How Could the SAVE Act Impact Young Voters and Married People Who’ve Changed Their Name?
BU political scientist Christine Slaughter says that changing the electoral process can deter people from the polls
A protester outside the Pennsylvania State Capitol in Harrisburg, Pa., decries a new voting reform bill, the SAVE Act. The bill’s backers say it will prevent noncitizens from voting in elections. Photo via AP/Paul Weaver/Sipa USA
How Could the SAVE Act Impact Young Voters and Married People Who’ve Changed Their Name?
BU political scientist Christine Slaughter says that changing the electoral process can deter people from the polls
A voting reform bill, known as the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, or the SAVE Act, is heading to the Senate after getting passed by the House of Representatives on April 10. Its trajectory to becoming law is uncertain, but Christine Slaughter, a Boston University College of Arts & Sciences assistant professor of political science, believes that it’s still important to question, “Is this making elections safer, and for who?”
“The SAVE Act may seem like it’s making elections safer, but we must think: Is it safer for the status quo or safer for new voters who want to become habitual participants in democracy?” she says. “Whenever changes are made to the electoral system, what are the motivations behind them?”
The bill has evoked mixed reactions. If it managed to pass through Congress, the act would require voters to provide proof of citizenship. That means showing a legal federal document, like a passport or birth certificate, when registering to vote or updating voter information, including a change of address. It could also mean that having a different legal name than the name on your birth certificate—perhaps after taking a spouse’s last name—could potentially disqualify someone from registering to vote. Voting rights groups have said these ID requirements undermine citizens’ right to vote, while Republican lawmakers say the bill would only prevent noncitizens from participating in elections.
“Providing identification to prove you are who you say you are, while it sounds easy, can be a barrier to registering or voting,” Slaughter says. “This act can have detrimental consequences for people who have changed their legal name for any reason.”
Her research has found that when the voting process changes to become more complicated, people are less likely to show up to vote—even if they have the proper credentials to do so. She has also found, by studying the political behavior of Black Americans, that optimism drives people to the polls more than other emotions. Since some states already have strict voting laws—like voter ID laws—that disproportionately impact minority voters, the SAVE Act could perpetuate inequalities, she says. It could even deter young people from registering to vote, because of the cost of a passport or the difficulty of obtaining a birth certificate.
The Brink spoke with Slaughter to gain her expert perspective on the SAVE Act and what she expects to happen next.
Q&A
with Christine Slaughter
The Brink: When you first read about this bill, what were your initial concerns?
Slaughter: While the SAVE Act passed in the House, it’s unlikely to pass in the Senate; it would need 60 votes to pass, but this is not to say that it can’t. This is legislation [the president] signaled as important for safeguarding American democracy. Basically, the SAVE Act would require a birth certificate, passport, or some other document proving citizenship to vote across all states, so that only American citizens participate in the elections. Safeguarding American elections is being used as a way to reduce voter fraud, yet voter fraud happens at such a small scale. Even conservative organizations, like the Heritage Foundation, have shown that detected voter fraud is minuscule.
When I think about voting reform or legislation that equips our elections to represent the interests of the American people, I think of the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which seeks to reduce barriers to voting, and the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act in 2006, which had bipartisan support. The SAVE Act really goes against that idea by creating potential barriers to voting, and lacks bipartisan support.
The Brink: What would the real impact be if the SAVE Act were to pass, or any legislation like it?
This is the challenge, because we aren’t certain how many people lack proper identification. That’s something that’s estimated through surveys. But regardless, we know that this intersects with existing inequalities. If a passport is used for identification and passports cost $130—and they’re processed at the Post Office, which is being cut at the knees—not everybody has equal access. It’s amplifying existing inequalities that are already present, including socioeconomic status, geography, and more.
The Brink: To you, what does this bill passing the House signal about our current political climate?
So much. In 2020, there were so many allegations of voter fraud. And then, after the 2024 election, that narrative went away. Now, in 2025, as we think about the idea of making government more efficient, what this signals is that even if we agree on the need to reform voting in this country, we don’t necessarily agree on the mechanisms of how to safeguard democracy. While instances of fraud are rare, these barriers are sprouting up. Before the Voting Rights Act of 1965, states had different requirements for voting that really boiled down to poll workers using their discretion to say who could vote.
The Brink: Would the SAVE Act undo voter protections that were put in place decades earlier?
A lot of those have already been undone. I study the downstream consequences of the Shelby County v. Holder decision, which deemed parts of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional. This meant places with histories of discrimination in their voting process didn’t have to submit changes in their voting laws to the federal government anymore. Immediately after, many states rolled out changes like requiring a photo ID. This ultimately meant that even people with proper identification are less likely to show up to vote, because of the chaos and uncertainty about who is or isn’t eligible. Anecdotally, many voters often say that they don’t know what they need to vote. So, when we change or modify the process, it impacts who participates. It could also deter younger people from even entering the system.
In political science, we think about these changes as administrative burdens—the different things you have to do to engage in the process. Registering to vote already takes time and every step adds up—and that can ultimately deter people, especially when people may feel that their vote doesn’t matter. I teach BU’s voting rights class with Maxwell Palmer [a CAS associate professor and associate chair of political science], and recently in class we talked about Americans with different abilities and how convenience voting, like voting by mail or drop-off ballots, can potentially increase participation by making voting easier. Something like the SAVE Act will effectively remove those things, because you can’t verify identification through drop boxes or early voting. Even though there is so much going on right now, it’s important to pay attention to these changes, because most elections are decided on very close margins. Even changing one law could have consequences for very competitive elections. That’s why this is important.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Comments & Discussion
Boston University moderates comments to facilitate an informed, substantive, civil conversation. Abusive, profane, self-promotional, misleading, incoherent or off-topic comments will be rejected. Moderators are staffed during regular business hours (EST) and can only accept comments written in English. Statistics or facts must include a citation or a link to the citation.