Currently, only U.S. citizens have the ability to vote in federal, state, and most local elections, with cases of fraud being extremely rare. Despite this, efforts are still underway to further restrict alleged voter fraud, such as the proposed Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act. Under the SAVE Act, voters would be required to present a valid ID during voter registration and provide documents proving citizenship when voting, such as a U.S. passport or birth certificate.
Many lawmakers are concerned about the implications of the SAVE Act on eligible voters. Research from the Brennan Center indicates that 21.3 million citizens are unable to easily access proof of citizenship documents, and at least 3.8 million completely lack them. Rep. Scott Peters further adds: “Only half of Americans have passports. The cost and time of obtaining documents and traveling to various offices would deter millions of working class Americans from voting.”
The SAVE Act was passed by the House of Representatives in February 2026, but has failed to be passed in the Senate as of August 2026. The Senate is expected to vote on the bill again.
State-level changes
Although the SAVE Act will not be implemented on a national scale just yet, multiple state governments have begun to enforce variations of this bill. The newly-signed Florida SAVE Act will require all voters to provide proof of citizenship if it is determined that they lack sufficient documentation. This legislation will apply to both newly registering and currently registered voters.
In Mississippi, the Safeguard Honest Integrity in Elections for Lasting Democracy (SHIELD) Act went into effect on July 1, 2026. It would have required new voter registration applicants to have their citizenship verified using the federal Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) system, which has been found to make frequent mistakes. In June, a federal judge prohibited access to this system due to concerns about privacy violations. However, a separate ruling in July granted four states—Florida, Indiana, Iowa, and Ohio—continued access to the SAVE system based on a 2025 agreement.
Redistricting in Louisiana and other challenges to voting rights
Besides the SAVE Act, lawmakers have taken other measures to restrict voter accessibility. Gerrymandering, in which congressional districts are manipulated to limit the influence of minority voters, has long been practiced by political parties in order to sway elections.
In January 2024, the Louisiana legislature was found guilty of concentrating Black voters into a single district, despite Black Americans composing a third of the total state population. Robinson v. Landry, the Supreme Court case that challenged Louisiana’s district map, ruled that the state’s congressional map was unconstitutional, prompting the state to redraw district lines and create another majority-Black district.
However, this decision was soon contested in the case of Louisiana v. Callais. Plaintiffs argued that the redistricting plan was unconstitutional due to the consideration of race in this process, thereby violating the Equal Protection Clause under the 14th amendment. In April of 2026, the Supreme Court reversed the initial ruling in Robinson v. Landry and reduced the number of majority-Black districts in Louisiana back down to one.
What this means for the Voting Rights Act
The ruling on Louisiana v. Callais may produce far-reaching consequences. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) prohibited discriminatory practices that infringed upon voting rights of minority groups, such as racial gerrymandering. While Louisiana v. Callais seemingly prohibits district line drawing on the basis of race, it undermines the ruling by preventing officials who engage in racial gerrymandering from being held accountable.
Redistricting to fairly represent the voices of minority voters is now unconstitutional, hindering the influence of minority groups on elections. The ruling also sets the precedent for legalized racial gerrymandering—as long as race is not explicitly mentioned. Ultimately, the ruling undermines protections provided by Section 2 of the VRA, weakening the political power of minorities and skewing election results towards those favored by officials responsible for redistricting.