A Senate exchange between Sen. Maria Cantwell and Sen. Mike Lee centered on the SAVE America Act, with the two lawmakers sharply divided over whether the legislation protects or threatens election integrity and voting access.
Cantwell argued the bill could undermine constitutional voting rights, stating, “The United States citizens given a constitutional right to vote in our elections, it’s hard to imagine how the passing of the Save Act would help you on those constitutional rights.”
She cited a Heritage Foundation finding, saying, “The Heritage Foundation found that in the United States of America that non citizen voter fraud is basically 7,000,000th of a percent.”
Lee responded by emphasizing the need to safeguard elections from fraud, saying, “If we make it easy to cheat, then your constitutionally protected right to vote will mean less and less with each passing election.”
He repeatedly framed the issue as balancing accessibility with security, stating, “You’ve got to have both. You don’t get that if you have a mere signature.”
The debate included discussion over voter identification requirements.
Cantwell referenced existing voter affirmation processes, saying, “It says, I do solemnly swear under penalty of perjury, I am a United States citizen.”
Lee countered that a signature alone is insufficient, stating, “According to my colleague’s logic, a signature is all the identification you need. We have a constitutionally protected right to bear arms, and yet, would you purchase a firearm? Guess what you have to do? You have to produce identification. The Signature wouldn’t do it there, and that’s a constitutionally protected right.”
Cantwell raised concerns that the legislation would create barriers for voters, stating, “It is about disenfranchising millions of people and making it very hard for them to vote.”
Lee pushed back, arguing the bill targets only non-citizens, saying, “The only people we don’t want voting are those who are not citizens and are not eligible to vote. That’s all this does. Easy to vote, hard to cheat.”
The exchange also focused on documentation requirements for voter registration.
Cantwell warned of complications, stating, “You have to start producing additional paperwork. My colleagues would like to make you find all sorts of documentations in the most unworkable chaos I have ever seen in a system put in a bill.”
Lee responded that existing registrations would remain intact and compared documentation requirements to standard employment verification, saying, “If you are an American who has ever had a job anywhere, started any new job at any point in your career with a new employer, you’ve already had to supply the same documentation.”
Federal involvement in elections was another point of contention.
Cantwell argued against federal oversight, stating, “Neither the president nor Congress should be in the business of micromanaging elections.”
She added concerns about federal agencies determining voter eligibility, saying, “A demagogue or somebody in the level of government cannot force the federal government to say who’s eligible to vote and who’s not eligible to vote.”
Lee countered by pointing to prior federal election proposals, stating, “This objection is coming from the same party that no less than five years ago, under the auspices of a bill commonly known at the time as HR one tried to undertake a wholesale takeover of our Federal Voting and election system.”
He also cited existing federal law, adding, “The whole reason this is necessary in the first place is because of an existing federal law passed in 1993 by Congress, the National Voter Registration Act.”
Cantwell raised concerns about the Department of Homeland Security handling voter data, citing a constituent experience, saying, “The notion that we would turn this over to DHS is preposterous.” She described a case where a constituent faced delays after being mistakenly reported as deceased.
Lee responded by noting the government already maintains sensitive personal data across agencies, stating, “The fact is, the government does have that information. Why not allow the government to use that information lawfully to make sure that those who have a particular right are the only ones who are allowed to wield it.”
The bill’s private right of action provision also drew criticism from Cantwell, who said, “This bill also has a private right of action… So now we’re going to create all of this chaos and mischief.”
Lee argued such provisions already exist in federal law, stating, “There are existing federal laws that make that exact private right of action available.”
Cantwell pointed to mail-in voting and turnout levels, stating, “Your last election had 84% turnout in the state of Utah.”
Lee responded by referencing studies on voter ID laws, stating, “In states that have adopted voter ID laws, you don’t drive down voter participation. Some cases it goes up.”
WATCH: