Lisa Murkowski defends her opposition to SAVE America Act, saying Natives would have hard time voting

By SUZANNE DOWNING

Feb. 23, 2026 – US Sen. Lisa Murkowski is mounting an hasty defense of her opposition to the SAVE America Act, issuing a detailed public explanation as criticism intensifies from conservatives who support the bill’s proof-of-citizenship requirements for federal elections.

Murkowski says she supports election integrity and believes voting should be reserved for US citizens, but argues the legislation represents federal overreach and could disenfranchise Alaskans.

In her statement, she emphasized that the Constitution largely entrusts states with administering elections and determining the “times, places, and manner” of voting. While Congress does have authority to alter state election regulations, Murkowski contends that imposing uniform federal documentation standards would disproportionately burden rural states like Alaska, where geography and infrastructure present unique challenges.

A central dispute involves what the bill actually requires. Murkowski wrote that the SAVE Act would mandate specific photo identification when voting. However, the legislation focuses on documentary proof of citizenship at the time of voter registration, not at the polling place. It does not establish new voter ID rules for casting a ballot, leaving Alaska’s existing identification requirements in place.

She also warned that Alaskans might have to travel long distances, potentially by plane or ferry,  to present citizenship documents in person at one of six regional elections offices. That characterization is misleading, as proof can be presented at local polling places, including on Election Day, and does not require a separate trip to a regional office.

Murkowski raised concerns about Alaska’s REAL ID cards, pointing out that they do not explicitly state “U.S. citizen” and suggesting many residents would need to produce passports or birth certificates instead. While Alaska’s REAL IDs do not print citizenship status on the card, they are issued only after documentation of lawful status. The bill accepts REAL ID-compliant identification indicating citizenship, and compliant IDs issued to citizens meet the requirement. The legislation also allows alternative documentation such as passports, certified birth certificates, and provides an affidavit and verification process for individuals lacking standard documents.

The senator further argued that people who have changed their names, Alaska Natives relying on tribal IDs, and residents whose documents lack certain details could face additional burdens. She warned that election offices would be strained, particularly with elections approaching. The bill requires states to establish processes to resolve documentation discrepancies. She is effectively saying that Natives have no other identification than tribal ID in the year 2026, or that they are too incompetent to get a government-issued identity card.

Another point of contention centers on the Department of Homeland Security’s SAVE system, which the bill would use for citizenship verification. Murkowski stated that states would have to submit voter rolls to DHS, which would then tell states whom to remove.

However, in practice, the legislation requires states to query the SAVE database when verifying potential noncitizens; states do not submit entire voter rolls, and DHS does not directly order removals. States retain authority over voter list maintenance. Murkowski cited reporting showing the SAVE database has produced errors, particularly affecting foreign-born citizens. Investigations have documented inaccuracies and delays, though the bill includes provisions requiring DHS to improve response times and data sharing.

Murkowski also argued that noncitizen voting is rare and should not be overstated. She referenced reporting that identified 70 possible noncitizens who voted or attempted to vote in Alaska since 2015, a figure that includes unverified cases and instances later determined to involve errors. Nationally, documented cases of noncitizen voting have been infrequent relative to total ballots cast. Supporters of the SAVE Act argue that even isolated cases justify stronger safeguards to protect public confidence in elections.

The senator warned that mail registration could “likely go away” and that mail-in voting could become more difficult. The bill preserves mail registration but adds a citizenship verification step that must be completed in person before a ballot is cast. It does not directly alter mail-in voting procedures.

Murkowski explained her opposition as rooted in protecting rural voters and preventing unintended disenfranchisement, writing that free and fair elections are the cornerstone of democracy and cautioning against reforms that may sound good on paper but work differently in practice. Portions of her defense exaggerate the bill’s mechanics and overstate the risk of disenfranchisement.