Congress is scheduled to vote this week on the SAVE America Act, a bill that would require proof of citizenship to register for federal elections and encourage states to regularly clean voter rolls. 

For some members of the State Policy Network, those priorities are familiar. Across the country, affiliates have been working on the same core reforms at the state level. 

Over the past three years, the Network has secured wins across a range of election integrity policies, and a consistent agenda has emerged even in very different political environments. 

Top affiliate priorities have included: 

  • Implementing and strengthening voter ID laws 
  • Ensuring only U.S. citizens vote in elections 
  • Requiring regular voter roll maintenance to prevent fraud 

The SAVE America Act elevates this same set of reforms to the federal level. That alignment helps explain why the Texas Public Policy Foundation and the John K. MacIver Institute for Public Policy in Wisconsin are among the affiliates publicly urging Congress to pass it. 

“We all know that fair and verifiable elections are the bedrock of our democracy,” MacIver Institute CEO Annette Olson said in January as she described her organization’s leadership on election reform. 

Voter ID 

As of February, 36 states have some form of voter ID requirement to cast a ballot, while 14 do not, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. That divide has shaped SPN affiliates’ work. In states that already have voter ID, the focus has been on strengthening the policy and tightening implementation. In states without it, the work is often about building public support and turning it into legislative action. 

In Wisconsin, last year voters approved a constitutional amendment enshrining photo ID in the state constitution with more than 60 percent support, a push strongly backed by the MacIver Institute. 

After that win, the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty has focused on closing an important loophole. In a landmark report, WILL highlighted how voters can self-identify as “indefinitely confined” and avoid showing ID, contributing to a sharp increase in voters claiming that status. A bill pending in the Wisconsin Legislature would address the practice. 

Idaho is working a similar tightening play. The Idaho Freedom Foundation is backing Senate Bill 1237, which would remove the option for a voter to sign an affidavit instead of presenting photo ID at the polls. 

Missouri shows what it looks like when voter ID becomes a long implementation battle. The Show-Me Institute helped get Missouri’s 2022 voter ID implementation law across the finish line after years of legal wrangling. 

In states without voter ID, affiliates are often combining public opinion with sustained legislative pressure. 

Nevada is the clearest example. In 2024, voters approved a ballot question proposing a constitutional amendment requiring photo identification to vote, passing with 73 percent support. State leaders later sidelined strong voter ID proposals, and Nevada law requires the ballot question to pass again in 2026 to take effect. 

Nevada Policy’s Anahit Baghshetsyan testified before a Senate committee last May that the amendment would “be a net positive” and reflected the majority vote. 

“Voter ID laws, as we heard before, are not necessarily a deterrent from voting,” she told lawmakers. “Rather, they’re a way to keep clear rules and accurate voter rolls that would increase transparency and belief in local democracy.” 

In Minnesota, Center of the American Experiment helped move a voter ID proposal through the state Senate in 2021 but has faced resistance since then. 

In Pennsylvania, Commonwealth Foundation has made voter ID one of its top priorities in 2026. “Pennsylvania is the largest and most important swing state in the country. So why aren’t we securing our elections with voter ID requirements?” COO and General Counsel Megan Martin said in a video this month. “This is common sense and our polling shows that 9 out of 10 Pennsylvanians support it. So let’s get it done.” 

Citizen-Only Voting 

The SAVE Act debate focuses on citizenship verification for federal registration. Many states have pursued the same principle through constitutional amendments and proof of citizenship requirements that apply to state elections. 

Several SPN affiliates are active in the national Only Citizens Vote Coalition, including the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs, the MacIver Institute, Texas Public Policy Foundation, and the Foundation for Government Accountability. 

Wisconsin again shows what sustained effort looks like. The MacIver Institute invested in voter education and coalition work over multiple sessions to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot, and voters approved the Only Citizens Vote amendment in 2024 with 71 percent support. 

The Idaho Freedom Foundation has followed a similar path. With its support, voters approved a citizen-only constitutional amendment in November 2024 with nearly 65 percent support. The foundation is now supporting proposals seeking stronger enforcement tools and database cross-checking through the secretary of state’s office. 

North Carolina’s John Locke Foundation backed a successful citizen-only voting constitutional amendment in 2024. 

Wyoming highlights the next phase many states now face: legal defense. In 2025, Wyoming passed House Bill 156 requiring proof of citizenship and residency for voter registration, a long-standing goal for the Wyoming Liberty Group. The law later survived a federal court challenge when a judge dismissed the case in July 2025. 

Texas could be close behind. Texas Public Policy Foundation Vice President Chuck DeVore testified in support of SB 16, a proof of citizenship bill that passed overwhelmingly in the Senate but stalled in the House. Since 2017, the organization has also spearheaded the Election Protection Project, which emphasizes identity verification, eligibility confirmation, and secure collection and counting. 

Voter Rolls and Administration 

Eligibility rules and voter ID do not carry their full weight if voter rolls are outdated or list maintenance is inconsistent. Several affiliates have focused on the systems that keep voter files accurate and election administration predictable. 

In Virginia, Virginia Fair Elections, a coalition organized by the Virginia Institute for Public Policy, backed Governor Glenn Youngkin’s Executive Order 53 issued in September 2025. The order aims to modernize voter list maintenance and strengthen election administration. VFE Chair Lynn Taylor said it is a pivotal step to ensure only eligible voters remain on the rolls. 

In South Carolina, South Carolina Policy Council’s current legislative agenda emphasizes accurate voter rolls and argues that list maintenance programs should be nonpartisan and objective. It also points to transparency, data-sharing, and privacy risks that can compromise accuracy. 

The Takeaway 

The SAVE America Act vote matters to affiliates that have been advancing the same election integrity priorities at the state level. It also explains why state-based organizations that typically focus on state capitols are engaging in a federal debate. 

At the same time, many state-based reformers are uneasy with the various calls from Washington over the years to exert more control over what has historically been a state prerogative.  Some, like the Sutherland Institute in Utah, contend this is tantamount to “nationalizing elections.” The key distinction is between federal baselines that reinforce state reforms and federal control that displaces them. 

Congress has imposed election administration rules before, including through the National Voter Registration Act and the Help America Vote Act. Those precedents do not settle every argument about the SAVE America Act, but they do put the current moment in historical context. 

What is clear from the last three years is that affiliates are not waiting on Washington. They are passing voter ID reforms where possible, tightening loopholes where voter ID already exists, advancing citizen-only voting rules through constitutional amendments, defending those laws in court, modernizing voter roll maintenance, and pushing practical reforms around election administration.