Opinion > Opinions - Campaign The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill Saving the SAVE Act — this one change can fix the American voting system by Gregory Lyakhov, opinion contributor - 02/28/26 8:00 AM ET by Gregory Lyakhov, opinion contributor - 02/28/26 8:00 AM ET Share ✕ LinkedIn LinkedIn Email Email Getty Images For months, voter identification and proof of citizenship have been debated not only as policy proposals but as constitutional questions. Republicans argue that verifying voter eligibility is essential to election integrity. Democrats respond that such requirements risk disenfranchising voters. The SAVE Act represents the most direct federal effort to address that debate, by requiring documentary proof of U.S. citizenship to register for federal elections.  I support the core premise behind the SAVE Act. American citizens should decide federal elections. Supporting that premise, however, does not eliminate the responsibility to evaluate the constitutional structure surrounding it. My hesitation in fully endorsing the SAVE Act stems from the 24th Amendment and the legal implications of how verification is implemented. The 24th Amendment prohibits poll taxes in federal elections . If registering to vote requires documentary proof of citizenship, and obtaining that documentation requires payment — whether for a certified birth certificate, a passport or a REAL ID — the government risks attaching a financial condition to voting. Even relatively small administrative fees raise constitutional concerns when they function as mandatory prerequisites to ballot access. The relevant legal question is not whether documentation is reasonable, but whether any cost associated with it operates as a condition on a constitutionally protected right. Americans must present identification to open bank accounts, apply for SNAP benefits, enroll in Medicaid or Medicare, rent housing, secure employment, or board commercial flights. Identification functions as a baseline requirement across nearly every aspect of modern civic and economic life, a reality often overlooked by Democrats, who portray voter ID as uniquely burdensome. None of those activities, however, are protected by a constitutional amendment prohibiting financial barriers. Voting is.  Because voting receives explicit protection, comparisons to identification requirements for other government services will not resolve the issue. The presence of identification standards elsewhere in federal law does not answer whether attaching a fee to voter registration implicates the 24th Amendment.  But addressing the constitutional concern does not require abandoning the SAVE Act. If Congress mandates documentary proof of citizenship for registering to vote in federal elections, the federal and state governments should guarantee that eligible citizens can obtain qualifying documents at no cost. States could provide certified birth certificates for voting purposes at no charge. Federal agencies could waive passport documentation fees for limited verification use. REAL ID-compliant identification could be issued without administrative fees when used exclusively for voter registration.  Once documentation is accessible without financial burden, the policy cannot plausibly be characterized as a poll tax. The constitutional objection would weaken substantially because the financial precondition would no longer exist.  Public opinion further clarifies that no serious dispute regarding the SAVE Act can be grounded in broad voter opposition. Survey data over nearly two decades show bipartisan backing for voter identification requirements. In 2006, national polling indicated that approximately 80 percent of Americans  supported showing identification to vote. The lowest recorded level, in 2012, showed 77 percent overall support,  including 61 percent of Democrats. As recently as last year, Pew Research reported that 95 percent of Republicans and 71 percent of Democrats favored requiring government-issued identification for voting. Few election policies generate that level of cross-party agreement.  For that reason, characterizing the SAVE Act as a revival of Jim Crow laws  is historically and legally inaccurate. Jim Crow statutes were designed to exclude lawful voters through literacy tests, intimidation, arbitrary enforcement and selective application. A documentation requirement that verifies citizenship and is universally accessible without cost would not operate in that manner. Some Democrats defend expansive constitutional interpretations in other contexts through a living constitutional framework that allows rights to evolve with social practice, including the previously recognized federal right to