Welcome to the January edition of The Lever, featuring expert insights and analysis from Voting Rights Lab. In this issue, we take a close look at the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (“SAVE”) Act, proposed federal legislation rooted in repeatedly-disproven narratives. If enacted, the bill would block millions of eligible Americans from voting through new, onerous documentary proof of citizenship mandates.

Additionally, we examine an ongoing issue in North Carolina, where a candidate for the state Supreme Court is challenging the validity of roughly 65,000 eligible ballots after two counts confirmed his loss. We also share a recent story, which shines a light on anti-democratic election activists’ legislative goals for 2025.

THERE ARE WAYS TO MODERNIZE OUR ELECTIONS. THE SAVE ACT ISN’T ONE OF THEM.

Rigorous checks and balances in our election system delivered a secure and trusted 2024 election. Despite high confidence in the election, however, the new majority in Congress has made the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (“SAVE”) Act a high priority. This proposed legislation threatens to inject chaos in our elections and block millions of eligible Americans from voting by requiring documentary proof of citizenship, such as a passport or birth certificate, to register to vote. 

In our first analysis of the year, we break down the legislation’s contents, highlight the existing checks and balances that ensure only citizens vote, and explore possible negative outcomes that could result if the SAVE Act is implemented. To sum up: the 119th Congress should focus on modernizing our elections, not imposing redundant and damaging new laws.

BY THE NUMBERS

65,000

That’s approximately how many North Carolinians’ votes could be canceled by a state Supreme Court case. State Supreme Court candidate Jefferson Griffin, who is trailing his opponent Justice Allison Riggs by 734 votes as per the election’s second recount, is challenging the validity of nearly 65,000 votes in a brazen attempt to throw out votes in order to win the election.

The ballots that could be thrown out in this case include votes cast by members of the military stationed overseas, voters with disabilities, and older adults. Depending on how the case plays out in federal and state courts, the North Carolina state Supreme Court could end up overturning the will of the people in order to pick its own member.

WHAT WE'RE READING

THE MARKUP

The Markup is Voting Rights Lab’s weekly law and policy update, powered by our State Voting Rights Tracker. If you’d like to get these insights straight to your inbox, head here to sign up. Here’s a preview of what we’re watching this week:

• Mississippi to consider in-person early voting. The Mississippi Senate Elections Committee is expected to consider S.B. 2654, which proposes a 15-day in-person early voting period. Mississippi is one of only three states without in-person early voting.
• Arizona advances bill to eliminate in-person early voting and countywide voting centers. The Arizona House advanced two restrictive bills last week. H.B. 2017 would end in-person early voting and ban countywide vote centers. H.B. 2007 would prohibit paying people for collecting voter registration forms. These bills now move to the House Rules Committee for consideration.