An updated version of the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility, or SAVE, Act was passed by the House of Representatives on February 11th of this year. Meant to “[ensure] the integrity of elections” – in the words of Speaker Mike Johnson – the SAVE America Act would require further identification to register and participate in voting. Though advocates champion the act as a positive for elections and the prevention of voter fraud, could it be a step forward to democratic erosion in America?

According to congressional documents, the SAVE America Act calls for proof of citizenship to register to vote, for states to create measures to prevent non-citizen voting, and for a photo ID to be required to vote in federal elections. However, the bill would also submit voter data to the Department of Homeland Security, create issues for those with “name discrepancies,” and generally add more hurdles for Americans trying to exercise their right to vote. 

Although it can be, and is currently being, argued that these measures will be what Americans need to protect free and fair elections (one of Dahl’s requirements for democracy/polyarchy), that might not be the case. Most opposition comes from those concerned over the possible limitation of voting for married women. Similarly, requiring ID could prove hard for millions without a Real ID or other forms of identification. 

If these policies might actually hurt voters, why are mainly Republicans pushing for it to be passed? 

The proposal and adoption of such laws can be viewed as a form of “stealth authoritarianism.” Ozan Varol, an author and professor, explains that democratic processes can be exploited by corrupt officials to slowly, and stealthily, reduce democracy. In, “Stealth Authoritarianism,” he writes that “[a] particularly fertile ground for stealth authoritarianism is the structuring of electoral laws” (Varol 1700). 

Voting and elections can be a perfect target. Varol clarifies that while election fraud is something to look for in preventing backsliding, these laws can be manipulated for the benefit of a single party. 

The drive to establish higher levels of voter surveillance and restriction can be a way for the GOP to create the voting base they desire. Stealth authoritarianism is meant to fly under the radar, so how do we process the fact that the president has explicitly claimed this? Democracy Docket, a news source dedicated to reporting on the state of voting, cites and analyzes a speech where President Donald Trump announced, “‘We’ll never lose a race. For 50 years, we won’t lose a race,’” along with further allegations of fraudulent ballots in 2020. 

What could it mean for such a brazen admission?

Jacob Knutson continues to say that the bill will likely fail in the Senate, and despite Trump’s declaration to enact an executive order if that happens, horizontal, or other governmental, institutions will put a stop to it. This still, however, leaves the question of what the vertical can do. How can the people use their power in this situation? The right to vote and participate in the electoral process is a key way citizens can enforce vertical checks. In addition to the checks the courts and Congress can provide, Americans have the ability to advocate against these restrictive voting laws, too. Unfortunately, this could prove hard as according to Representative Daniel Webster, “Over 80% of Americans agree – only American citizens should vote in American elections.”

Representative Webster has slightly embellished his words. In reality, studies from organizations like Pew Research Center show around 80% of Americans think proof of citizenship and ID makes sense when it comes to registration or voting. On the other hand, multiple groups like the Brennan Center and Common Cause have created platforms for Americans to let their Senators know they’re not in favor of the bill. Similarly, online influencers like Joanne Molinaro, known as The Korean Vegan to over one million fans, and advocacy accounts on platforms like Instagram have been publicly opposing the SAVE Act. 

These posts have been well received and shared by fans and general social media users alike. With arguments on both sides of the spectrum, opinions also seem to demonstrate party division. It’s largely Republicans in favor of the bill, with all Republican House members voting “yea,” and Democrats voting “nay.” 

With the power the media seems to have on public opinion of the situation, a study from Rebecca Weitz-Shapiro and Matthew S. Winters feels relevant. In “Can Citizens Discern? Information, Credibility, Political Sophistication, and the Punishment of Corruption in Brazil,” the two authors explore the importance of not only access to credible information but the understanding of it in practicing vertical accountability. 

Through studying hypotheticals in Brazil, they find that those with higher levels of education are able to recognize signs of media manipulation and democratic backsliding. Some news sites might have an incentive to present misinformation that ultimately shapes the public’s political decisions. Unfortunately, these things can be hard to spot, and when they’re called out, some might just not care. This idea is furthered by Michael Albertus and Guy Grossman in their article, “The Americas: When Do Voters Support Power Grabs?”: “while citizens may not approve of an incumbent who attacks democracy…[m]ost would rather let elections speak” (Albertus, Grossman 127). 

When disinformation is paired with a reliance on citizens not understanding the politics, issues arise when voter restrictions are included. If elections are how citizens want to exercise their vertical power, how can they do so when they’re being kept under control? If citizens don’t have access to credible sources that can demonstrate the negatives of the SAVE Act, how will they know they can use the very thing being limited to stop it?

The SAVE Act, and now SAVE America Act, has been divisive for the last year and continues to be so. With the current American political climate, monitoring symbols of democratic erosion could prove necessary for our future. It’s important that citizens not only stay informed, but can understand what is happening to make the best decisions for the country.