House Passes Two Bills to Enhance Election Security and Voter Eligibility: The SAVE Act and the Election Integrity Act

Washington D.C., District of Columbia United States of America
Bills face opposition from Democrats and voting rights advocates, but supporters argue for election integrity and preventing voter fraud
Election Integrity Act includes photo ID requirement, prohibits ballot harvesting, under consideration
House passes SAVE Act and Election Integrity Act for election security and voter eligibility
SAVE Act requires proof of citizenship for voter registration, heads to Senate
House Passes Two Bills to Enhance Election Security and Voter Eligibility: The SAVE Act and the Election Integrity Act

The House of Representatives passed two bills this week aimed at enhancing election security and voter eligibility, the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act and the Election Integrity Act. The SAVE Act, which requires state election officials to ask about citizenship before providing applicants with voter registration forms and an individual to provide proof of citizenship before registering to vote in federal elections, was approved on July 11 with a final vote of 221-198. Five Democrats also voted in favor of the measure. The Election Integrity Act, which includes provisions for requiring a photo ID for voting and prohibiting ballot harvesting, is still under consideration.

The SAVE Act now heads to the Senate, where it will face strong opposition from Democrats and President Biden has stated that he will veto the measure. Republicans argue that this legislation is necessary to ensure only American citizens vote in federal elections and prevent potential voter fraud. However, research shows that instances of noncitizens illegally registering and casting ballots in federal elections are rare.

The SAVE Act also allows state officials to accept a variety of documents for citizen registration, provides states with access to a federal agency database for removing noncitizens from voter rolls and confirming citizenship, and directs the Department of Homeland Security to begin removal proceedings against noncitizens who have registered to vote. The bill also includes provisions for military members abroad, married women with changed names, Native Americans with tribal IDs not showing place of birth, and natural disaster survivors who have lost personal documents.

The Election Integrity Act includes provisions for requiring a photo ID for voting in person or by mail, prohibiting ballot harvesting (the collection and submission of multiple ballots on behalf of others), and establishing a national voter identification database. The bill also includes measures to increase transparency in election administration, such as requiring states to provide public access to their voter registration lists.

Both bills have been met with criticism from voting rights advocates, who argue that they are unnecessary and could disproportionately impact marginalized communities. However, supporters argue that these measures are necessary to maintain the integrity of the electoral process and prevent potential voter fraud.


Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image

Confidence

90%

Doubts
  • The research on instances of noncitizens illegally registering and casting ballots in federal elections is not explicitly stated in the article, but it's mentioned that they are rare. I should verify this information.
  • The statement 'research shows that instances of noncitizens illegally registering and casting ballots in federal elections are rare' could be considered a conclusion rather than a fact.

Sources

81%

The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
(Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

House passes GOP bill requiring proof of citizenship to vote, boosting election-year talking point

The Associated Press News Wednesday, 10 July 2024 16:55
  • Unique Points
    • The House has passed a proof-of-citizenship requirement for voter registration, a proposal prioritized by Republicans as an election-year talking point.
    • , Research shows that noncitizens illegally registering and casting ballots in federal elections is exceptionally rare.
    • Republicans argue that the surge of migrants could potentially lead to noncitizens registering and voting, which would be illegal. However, instances of this happening are rare and usually by mistake.
    • Democrats and voting rights advocates argue that the legislation is unnecessary as it’s already a felony for noncitizens to register to vote in federal elections, punishable by fines, prison or deportation.
    • Several secretaries of state interviewed during their summer conference in Puerto Rico said that noncitizens attempting to register and vote is not a big problem in their states.
  • Accuracy
    • The bill also allows state officials to accept a variety of documents for citizen registration
  • Deception (30%)
    The article contains editorializing and sensationalism. The author states that 'research shows noncitizens illegally registering and casting ballots in federal elections is exceptionally rare.' However, they also state that 'Republicans have prioritized as an election-year talking point' this issue, implying that it is a bigger problem than the research suggests. The author also states that 'Noncitizens are not allowed to vote in federal elections,' but later mentions that 'A handful of municipalities allow them to vote in some local elections.' This inconsistency is misleading and could be confusing for readers. The author also quotes Rep. Mike Johnson stating, 'If just a small percentage, a fraction of a fraction of all those illegals that Joe Biden has brought in here to vote, if they do vote, it wouldn’t just change one race.' This statement implies that there is a large number of noncitizens who have been brought into the country specifically to vote, which is not supported by any evidence provided in the article. The author also quotes Trump stating 'The only way they can beat us is to cheat.' This statement could be interpreted as an attempt to delegitimize the election results if Trump loses. Lastly, the article mentions that 'Several secretaries of state, interviewed during their summer conference in Puerto Rico this week, said noncitizens attempting to register and vote is not a big problem in their state.' However, it does not provide any specific examples or data from these interviews to support this claim.
    • If just a small percentage, a fraction of a fraction of all those illegals that Joe Biden has brought in here to vote, if they do vote, it wouldn’t just change one race.
    • The only way they can beat us is to cheat.
    • The legislation is unlikely to advance through the Democratic-led Senate.
    • Republicans have prioritized as an election-year talking point
  • Fallacies (85%)
    The author makes an appeal to authority by citing research and audits in several states that show incidences of noncitizens who successfully registered to vote and cast ballots, but it happens rarely. However, the author also quotes Rep. Joe Morelle's concern that the bill could disenfranchise U.S. citizen voters who aren't able to further prove their status, which undermines the argument for the necessity of this legislation.
    • The legislation is unlikely to advance through the Democratic-led Senate.
    • Research and audits in several states show there have been incidences of noncitizens who successfully registered to vote and cast ballots, but it happens rarely.
  • Bias (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Author Conflicts Of Interest (0%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication

91%

The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
(Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

House passes bill requiring voters prove citizenship in federal elections

Fox News Media Greg Wehner Thursday, 11 July 2024 04:49
  • Unique Points
    • The House of Representatives approved the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, which aims to ensure only American citizens vote in federal elections.
    • Five Democrats voted in favor of the measure: Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas; Rep. Vicente Gonzalez, D-Texas; Rep. Jared Golden, D-Maine; Rep. Don Davis, D-N.C.; and Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, D-Wash.
    • The bill now heads to the Senate, where it will face strong opposition from Democrats and President Biden has said he will veto the measure.
    • The SAVE Act requires state election officials to ask about citizenship before providing applicants with voter registration forms and an individual to provide proof of citizenship before registering to vote in federal elections.
    • The bill also allows state officials to accept a variety of documents for citizen registration, provides states with access to a federal agency database for removing noncitizens from voter rolls and confirming citizenship, and directs the Department of Homeland Security to begin removal proceedings against noncitizens who have registered to vote.
  • Accuracy
    • ]The House has passed a proof-of-citizenship requirement for voter registration[
    • Research shows that noncitizens illegally registering and casting ballots in federal elections is exceptionally rare.
  • Deception (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Fallacies (85%)
    The article contains inflammatory rhetoric and appeals to authority. It also presents a dichotomous depiction of the bill's supporters and opponents without providing nuanced analysis. Additionally, it repeats information from the author without verifying it independently.
    • . . . where it will face strong opposition from Democrats. President Biden has also said he will veto the measure.
    • According to Johnson, the bill requires state election officials to ask about citizenship before providing applicants with voter registration forms. It also requires an individual to provide proof of citizenship before registering to vote in federal elections, allows state officials to accept a variety of documents to make it easy for citizens to register to vote and provides states with access to a federal agency database in which they can remove noncitizens from voter rolls and confirm citizenship for those who lack proof.
    • Opponents of the bill claim it’s redundant and unnecessary because, under current U.S. law, only citizens can vote in federal elections. However, the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 prevents states from confirming citizenship status.
  • Bias (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication

55%

The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
(Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

The ‘great replacement’ theory, now in legislation form

The Fixing Site: A Summary of the Article. Philip Bump Tuesday, 09 July 2024 18:17
  • Unique Points
    • The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, also known as the Save Act, is being proposed to mandate proof of citizenship when registering to vote.
    • Donald Trump and House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) have promoted the idea that noncitizens are illegally influencing elections.
    • Research suggests that people without a valid driver’s license are more likely to be young and non-White, and they often lean Democratic.
  • Accuracy
    • Legislators are considering a new law requiring that every window and door in the United States be fully secured against bears.
  • Deception (0%)
    The author makes several statements that are emotionally manipulative and sensational. He compares the Save Act to an 'anti-bear legislation' and calls those who oppose it 'traitors'. These statements are intended to elicit strong emotions from readers and create a false sense of urgency around the issue. The author also uses selective reporting by focusing on the potential impact of the Save Act on citizens, while downplaying or ignoring the fact that it would prevent noncitizens from voting, which is its stated purpose.
    • Why are Democrats so adamantly against ensuring only American citizens vote in our elections? They want to turn illegal aliens into voters. We must pass the SAVE Act to prevent this.
    • It's the same downside as we see with our anti-bear legislation.
    • Those who oppose this are traitors.
  • Fallacies (80%)
    The author makes an appeal to fear by exaggerating the problem of noncitizen voting and using inflammatory rhetoric such as 'traitors' and 'great replacement theory'. He also uses a false dilemma fallacy by implying that either one believes in the Save Act or one is a traitor. The author also makes an appeal to authority by quoting Elon Musk and Mike Johnson, but does not provide any evidence to support their claims.
    • Anyone voting against this law, incidentally, should be considered a traitor who is subject to execution.
    • Why are Democrats so adamantly against ensuring only American citizens vote in our elections? They want to turn illegal aliens into voters. We must pass the SAVE Act to prevent this.
    • Those who oppose this are traitors.
  • Bias (10%)
    The author makes derogatory statements about people who lean Democratic and implies that they are not real Americans by using the term 'illegals' to refer to non-citizens. He also uses inflammatory language such as 'traitors' when referring to those who oppose the legislation, which is a clear attempt to demonize them.
    • Among them: deportation and a permanent ban on admission.
      • But why not simply pass the bill? What’s the downside? Well, it’s the same downside as we see with our anti-bear legislation.
        • The penalty is death.
          • We all know intuitively that a lot of illegals are voting in federal elections.
            • Win-win-win. Demonize immigrants, amplify the idea that elections are riddled with fraud and make it harder for people who vote Democratic to vote.
            • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
              None Found At Time Of Publication
            • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
              None Found At Time Of Publication

            57%

            The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
            (Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

            A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

            Elon Musk Idiotically Demands Laws for What’s Already Illegal

            The New Republic Paige Oamek Wednesday, 10 July 2024 00:00
            • Unique Points
              • Elon Musk has been advocating for election security and the SAVE Act in response to alleged rampant election fraud claims.
              • The SAVE Act, sponsored by Utah Republican Senator Mike Lee and Texas Republican Representative Chip Roy, requires a Real ID or U.S. passport for voting and calls for states to purge noncitizens from their rolls.
              • It's already a federal crime for noncitizens to vote in federal elections.
              • Noncitizen voting is incredibly rare, making up only about 0.001% of the votes cast in state elections in 2016 according to the Brennan Center for Justice and Cato Institute.
              • Republicans are running with the conspiracy theory that Democrats are using immigrants to steal elections.
            • Accuracy
              • The SAVE Act requires state election officials to ask about citizenship before providing applicants with voter registration forms and an individual to provide proof of citizenship before registering to vote in federal elections.
            • Deception (20%)
              The author makes emotional manipulative statements by labeling those who oppose the SAVE Act as 'traitors'. She also engages in selective reporting by focusing on the SAVE Act and ignoring the fact that noncitizen voting is already illegal and rare.
              • The author's statement 'What is the penalty for traitors again?' implies a call to action or violence against those labeled as 'traitors'.
              • > Those who oppose this are traitors. All Caps: TRAITORS. What is the penalty for traitors again?
            • Fallacies (95%)
              The author makes several statements that are not fallacious but do contain inflammatory rhetoric. The author accuses Elon Musk of 'elevating right-wing talking points' and 'firing off various fearmongering tweets.' These statements are opinionated and do not constitute a logical fallacy. However, the author also states that 'Republicans and their allies are running with the conspiracy theory that Democrats are using immigrants to steal the elections.' This statement is an appeal to authority as it relies on the assumption that the Brennan Center for Justice and Cato Institute are authoritative sources on noncitizen voting. The author also uses inflammatory language when referring to Republicans as 'trying to whip up controversy about election fraud' and accusing them of 'combining two of their favorite topics: voter fraud and the border.' These statements do not provide any evidence or logical reasoning for why this is a problem, making them fallacious. The author also makes an incorrect statement when she says 'It’s no coincidence. The House will vote Wednesday on the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility, or SAVE, Act,' implying that the timing of Musk's tweets is related to the bill being voted on, which is not explicitly stated in the article and may be an assumption by the author.
              • The author states: 'Republicans and their allies are running with the conspiracy theory that Democrats are using immigrants to steal the elections.'
              • The author states: 'Why are Democrats so adamantly against ensuring only American citizens vote in our elections?'
              • The author states: 'They want to turn illegal aliens into voters. We must pass the SAVE Act to prevent this.'
              • The author states: 'At 2 a.m. Tuesday morning, Musk quote-tweeted...'
            • Bias (0%)
              The author, Paige Oamek, demonstrates bias by labeling those who oppose the SAVE Act as 'traitors'. This is a clear example of language that depicts one side as extreme or unreasonable.
              • “Those who oppose this are traitors. All Caps: TRAITORS. What is the penalty for traitors again?”
              • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
                None Found At Time Of Publication
              • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
                None Found At Time Of Publication