Act amends the National Voter Registration Act to mandate specific proof of citizenship for anyone registering or updating registration for federal elections. A standard driver’s license would no longer suffice. The bill also requires states to hand voter rolls to the Department of Homeland Security for citizenship checks through its SAVE system, eliminates broad mail-in and no-excuse absentee options for most voters, and imposes criminal penalties on election workers for errors. It would take effect immediately, leaving states just a couple hundred days until the general election to overhaul systems, train staff and educate voters.
In Washington, where elections run through 39 counties and many small-town election workers serve part time, the shift to in-person document checks during business hours alone could overwhelm systems, said Hobbs.
Democrats and election administrators call the measure a voter suppression bill rather than a security safeguard. They point to Kansas, which briefly imposed similar rules before a court struck them down; more than 26,000 eligible citizens there were blocked from voting. Supporters, including conservative groups such as the Heritage Foundation, counter that the bill closes loopholes in federal law and ensures only citizens decide elections, noting rare but documented cases of noncitizen registration.
Voting rights organizations such as the ACLU and Brennan Center for Justice argue the legislation would disenfranchise tens of millions nationwide by creating paperwork hurdles that hit women who changed names after marriage, rural residents, low-income voters and naturalized citizens hardest.
“The SAVE America Act is another thinly veiled attempt to interfere with our elections,” the ACLU stated after the House vote.
In Congress, the bill cleared the House on a near party-line vote earlier this year before reaching the Senate, where Democrats have vowed to block it through extended floor debate if necessary. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD brought the measure forward, but procedural hurdles remain high with any attempts to bypass the filibuster drawing retaliation from lawmakers.
Washington’s congressional delegation stands firmly opposed.
Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) denounced the bill, releasing a report showing how it would burden rural voters, recent movers and women whose documents no longer match their names.
“The hallmark of a democracy is free and fair elections. And when you start to undermine that, and you start to question whether you have free and fair elections, you are truly undermining our power as a democracy,” said Sen. Cantwell. “Why would you disenfranchise 20 million people when you have a system that is working successfully [and] has strong deterrence?”
Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) hosted her own event and described the legislation as “the most dangerous, anti-democratic piece of legislation that I have ever seen.”
In the House, Washington’s eight Democrats voted against passage; the state’s two Republicans supported it.
Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, D-Wash., called it a bureaucratic distraction that would undermine the state’s proven vote-by-mail system.
Gov. Bob Ferguson (D), whose administration works closely with Secretary Hobbs on election administration, has not issued a direct statement on the federal bill. He signed state legislation this week clarifying prohibitions on double voting, SB-6084, to maintain secure elections at the local level.
Election officials during Thursday’s virtual presser, said they would comply with any law that passes but warned of chaos without funding or implementation time.
Officials pledged to keep fighting in the Senate and through the courts if the bill advances, while preparing contingency plans for potential federal interference. The message from Thursday’s briefing from the Democratic lawmakers was clear: what proponents call election security, state leaders view as an unfunded mandate that would make voting harder for the very citizens the system is meant to serve.
Author: Kienan Briscoe
