The ‘SAVE America Act’ Threatens Children’s Representation

For most of American history, democracy was not designed to include everyone.

At our founding, voting was largely limited to white men who owned property. Over time, the country amended its Constitution and laws – sometimes slowly, sometimes through national conflict – to expand participation: ending racial exclusions, guaranteeing women the vote, recognizing Native Americans as citizens, abolishing poll taxes, lowering the voting age to 18, and strengthening protections against discrimination.

The story of American democracy has largely been the story of widening the circle of participation.

The SAVE America Act moves in the opposite, less democratic direction. And it mirrors a voting law in Kansas in 2011 that prevented more than 31,000 U.S. citizens from voting, or about 12% of all those seeking to register in Kansas at the time.

The bill would impose registration documentation and administrative requirements that fall most heavily on the very groups historically excluded from political participation: non-property owners, Black voters, Native Americans, women whose names have changed, and young adults entering civic life.

The House has now narrowly passed the bill.

The Senate will decide whether it becomes law. Some officials have discussed weakening the Senate’s 60-vote threshold to advance it, which would mean reshaping voting and Senate rules in the same debate.

Why is a child advocate writing about this?

Although children do not vote, in some ways, they have a greater interest in public policy than other groups, but must rely on others to represent them.

The bill becomes important because when you change who votes, including how hard it is to vote, you change whether children are represented.

Children also live with the consequences of elections far longer than anyone else.

When Participation Changes, You Change Whether Children Are Represented

Supporters call the so-called SAVE America Act “election integrity.” In practice, independent analyses warn that the bill would impose documentary proof-of-citizenship registration requirements, administrative hurdles, and photo identification requirements could block millions of eligible Americans from registering or updating their voter information.

The consequences on children have been overlooked, but they are real.

Children rely entirely on adults to represent their needs in democracy. Younger voters, parents, women, and communities of color consistently support policies addressing child poverty, health coverage, education, nutrition, and child care. When you make voting harder for these voters to participate in democracy, you change whether children’s needs are represented in our democracy.

This is not theoretical or speculation – it is measurable.

In a 2022 nationwide poll conducted by Lake Research Partners, voters under the age of 30 and parents, especially mothers, overwhelmingly expressed support for reducing child poverty, child hunger, child abuse, and child homelessness, and for improving policies such as children’s health and the Child Tax Credit.

When constituencies that prioritize children’s well-being vote in higher numbers, children’s issues are no longer invisible, politicians take positions about child policy matters, and policy outcomes improve when those same lawmakers take office.

Politicians respond to reliable voters. When youth and parent voices are heard, it shapes which priorities get funded, which needs receive legislative attention, and whether children’s interests make it into budgets and oversight debates.

The SAVE America Act would impose its heaviest burdens on exactly these voters who are children’s biggest champions.

When you make it harder for the adults most likely to advocate for children to vote, you don’t just change turnout numbers. You change whose priorities matter in our democracy. You change whether children’s voices – spoken through the adults who care about them – are heard at all.

Predictable Burdens on Young Adults and Young Parents

Young adults are the most mobile Americans. They move for school, employment, and housing, so they update their registrations more often. Yet only about half of Americans under 30 have passports, and most students living away from home do not have their birth certificates with them.

When you layer documentation requirements onto mobility and time constraints, participation becomes harder, especially for young parents balancing work schedules, child care, and transportation.

These are not abstract voters.

Young adults are the parents of infants and toddlers, making decisions shaped by health care costs, early childhood and education quality, and child care availability.

Barriers to their participation are, by definition, barriers to children’s representation.

College Students

The vast majority of college students do not carry the Act’s “proof of citizenship” requirements, such as passports (most don’t have one anyway) or birth certificates, with them when away from home. College campus voter registration drives would, therefore, either shut down or be severely hampered. Vote-enhancing policies for young voters, such as same-day registration, pre-registration, and early voting, would be severely restricted or eliminated under the SAVE America Act.

For a student to obtain a birth certificate or a passport to vote, the costs are not inexpensive (a backdoor poll tax) for a group trying to participate in our democracy for the first time.

The in-person registration requirement at election offices, which are often nowhere near a college campus, creates another barrier for students who often do not have vehicles on campus.

Mothers and the Name-Change Barrier

Women, especially mothers, face a distinct burden rarely acknowledged in election debates.

When women change their legal name after marriage or divorce, birth certificates typically reflect a prior legal name that conflicts with voter registration records. When proof-of-citizenship requirements rely on matching documents, these discrepancies create additional verification burdens.

For a new mother managing employment, recovery from childbirth, and often disproportionate caregiving burdens, obtaining amended documentation is not trivial. It may require court records, fees, travel, and time off work.

This is not incidental administrative inconvenience – it can be an obstacle course to a group that consistently prioritizes the needs of mothers and children in public policy.

When you create new barriers between them and the ballot box, as the SAVE America Act does, you are changing which priorities get democratic champions.

Foster Youth and the Problem of State-Created Barriers

Here’s where the SAVE America Act becomes not only misguided but also unjust.

For young adults who have experienced foster care, homelessness, or housing instability, access to documents is not a given. Many leave without the identification documents they’ll need to navigate adult life, including the right to vote under the SAVE America Act.

This is organized abandonment in its purest form:

• The state takes responsibility for children who have been physically or sexually abused or orphaned.

• The state fails to ensure youth receive the documents it’s legally required to provide for transition to adulthood.

• The state then creates voting rules requiring those documents.

• The state punishes people for problems the state created.

The SAVE America Act would nationalize this pattern.

And here’s what compounds the injustice: The voters most likely to remember what organized abandonment feels like – such as young adults who’ve experienced foster care, young adults who’ve been homeless, and mothers who fought for their kids through broken systems – are the ones who support children’s policies by overwhelming margins. They’re the ones who understand why child poverty reduction matters, why health coverage can’t wait, and why stable housing changes lives.

The Hypocrisy: A Government Demanding Birth Certificates While Challenging Birthright Citizenship

The SAVE America Act would require many voters to present documentation proving citizenship – often a birth certificate – when registering to vote.

At the same time, the Administration is attempting to restrict birthright citizenship through executive action, a dispute now entangled in litigation that could ultimately be resolved by the Supreme Court and the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Under the SAVE America Act, Congress would tie access to the ballot to a document whose legal meaning regarding citizenship is under constitutional challenge.

Moreover, many of the same members of Congress leading the effort to pass the bill have signed an amicus brief supporting the overturning of birthright citizenship.

That juxtaposition matters.

In effect, Congress would be conditioning access to the ballot on a document whose legal meaning the federal government is simultaneously seeking to narrow and make meaningless with respect to the issue of citizenship.

For children, the stakes extend well into the future. The outcome of birthright citizenship debates will shape the civic status of future generations. Linking voting access to documentation amid that uncertainty risks entangling election administration in constitutional conflicts about belonging itself.

The Twenty-Sixth Amendment Deserving Attention

The Twenty-Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was enacted in 1971 and guarantees that the right of citizens 18 and older to vote “shall not be denied or abridged... on account of age.”

The word “abridged” is critical. The Amendment wasn’t adopted simply to prevent explicit age bans. It was designed to prevent lawmakers from creating indirect burdens that functionally target young voters.

While courts have not always been consistent in applying the Twenty-Sixth Amendment, several recent cases have found that policies disproportionately burdening young voters can violate the Amendment’s prohibition on abridging voting rights “on account of age.”

In Symm v. United States (1979), the Supreme Court struck down a Texas county’s discriminatory residency questionnaire for college students, finding it violated the Twenty-Sixth Amendment.

In 2018, a federal district court in Florida found that banning early voting sites on college campuses was “intentionally discriminatory on account of age” because state officials acted “to stymie young voters from early voting.”

In 2019, New Hampshire college students challenged a law requiring New Hampshire driver’s licenses and car registration to vote, claiming it “has the purpose and effect of abridging the right to vote on account of age in violation of the 26th Amendment.”

The SAVE Act clearly has a disproportionate impact on young voters. Whether courts would rule it violates the Constitution may be uncertain, but it deserves scrutiny by Congress. Legislation that predictably burdens the youngest voters, explicitly rejects student IDs as acceptable proof, and falls hardest on young parents and foster youth raises legitimate questions about whether youth voting rights are being abridged in practice.

The constitutional concern is real and deserves serious scrutiny.

The Problem This Bill Claims to Solve

What evidence of non-citizen voting justifies this response? What fraud has been documented that current systems don’t address? How many eligible voters will be blocked versus fraudulent votes prevented?

There is no doubt that we should all support secure elections. Every state should verify eligibility. The question is whether THIS approach with THESE burdens on THESE populations is proportionate to the actual problem.

The question is not whether to verify eligibility, but whether this approach is proportionate and necessary. Secure elections and broad participation are not opposing goals. The best systems achieve both.

And if everyone had equal access to documents and equal ability to navigate bureaucracy, perhaps. But for foster youth who aged out without documents, for young adults who’ve moved five times in three years, for parents working two jobs to keep their kids fed, moms who changed their names after marriage – “just get your documents” can be a difficult and disproportionate burden.

A right that depends on paperwork you may not have is not equally accessible. When friction falls hardest on already-vulnerable groups and when there’s no evidence of widespread fraud requiring this level of burden, we’re solving a problem we don’t have while creating ones we shouldn’t accept.

Why This Matters for Children

Children do not have access to the ballot. They depend entirely on adults to represent their needs in our democracy.

When barriers fall hardest on young adults, parents, women, communities of color, and foster youth – the voters most likely to prioritize children’s well-being – representation narrows. The SAVE America Act would impose its heaviest burdens on exactly these voters.

The Senate is now the firewall or last line of defense. Senators should ask themselves: When this bill makes voting harder for young adults, young parents, mothers, people of color, and foster youth – the voters most likely to prioritize children’s well-being – then who speaks for children?

Kids are counting on them to not silence those who represent their needs, concerns, and voices in our democracy.

What You Can Do:

• Contact your senators and urge them to OPPOSE the “SAVE America Act”

• Share this post to spread awareness about the needs and problems facing children with this legislation.

• Subscribe to Speaking of Kids, and please consider upgrading to a paid subscription, because kids can’t vote, but with your support, we can help advocate for them.

• Join us as an Ambassador for Children and help raise the problems and needs of kids to the attention of lawmakers.