Trump administration promote program to check voter eligibility; critics fear a midterm purge
The Trump administration has expanded use of the DHS's SAVE system to verify voter eligibility, scanning millions of registrations across states to identify potential noncitizens or deceased individuals. Critics warn the system is error-prone and could lead to eligible voters being wrongly removed before elections. Legal challenges have emerged, with civil rights advocates concerned about voter suppression and due process.
- ▪At least 67 million voter registrations, mostly from Republican-led states, have been checked through the DHS SAVE system since April 2025.
- ▪The SAVE system flagged about 24,000 potential noncitizens and 350,000 deceased individuals, though such cases represent a small fraction of total voters.
- ▪Anthony Nel, a naturalized U.S. citizen, had his Texas voter registration temporarily canceled after being misidentified as a noncitizen.
- ▪The American Civil Liberties Union is challenging an Ohio law requiring monthly SAVE checks, citing risks to eligible voters.
- ▪Kansas Secretary of State Scott Schwab, once skeptical of noncitizen voting threats, now endorses SAVE as a key tool for maintaining voter roll accuracy.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
Even as Democratic officials fight the effort in court, the Trump administration has run millions of voter registrations through government databases to determine their eligibility in a process that critics worry could end up purging valid voters from the rolls before the November elections.At least 67 million registrations, primarily from Republican-controlled states, have gone through a beefed-up verification program at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and tens of thousands of those have been flagged as potential noncitizens or people who have died. Some states allow only a month for people to prove their eligibility and others suspend it immediately.
…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at The Hindu — Top.
Discussion
0 commentsMore from The Hindu — Top
