Senate Votes on Save America Act
The SAVE America Act secured majority support in the U.S. Senate during a dramatic late-night vote Thursday.
The vote is an important turning point for election integrity advocates despite
falling short of the 60 votes required to overcome Senate procedural hurdles. During the Senate’s marathon “vote-a-rama” session on June 4, Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) forced a vote on the House-passed version of the SAVE America Act.
The legislation would require proof of U.S. citizenship for federal voter registration and strengthen voter identification requirements nationwide.
The amendment passed by a vote of 50-49, giving the measure majority support in the chamber.
However, because the proposal was offered as a waiver to budget rules within the reconciliation process, Senate rules required a three-fifths supermajority, or 60 votes, for adoption.
Every Democrat voted against the amendment, preventing it from reaching the threshold needed for passage.
The vote represented a notable improvement from an earlier election-integrity amendment offered by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), which failed 48-50 after four Republican senators joined Democrats in opposition.
That earlier proposal included additional provisions beyond the House-passed SAVE Act.
GOP Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, and Thom Tillis of North Carolina all opposed it.
When Lee later introduced the clean House version of the legislation, Collins switched her vote and joined the rest of the Republican conference in support of the measure.
Murkowski, McConnell, and Tillis continued to oppose the amendment.
The final 50-49 tally demonstrated that supporters of the SAVE Act can assemble a Senate majority behind the legislation, though not the supermajority required under current Senate rules.
Vice President JD Vance, who serves as president of the Senate and can cast tie-breaking votes, was available if needed, meaning supporters effectively demonstrated they could secure 51 votes in favor of the proposal.
Supporters of the legislation argue that requiring documentary proof of citizenship would
