Debates about voting laws have a long history of being highly contested in American politics. While proposals claiming to secure democracy have risen, the question persists: Do these measures protect democracy, or those in power? 

The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) America Act is presented as an attempt to secure American elections by requiring documentary proof of citizenship, such as pairing a birth certificate and photo ID, to vote in federal elections. This 2026 bill attempts to amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, which attests to voters’ citizenship under penalty of perjury. The act has garnered mixed reactions, with some calling it a common sense law and others questioning the consequences that come with it.

Robert Dahl’s analysis of an optimal Polyarchy, Ozan Varol’s definition of stealth authoritarianism, and Milan Svolik’s analysis of affective polarization, make it clear that the SAVE Act is a textbook case of democratic erosion. The act redefines who is included in the political community, and in an attempt to stop noncitizen voting, it instead ties participation to documentary access rather than citizenship itself.

Background

It is important to understand why the SAVE Act was put forward. This piece of legislation was raised as an attempt to respond to threats of noncitizen voting in American elections, a threat that data is hesitant to support. For example, Utah conducted a study examining over two million registered in-state voters from April 2025 through January 2026, and the results found only one case of a noncitizen registered to vote, and zero cases of noncitizen ballot casting. 

Furthermore, Kansas implemented a nearly identical bill as the SAVE Act at the state level in 2013. The results there show that in the first three years after its implementation, 31,089 typically eligible voters were blocked from registering, with only 39 cases of noncitizen registration, leading to a judge striking down the law in 2018 due to its lack of basis. This background is pivotal to the paper, showing that the fears about the SAVE Act are legitimate. 

The Diminishing of Participation

The proposed SAVE Act risks democratic erosion by restricting access to participation. In Polyarchy, Robert Dahl argues that democracy requires both political contestation and participation, stating “citizens [have] unimpaired opportunities” to participate, while being “weighted equally in the… government.” This requisite of fair participation is what the SAVE Act threatens. For example, the Brennan Center for Justice estimates that over 21 million Americans currently lack the documents the SAVE Act would require. This includes documents such as birth certificates and photo IDs. There are processes for people to obtain this paperwork, but those added steps raise the barriers to voting and are worrisome consequences on participation. When the state raises the cost of participation, democracy suffers. Given the unsubstantiated justification for the act, the unanswered worries of citizens who lack proper documentation, and the large consequences it can have on participation, the SAVE Act erodes democratic ideals. 

Stealth Authoritarianism 

The SAVE Act exhibits democratic erosion through stealth authoritarianism, which suppresses participation under the guise of integrity. Ozan Varol defines stealth authoritarianism as the “use of legal mechanisms…for anti-democratic ends.” Specifically, electoral laws “can be reconfigured for seemingly legitimate purpose[s] in order to raise the costs of unseating… incumbents,” a blueprint that the SAVE Act follows. The Act does not make exclusions by race, sex, or class, but that is how real-world implications present themselves. Data shows there are 69 million married women who have changed their surnames and would face increased barriers to vote, such as needing to provide a marriage certificate to verify name changes. Furthermore, almost 50% of Black Americans under 30 do not have identification with their name and address, and many born before the civil-rights era were never issued a birth certificate, all of which is required under the SAVE Act. Widespread participation is necessary for democracy, and the SAVE Act threatens to erode this by making the voting base more narrow. Adding extra steps for participation, including documents such as photo IDs that require payment to obtain, shifts voting from a right to a privilege. Statistically, the most impacted populations, such as Black voters and women, are the most likely to vote against the incumbents proposing this bill, making the SAVE Act an example of stealth authoritarianism that benefits incumbents and erodes democracy.

Affective Polarization

The SAVE Act risks democratic erosion by giving way to affective polarization. While polarization over policies can help mobilize voters, affective polarization, which is when voters view those with different ideologies as moral enemies, can erode democracy. Milan Svolik’s analysis demonstrates that in highly polarized times, voters are willing to trade democratic principles for partisan interests. He states, “partisan preferences punished undemocratic candidates at lower rates,” such as Venezuelan partisans siding with Chávez, even if his power came non-democratically. Currently, the bill has been split on partisan lines, passing the House 218-213 in February 2026, with only one Democrat concurring. During this process, Republican Senator Mike Lee stated that dissenting Democrats were “disingenuous” and their arguments are “nonsense,” while Democratic Senator Mazie Hirono stated, “Republicans don’t give a rip about ‘saving America.’” The issue is that the anger between these Senators and others along partisan lives extend beyond mere policy and into personal animosity. In these instances, getting one’s preferred result is the priority, regardless of how that is achieved. With deep-rooted divisions, such as Democratic voters claiming the bill is a de facto poll tax, and Republican voters claiming Democrats are allowing noncitizens to steal elections, the issue becomes existential and makes it more likely that voters allow nondemocratic actions that fit their ideology.

The SAVE Act will not abolish elections, but it will subtly erode the foundations of democracy. By raising barriers to participation, stealthily targeting those most likely to vote out incumbents, and increasing affective polarization, the act embodies the incremental nature of democratic erosion. The SAVE Act may claim to be a “safeguard,” but in reality it is a threat.