Editorial of February 19, 2026

Voter ID: Which Side Do You Fall On?

As lawmakers continue their partisan political shenanigans and the government remains in a partial shutdown since Saturday—the second already this year—the Republican-led House of Representatives passed the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, known as the SAVE Act, on February 11 in a 218-213 vote. Representative Henry Cuellar of Texas was the lone Democrat in support of the proposed legislation (S. 1383).

A summary of the SAVE Act was written by the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress which, by definition, “works exclusively for the United States Congress, providing policy and legal analysis to committees and Members of both the House and Senate, regardless of party affiliation.” The group is charged with providing Congress with analysis that is “authoritative, confidential, objective and non-partisan.”

That summary reads:

This bill requires individuals to provide documentary proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections.

Specifically, the bill prohibits states from accepting and processing an application to register to vote in a federal election unless the applicant presents documentary proof of U.S. citizenship. The bill specifies what documents are considered acceptable proof of U.S. citizenship, such as identification that complies with the REAL ID Act of 2005 that indicates U.S. citizenship.

Further, the bill (1) prohibits states from registering an individual to vote in a federal election unless, at the time the individual applies to register to vote, the individual provides documentary proof of U.S. citizenship; and (2) requires states to establish an alternative process under which an applicant may submit other evidence to demonstrate U.S. citizenship.

Each state must take affirmative steps on an ongoing basis to ensure that only U.S. citizens are registered to vote, which shall include establishing a program to identify individuals who are not U.S. citizens using information supplied by certain sources.

Additionally, states must remove noncitizens from their official lists of eligible voters.

The bill allows for a private right of action against an election official who registers an applicant to vote in a federal election who fails to present documentary proof of U.S. citizenship.

The bill establishes criminal penalties for certain offenses, including registering an applicant to vote in a federal election who fails to present documentary proof of U.S. citizenship.

According to a report on voter ID laws issued by the National Conference of State Legislatures in July 2025, 36 state laws request or require voters to show some form of identification at the polls. Only 14 states—including New York—and Washington, D.C. do not require any documentation to vote at the polls. Most states with strict voter identification requirements make some exceptions, the NCSL reports. These exceptions may include people who:

• Have religious objections to being photographed (Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin).
• Are indigent (Indiana and Tennessee).
• “Have a reasonable impediment” to getting an ID (Nebraska, North Carolina, South Carolina).
• Do not have an ID due to a recent natural disaster (North Carolina, Texas).
• Are victims of domestic abuse, sexual assault or stalking and have a “confidential listing” (Wisconsin).

Rep. Cuellar, according to a “Time” magazine article by Connor Greene published on February 12, “noted in his statement that the bill allows for citizens to show proof of identification through an affidavit, in lieu of traditional documents.”

Proponents of the SAVE Act argue that a valid, government-issued ID (driver’s license, passport, state ID) is required to verify identity for security, legal and financial purposes. These include, but are not limited to, opening a bank account, applying for food stamps, renting and buying a house, applying for Medicaid and Social Security, buying or renting a car, flying on an airplane, getting married, purchasing a gun, applying for a hunting or fishing license, renting a hotel room, cashing checks, donating blood, accessing a federal building, and purchasing alcohol or tobacco.

Suspected voter fraud is another impetus for voter ID. “At the end of the day, election security and voter access go together,” Cuellar said. “When Americans trust the system, our democracy grows stronger. That’s why I voted yes.”

Conversely, the League of Women Voters is adamantly opposed to voter ID laws and has denounced the SAVE Act in particular. In a blog titled “What’s So Bad About Voter ID Laws?”, published in May 2023, they wrote: “Not only do [voter ID laws] disproportionately impact Black, Native, elderly, and student voters, but they also fail to effectively address any real issues related to election integrity—the very thing advocates say these measures are designed to do.”

The LWV views ID laws as voter suppression: “Not only are voter photo ID laws ineffective as means of combating voter fraud, but their main impact is that they promote voter suppression. The use of restrictive voting laws to disenfranchise minority voters can be traced back to the Jim Crow era, when many states employed various tactics—including literacy tests, poll taxes, and extralegal measures such as violence and intimidation—to prevent Black Americans from voting. Following the enactment of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) in 1965, many of these tactics were outlawed, but efforts to restrict voting access persisted, including implementing voter ID laws.”

Our goal today is not to tell you what to think, but rather to present the two opposing views and find out which side of this issue you, our readers, fall on. To that end, please refer to our anonymous poll question on AllOtsego.com. Is the SAVE Act simply a common sense solution in a world where it is almost impossible to function without a photo ID, and a safeguard against suspected voter fraud? Or does it represent class and racial discrimination, voter suppression, and reduced turnout among vulnerable populations? What do you think?