\n<\/p>\n
WASHINGTON — <\/span>House Republicans are rushing ahead on Wednesday on legislation that would impose strict new proof-of-citizenship requirements ahead of the midterm elections, a longshot Trump administration priority that faces sharp blowback in the Senate.<\/p>\n The bill, called the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility<\/a>, or SAVE America Act, would require Americans to prove they are citizens when they register to vote, mostly through a valid U.S. passport or birth certificate. It would also require a valid photo identification before voters can cast ballots, which some states already demand. <\/p>\n Republicans said the legislation is needed to prevent voter fraud, but Democrats warn it will disenfranchise millions of Americans by making it harder to vote. Federal law already requires that voters in national elections be U.S. citizens, but there\u2019s no requirement to provide documentary proof. Experts said voter fraud is extremely rare, and very few noncitizens ever slip through the cracks. Fewer than one in 10 Americans don’t have paperwork proving they are citizens.<\/p>\n \u201cSome of my colleagues will call this voter suppression or Jim Crow 2.0,\u201d said Rep. Bryan Steil, R-Wis., presenting the package at a committee hearing. <\/p>\n But he said \u201cthose allegations are false,\u201d and he argued the bill is needed to enforce existing laws, particularly those that bar immigrants who are not citizens from voting. \u201cThe current law is not strong enough,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n The GOP’s sudden push to change voting rules<\/a> at the start of the midterm election season is raising red flags, particularly because President Donald Trump <\/a> has suggested he wants to nationalize U.S. elections, which, under the Constitution, are designed to be run by individual states. <\/p>\n The Trump administration recently seized ballots in Georgia<\/a> from the 2020 election, which the president insists he won despite his defeat to Democrat Joe Biden. The Department of Justice is demanding voter rolls from states, including Michigan, where a federal judge this week dismissed the department’s lawsuit<\/a> seeking the voter files. Secretaries of state have raised concerns that voters’ personal data<\/a> may be shared with Homeland Security to verify citizenship and could result in people being unlawfully purged from the rolls.<\/p>\n \u201cLet me be clear what this is about: It\u2019s about Republicans trying to rig the next election,\u201d said Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, the top Democrat on the Rules Committee, during a hearing ahead of the floor vote. \u201cRepublicans are pushing the Save America Act because they want fewer Americans to vote. It\u2019s that simple.\u201d<\/p>\n The legislation is actually a do-over of a similar bill the House approved last year, which also sought to clamp down on fraudulent voting, particularly among noncitizens. It won the support of four House Democrats, but stalled in the Republican-led Senate.<\/p>\n This version toughens some of the requirements further, while creating a process for those whose names may have changed, particularly during marriage, to provide the paperwork necessary and further attest to their identity. <\/p>\n It also imposes requirement on states to share their voter information with the Department of Homeland Security, as a way to verify the citizenship of the names on the voter rolls. That has drawn pushback from elections officials as potentially intrusive on people’s privacy. <\/p>\n The new rules in the bill would take effect immediately, if the bill is passed by both chambers of Congress and signed into law.<\/p>\n But with primary elections getting underway next month, critics said the sudden shift would be difficult for state election officials to implement and potentially confuse voters.<\/p>\n Voting experts have warned that more than 20 million U.S. citizens of voting age do not have proof of their citizenship readily available. Almost half of Americans do not have a U.S. passport.<\/p>\n \u201cElection Day is fast approaching,\u201d said Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska. \u201cImposing new federal requirements now, when states are deep into their preparations, would negatively impact election integrity by forcing election officials to scramble to adhere to new policies likely without the necessary resources.\u201d<\/p>\n In the Senate, where Republicans also have majority control, there does not appear to be enough support to push the bill past the chamber’s filibuster rules, which largely require 60 votes to advance legislation.<\/p>\n That frustration has led some Republicans, led by Sen. Mike Lee of Utah, to push for a process that would skip the 60-vote threshold in this case, and allow the bill to be debated through a so-called standing filibuster \u2014 a process that would open the door to potentially endless debate.<\/p>\n Lee made the case to GOP senators at a closed-door lunch this week, and some said afterward they are mulling the concept.<\/p>\n \u201cI think most people\u2019s minds are open,\u201d said Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., \u201cMy mind’s certainly open.\u201d<\/p>\n But Murkowski of Alaska said she is flat out against the legislation.<\/p>\n \u201cNot only does the U.S. Constitution clearly provide states the authority to regulate the \u2018times, places, and manner\u2019 of holding federal elections, but one-size-fits-all mandates from Washington, D.C., seldom work in places like Alaska,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n Karen Brinson Bell of Advance Elections, a nonpartisan consulting firm, said the bill adds numerous requirements for state and local election officials with no additional funding.<\/p>\n \u201cElection officials have a simple request of Congress \u2014 that you help share their burdens not add to them,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n ___<\/p>\n This story has been corrected to fix a statistic. Fewer than one in 10 Americans do not have paperwork proving they are citizens; an earlier version incorrectly said fewer than one in 10 have valid passports.<\/p>\n __<\/p>\n Associated Press writer Kevin Freking contributed to this report.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n