The SAVE Act and voter fraud in the US

Voter fraud, particularly in relation to mail-in ballots, has become one of the most politically charged issues in the United States over the past decade. What was once a relatively technical matter of election administration has evolved into a central fault line between the two major political parties. With that said, it is important to separate perception from empirical reality, especially when comparing the United States to other developed democracies.

The evidence across the U.S. and comparable democracies points to a clear pattern:

• Voter fraud exists but is rare

• Mail-in ballots carry theoretical risks but limited real-world abuse

• Fraud has occasionally affected small local elections—but not national ones

• Most developed countries require voter ID, but within very different administrative systems

• U.S. political divisions stem from competing priorities: access vs. security

The debate is therefore not simply about facts, but about how much risk is acceptable in a democratic system—and what trade-offs should be made to address it.

The SAVE Act and its objective

The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (“SAVE”) Act is pending legislation that was introduced in the House in 2024, where it was passed in April 2025 and was the sent to the Senate.  The bill is currently being debated in the Senate.  Senate Democrats are leaning into a filibuster (60 votes needed to pass the act) to defer and ultimately kill the legislation.  The Trump Administration, which claims without a scant of evidence that there is widespread election fraud in the US, is naturally in favour of this legislation on the basis that more Democratic voters will be eliminated from voting registrars than Republican voters (which would likely be the case based on demographics alone). 

There is little disagreement among political parties, or most Americans for that matter, that proof of citizenship should be required to vote in elections in America.  However, there is raging partisan debate as to how to ensure that a voter is indeed American when he or she votes.  Most states (46 of the 50) require that a voter swear that he or she is American under penalty of perjury when they register to vote, but they do not need to have physical evidence like a passport or birth certificate.  The map below shows the “flavours” by state of voter ID requirements, noting that most states do not have hard requirements.

The current partisan divide is therefore about ensuring a voter is an American citizen vs curtailing access to (potentially marginalised) Americans entitled to vote but are unable to because they (for example) do not have a passport, driver’s license, or other form of ID, and / or cannot present their birth certificate.  Extending this discussion another layer, keep in  mind that there is no national I.D. or registrar for Americans at the federal level, which would largely solve this problem.  The reason is that there is deep-seated cultural resistance, privacy concerns regarding government surveillance, and fears of infringing on civil liberties.  No libertarian would ever advocate a centralised system of identification at the federal level, even if it were to solve the voter ID issue.  This is very different in most other developed countries, as you will read later.

The partisan divide on this issue is both sharp and deeply entrenched. Republicans tend to emphasize election security, arguing that even low levels of fraud can undermine public trust and that preventative measures are therefore justified. Democrats, on the other hand, focus on voter access, contending that the empirical rarity of fraud does not warrant policies that could make voting more difficult for certain populations, including lower-income individuals, the elderly, and minorities.

In practical terms, the impact of stricter voter ID laws is likely to be modest but asymmetric. Fraud rates, already very low, would likely remain low. However, there is credible evidence to suggest that turnout could decline slightly among marginal voters—those who are less engaged or face logistical barriers to obtaining identification. Whether this trade-off is acceptable ultimately depends on one’s weighting of election security versus accessibility.

President Trump has of course been a strong supporter of the SAVE legislation, not surprising since he still attributes his rather large loss in the 2020 presidential election to election fraud, no evidence of which has ever been found.  The bill looks to be stuck in the Senate for the time being, so it is difficult to know if it will ever be signed into law.  Whether the act is ultimately approved or not, what is crystal clear is that this is not a matter for the Executive branch, as much as Mr Trump is trying to say that it is.  The Constitution is clear in stating that states and Congress are collectively responsible for regulating federal elections (not the president).

Are mail-in ballots the most contentious point regarding potential voter fraud?

In the 2024 presidential election, nearly one in three Americans voted via mail-in ballots, according to the United States Democracy Center. The most likely voters to use mail in voting are white voters, voters over age 65, and overseas military voters.  One in four Democrats, one in five Republicans, and one in five independents voted by mail in the 2024 election.  According to USAFacts regarding the 2024 election, roughly 60% of voters cast their vote via post (29%) or early. The Brookings Institute notes that “cases of mail voting fraud are very rare, accounting for only 0.000043% of total mail ballots cast, or about four cases out of every 10 million mail votes.”  With these facts, you be the judge about whether or not mail-in votes are problematic.

Is there any real evidence of voter fraud in the U.S.?

The data on voter fraud in the United States is, broadly speaking, unambiguous. Instances of fraud do occur, but they are exceedingly rare. Multiple studies conducted over the past two decades consistently find that the rate of fraudulent ballots—whether cast in person or by mail—is a tiny fraction of total votes, often measured in the range of a few dozen cases per several million ballots cast. Mail-in voting, despite being a focal point of concern, has not been shown to materially increase fraud rates. Safeguards such as signature verification, ballot tracking, and voter roll cross-checking appear to be effective in limiting abuse.

How does alleged voter fraud in the US compare to other countries?

Looking internationally, the picture is not materially different. Countries such as France, Canada, and the United Kingdom report similarly low levels of voter fraud. France relies heavily on in-person voting with tight administrative controls at the municipal level. Canada employs a flexible identification system but maintains strong centralized oversight through Elections Canada. The United Kingdom, which recently introduced stricter voter identification requirements, did so in an environment where baseline fraud levels were already low. In other words, across developed democracies, voter fraud exists at the margins rather than as a systemic threat.  (This is a different matter in developing / emerging countries.)

That said, it would be incorrect to claim that voter fraud has never influenced election outcomes. There have been isolated cases—almost always at the local level—where fraudulent activity has altered results. The most frequently cited modern example is a 2018 congressional race in North Carolina, where absentee ballot manipulation led to the election being invalidated and rerun. These cases typically involve small-scale operations: ballot harvesting abuses, forged signatures, or improper handling of absentee ballots. What is notably absent from the historical record is any verified instance of widespread fraud altering the outcome of a national election in the United States.

How are voters vetted in the US?

For both first‑time registration and ongoing roll maintenance, the core idea is: you normally attest to citizenship under penalty of perjury, and election officials then use various data checks over time to keep the rolls limited to eligible citizens.

For a first‑time voter, the usual process is to complete a voter registration form (state or national) that asks whether you are a U.S. citizen and requires you to sign an oath affirming that you are a citizen and otherwise eligible to vote; providing false information can lead to fines, prison, and, for non‑citizens, deportation. Federal law also requires you to give a driver’s license number or, if you do not have one, the last four digits of your Social Security number so officials can verify your identity in their databases. If you registered by mail or online and did not provide ID with your application, the Help America Vote Act says you must show an accepted ID (such as a driver’s license, passport, or document with your name and address) the first time you vote, including by mail in many states, but this is to confirm your identity and residence rather than to directly prove citizenship with documents. Once you are on the rolls, election officials routinely maintain the voter list by adding new registrants, updating information, and removing people who are no longer eligible, such as those who have died or moved away. Under the National Voter Registration Act, states must run “general programs” to keep rolls accurate, using tools like change‑of‑address data from the Postal Service, but they must follow specific safeguards and cannot conduct large purge programs within 90 days of a federal election. In addition, a growing number of states check voter rolls against citizenship‑related data—such as federal immigration databases, state motor‑vehicle records, or jury‑duty non‑citizen lists—and cancel registrations that are confidently identified as non‑citizen, although exactly how and how often this happens depends on state law.

How are voters vetted in other countries?

The question of voter identification introduces a meaningful distinction between the United States and other developed countries. Many advanced democracies require some form of voter ID, often backed by national identification systems.  In France and the United Kingdom, presenting government-issued identification at the polling station is standard practice. Canada also requires identification, though it allows for a broader range of documents and even vouching mechanisms in certain cases.

The key difference between these countries and the United States lies in infrastructure. These countries typically maintain centralized population registries and issue national IDs that are widely held and regularly updated. The United States, by contrast, has no national identification system and administers elections at the state level. This decentralization complicates the implementation of uniform voter ID requirements and raises legitimate concerns about access, particularly for individuals who may not possess up-to-date documentation.

Is there evidence that supports President Trump’s assertions that the 2020 presidential election was “stolen”?

It is important to first remind you of the context.  Mr Trump lost the 2020 election to Mr Biden by 7 million popular votes (51.3% of the popular vote for Mr Biden vs 46.8% for Mr Trump), and by an electoral college tally of 306 (Biden) to 232 (Trump).  In spite of this overwhelming win, Mr Trump stated that the election was stolen, ultimately leading to an attack on the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, and Mr Trump’s second impeachment.  Mr Trump’s claims centred heavily on alleged widespread fraud involving mail-in ballots. However, numerous court cases, audits, and investigations—conducted across multiple states and by both Republican and Democratic officials—failed to substantiate these allegations. While isolated irregularities were identified, none rose to a level that would have affected the outcome of the election.

It is therefore reasonable to conclude that claims of large-scale, outcome-determinative voter fraud in recent U.S. elections are not supported by the available evidence. That said, the persistence of these claims highlights an important reality: public confidence in electoral systems is influenced as much by perception and political narrative as it is by empirical data.

Stepping back, the broader issue here is not simply voter fraud itself, but the balance between ensuring election integrity and maintaining broad, equitable access to the ballot. The United States finds itself grappling with this balance in a way that many other developed countries largely resolved through centralized systems and national identification frameworks. Whether the U.S. moves in that direction—or continues along its current decentralized path—will shape the trajectory of this debate for years to come.

How are overseas voters treated in US elections?

Let’s start again with context.  There are an estimated 2.2 million to 2.8 million Americans living abroad that are eligible to vote, out of a total voter base of circa 174 million.  U.S. citizens living abroad generally retain the right to vote in federal elections—president, Senate, and House—by casting an absentee ballot in the state of their last U.S. residence, and in some states, even if they have never lived in the U.S. but have a parent who did. They register and request a ballot using a standard federal form, receive their ballot (often electronically), and return it following state rules, with a backup write‑in ballot available if their regular ballot does not arrive in time. Election officials process these ballots like any other absentee ballot, verifying eligibility and counting all valid ones that arrive by the legal deadline, and this is true regardless of whether the race is a landslide or extremely close. Even if one ballot will not change the outcome, it is still part of the official certified totals and contributes to turnout statistics and the final margin of victory.