-9999

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I came to the floor this afternoon in opposition to the SAVE Act. And I must admit, listening to some of the proponents of the act talk, it doesn't sound to me like they are talking about the same piece of legislation that I understand we are going to be voting on. But I will get to that in a minute.

The fact is that I don't understand the timing on voting on this bill because, right now, what the families in New Hampshire are worried about is paying their grocery bills, being able to afford their rent or their mortgage, being able to heat their homes, being able to pay for childcare. They are worried about the rising costs of healthcare premiums. And we are here debating a bill that is going to have the Federal Government intervening in how States operate elections in ways that make it harder for people to vote.

I don't have any objection to my colleagues here who were talking about that they support the SAVE Act because they believe only American citizens should vote. That is the law. Only American citizens can vote in American elections. We are not--nobody is trying to change that.

What this law is trying to do is make it harder for American citizens to vote. And I know from personal experience because New Hampshire passed a similar law, house bill 1569, in 2024, and then-Governor Sununu signed that law making some of the most sweeping changes in generations in how people in the Granite State vote.

We have seen the results now. We have had two municipal elections. We had the elections in 2025 where our cities voted, and we have seen the town meeting elections in 2026. That law was in effect, and what we saw is that voters showed up with driver's licenses as an ID, and they were told that wasn't enough; that didn't match the requirements of the law, just like the SAVE Act says it is not enough.

Women showed up with birth certificates, and they were told it didn't match their legal names, so that wasn't enough. They couldn't vote. First-time voters showed up expecting to register, and they were told they needed a passport.

Each of these voters came prepared with an ID. In New Hampshire, we require photo IDs. Each of them had photo IDs, and each of them was told they didn't have what they needed.

That is what this debate is about. It is about whether people who have photo IDs who are registered to vote can actually vote.

At our polling places in New Hampshire, in townhalls and high school cafeterias and public libraries and churches and fire stations, when an eligible voter is told they don't have what they need, in many cases, they are not told anything more--not what documents are missing, not how to fix it, not whether they can still vote that day. They are just told, no, they can't vote. If they can't come back because they have work or childcare or transportation, then they don't get to vote even though they are eligible.

That is what should concern all of us, Democrats and Republicans, unaffiliated voters.

As I said, only American citizens should vote in American elections. Nobody is trying to change that. That is the law. It should be enforced. The question before us is straightforward: Does this SAVE Act make it easier for eligible Americans to vote or harder? Does it disenfranchise voters or ensure that people who are legitimate voters who want to vote are able to go to the polls and do that?

So to answer that question, I think we need to look at the problem this bill is meant to solve. When you look at the data, noncitizen voting is exceedingly rare--I mean, like so rare, it is less than one- hundredth of 1 percent. Even organizations that have gone looking for noncitizen voters have found fewer than 100 cases over more than two decades--over more than 20 years.

Now, what the SAVE Act says you have to do in order to register to vote is that you have to have proof of citizenship that is a passport or a birth certificate. We know that 146 million Americans--almost half of all Americans--lack a valid passport.

Some of my colleagues said this was not going to affect women. Well, I am sorry, but it is going to affect women because if women are married, like me, and took their husband's name, like I did--my birth certificate doesn't have my married name on my birth certificate. Not only that, I didn't have easy access--when I applied for a passport, and I was an adult by the time I got a passport, I had to send away to Missouri because that is where I was born. It took me weeks to get my birth certificate.

We know that about 69 million married women have taken their husband's name, and they don't have birth certificates that match their current legal name.

So in New Hampshire, our secretary of state, who has refused to comply when this administration--this Justice Department said: Send us your voter rolls.

He said and the State of New Hampshire said: We are not going to do that because the State conducts our elections. We are doing this appropriately, and you don't need the voter rolls.

But he said that instances of voter fraud are ``minuscule''--and he is a Republican.

I think if this were a widespread problem, we would expect a bipartisan effort to address it, but what we are considering is a very partisan bill that blocks eligible voters.

More than 21 million Americans don't have easy access to documents that prove citizenship. Many don't have documents that reflect their current legal name. As I said, my birth certificate doesn't have my current legal name on it. In some cases, that means that voters have to leave and return multiple times because their documents don't match.

After we passed this voter ID law in New Hampshire, I went to vote in Madbury, where I had been registered since I moved to Madbury in 1979 when we built our home there. I have run for office--about 10 times my name has been on the ballot. Everybody in the town of Madbury who is part of the voting process knows exactly who I am.

I got into the polling place, and they said: Nope. You can't vote. We know who you are, but you have to go get your voter ID.

Well, fortunately, I left it in the car, so I went out and got it and brought it back. But for a lot of people, if they have to go home and get the documents they need, often they are not able to get back because the polling hours in some polling places like Madbury don't go all day long. They start at 11 in the morning and they are over at 7 at night in Madbury.

As I said, in the municipal elections, what nonpartisan observers found was that at least 244 voters were turned away. In some communities, it was as many as 1 in 10 same-day registrants who couldn't complete the process. Women were turned away because their documents didn't match their current legal name. In March of 2025, New Hampshire Public Radio reported that Brooke Yonge of Derry had to make multiple trips to the polls because her documents didn't match her married name.

This wasn't limited just to new voters or the people unfamiliar with the system; it included people who had participated in our elections for years--people like me.

This bill prevents Americans from voting, and that is not acceptable.

I think we can enforce the law. We can ensure that eligible Americans are able to vote.

Today, voters already confirm they are eligible under penalty of perjury. Election officials already have tools to verify that information.

In States like New Hampshire, before house bill 1569, we had a system that allowed voters to register and yet still required documentation to be provided.

For years, voters who didn't have documentation could sign a sworn affidavit and provide it after the fact. That gives local officials clear, workable standards.

Right now, under the SAVE America Act, the affidavit that is required doesn't provide guidelines for voter registration officials to understand what is required for proof of citizenship. It creates this new bureaucratic process, but then it doesn't give State officials the details on what they need to do.

This bill moves us in the direction of replacing a system that has worked in practice with one that risks turning eligible Americans away.

One of my favorite examples--because it is so outrageous--of what happened in the municipal elections in New Hampshire is that we had a former Republican executive councilor--in New Hampshire, we have this position called the executive council that is a carryover from colonial days. It is a five-member elective body that approves all State contracts and all of the Governor's nominees.

We had a very prominent former executive councilor--Republican--who was turned away at the polls because he didn't have the required documentation, not because he was ineligible. He had changed wards from one ward to another, and because he had changed wards, he had been purged from the voter rolls.

So he went back and got the proof of where he was living, and they said: Oh, no, because you have been purged, we need proof of citizenship.

Again, this is somebody who had run for elected office multiple times in New Hampshire, who was well known to election officials in the Republican Party--was well known. He was asked to go back and get proof of his citizenship. Unfortunately, he couldn't produce that proof of citizenship in the time required before the polls closed, and so because he didn't have it, he wasn't allowed to vote.

That is what happens under this law. That is the consequence of this approach. And it doesn't just affect new voters, voters unfamiliar with the process; it affects people who know the process well. It doesn't strengthen our election system; it weakens it.

At a time when my constituents in New Hampshire are paying more to heat their homes, when fuel prices are spiking, when gasoline prices are spiking, the fact that we are here debating this instead of debating how to help people address the rising costs of living, how to make their lives more affordable--instead, we are debating how to make it harder for them to vote. That makes no sense.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, and let's get on to addressing what our constituents are really concerned about, which is how to make their lives better, how to ensure they can afford to feed their families, make sure they can afford to pay their rent, buy their gasoline, and pay their bills.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source