SAVE Act Is Not a Voter ID Law

Jessica Tarlov’s repeated claim onThe Five (Fox News program) that the SAVE Act would force voters to “show their birth certificate or passport at the polls” is flat‑out false. Whether she’s misinformed or deliberately misleading viewers, the text of the bill does not say what she insists it does.

During the segment, Tarlov argued: “…what the SAVE Act does is that it requires that you have either your birth certificate or your passport…”

When Jesse Watters challenged her with, “I don’t know if that’s true,” she doubled down: “It is true. Read the bill.”

Watters has apparently not read the bill…yet. He said, “I will. I will. Tomorrow we’ll have to correct you. There is no way this bill requires people to show up with their birth certificates, then Barack couldn’t register.”

Reading the bill reveals that the SAVE Act does not require anyone to bring a birth certificate or passport to the polling place. It does not regulate Election Day identification at all. The bill deals exclusively with voter registration, specifically federal voter registration forms.

According to the bill text, the SAVE Act would:

• Require documentary proof of U.S. citizenship (e.g., Real ID, government issued ID showing birthplace, passport, birth certificate, naturalization certificate) when registering to vote in federal elections.
• Amend the National Voter Registration Act to ensure that only citizens can register using federal forms.
• Require states to remove non‑citizens from voter rolls.

That’s it. No polling‑place ID requirement. No mandate to bring a birth certificate to vote.

Democrats have long tried to frame voter ID as discriminatory, but the political ground has shifted. Polling consistently shows overwhelming public support for voter ID requirements:

• 83% of Americans support requiring photo ID to vote.
• Support includes 95% of Republicans and 71% of Democrats.
• Gallup finds 83% support requiring proof of citizenship for first‑time registrants.

In other words, voter ID is not the losing issue Democrats pretend it is. It’s one of the most broadly supported election‑integrity measures in the country.

While public support is strong, courts have been more mixed. Recent rulings have struck down or blocked certain voter ID measures, especially when they conflict with state law:

The California Supreme Court struck down Huntington Beach’s voter ID law, ruling it conflicted with state election statutes.

Multiple courts have blocked parts of President Trump’s executive order requiring proof of citizenship for federal voter registration, citing separation‑of‑powers concerns.

The latter case supports a constitutional truth: Congress, not the courts, not the executive branch, must clarify federal standards before any executive order may be issued to enforce them.

That is where the SAVE Act becomes an important part of the process.

If the SAVE Act becomes law, the next logical step will likely be a renewed push for nationwide voter ID requirements; not just to prevent non‑citizen voting, but to stop:

• Multiple voting by the same individual
• Ballots cast on behalf of low‑propensity voters
• Fraud enabled by lax verification systems

Given the overwhelming public support, voter ID is not a political liability. It’s a political inevitability.

Support Canada Free Press