Trump and SCOTUS are Dismantling Church-State Separation. Learn how to fight back on 8/11 at 1:00 - 2:15 pm ET
RegisterThe SAVE Act is not what it seems.
Jeffrey Jordan, Rosa Casey-Teeley, Kennedy Perry
On April 10, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the SAVE Act (Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act), a bill that, under the guise of protecting election integrity, would erect new and unnecessary barriers to the ballot box nationwide. This piece of legislation threatens the very foundation of American democracy and civil liberties, particularly for marginalized communities.
Studies show that up to 21 million Americans, about 11% of voting-age citizens, do not have government-issued photo ID. For many, obtaining the necessary documentation can be burdensome, costly, or inaccessible, especially in rural and under-resourced areas. Rather than protecting democracy, the SAVE Act weaponizes the false narrative of widespread voter fraud to suppress voter participation by not only implementing voter ID law, but requiring that every voter prove their citizenship each time they go to cast their ballot.
According to the Brennan Center for Justice, the incident rate of noncitizen voting in U.S. elections is 0.0001%. Yet, this legislation could disenfranchise millions, especially naturalized citizens, seniors, Indigenous voters, and communities of color, who may not have easy access to the documentation required.
At its core, the SAVE Act is not about safeguarding elections—it’s about shrinking who gets to participate in them.
Think of who would be targeted:
Voter suppression laws, such as the SAVE Act, have historically been used to exclude and silence. Part of a longer arc of voter suppression tactics dressed up in legal language—poll taxes, literacy tests, English-only ballots. Now it’s “documentary proof.” The SAVE Act isn’t about securing democracy—it’s about controlling who participates in it.
Under the disguise of "election integrity," the SAVE Act would require documentary proof of citizenship to vote in federal elections, something millions of eligible voters, predominantly low-income, Black, Indigenous, and immigrant folks, simply don’t have easy access to. This means that veterans would no longer be able to use their military ID alone to identify themselves, even drivers’ licenses wouldn’t be adequate identification under the SAVE Act.
This piece of legislation isn’t about fraud. It’s about fear. It’s not about protecting votes. It’s about purging voters from access to advocate for their use of power.
So what can we do?
We don't need more barriers.
We need more access, more voices, more justice.
The views and beliefs expressed in this post and all Interfaith Alliance blogs are those held by the author of each respective piece. To learn more about the organizational views, policies and positions of Interfaith Alliance on any issues, please contact info@interfaithalliance.org.
In a recently published article in the Cambridge Journal of Political Affairs, Adam Hamdan offers a statistical analysis of the role religion plays in Supreme Court cases. The article builds on previous studies examining the interplay between religious beliefs and Supreme Court cases to find that under the Roberts Court, the Supreme Court has sided with religious groups more than previous courts, especially when it comes to Christian groups. This finding mirrors public perception of the Supreme Court, as a recent PEW Research Center study found that 35% of Americans see SCOTUS as friendly toward religion, a significant increase from the 18% of Americans that believed that in 2019.
On July 12, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson posted an article on X titled “The True Meaning of ‘The Separation of Church and State.’” In it, Speaker Johnson argues that the original intent of the “separation of church and state” doctrine was to allow religious groups to influence the government while protecting them from government regulation.