Illegal voting is not that "rare"

 by Kim Ezra Shienbaum

Assertions about election integrity carry weight far beyond any single bill or news cycle, particularly when they rely on conclusions drawn from incomplete data. Democrats opposing the SAVE Act have settled on a declaratory talking point: illegal voting in American elections is “exceptionally rare.” Delivered with confidence, the claim goes largely unchallenged. But in a nation with well over 20 million noncitizens, such certainty warrants closer scrutiny.

The evidence on illegal voting is thin -- but not because it doesn’t exist. It’s thin because it’s rarely sought. Election officials don’t audit citizenship status systematically. States rely mainly on self-attestation, assuming honesty in the absence of meaningful verification. It’s a system built on trust, not proof.

Opponents of reform cite a 2014 paper in Election Studies by Richman et al estimating noncitizen voting at 6.4% in the 2008 Obama election. The study’s methods were challenged later for data flaws, and critics used that to scrap the entire premise. But invalidating one study doesn’t erase the weakness of our registration process. Rare enforcement doesn’t equal rare offense -- it often means we’re not looking.

In my own county in NE Pennsylvania, registering to vote requires little more than a driver’s license and a Social Security number. Neither proves citizenship. In fact, most states and localities do the same. Only a few states require proof of citizenship when registering to vote -- Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Vermont, and Washington -- through optional enhanced driver's licenses (EDLs) requiring proof of citizenship through birth certificates or passports.

A noncitizen with a state-issued ID -- perfectly legal in many jurisdictions -- and a tax ID number can enter the voter rolls unflagged. Even the federal REAL ID program establishes lawful presence, not citizenship. 

This unrecognized vulnerability ties into broader national trends. Several states issue driver’s licenses to undocumented residents, often for practical reasons. But those databases connect directly into voter registration systems -- sometimes automatically, under “motor voter” provisions. Unless a citizenship check is built in, the system can’t reliably distinguish citizens from noncitizens. Yet critics of the SAVE Act insist such registration errors are nearly impossible.

Equally misleading is the claim that voter ID laws “disenfranchise” seniors or the poor. Nearly all older Americans collect Social Security or Medicare. Low-income citizens receive SNAP, Medicaid, or other benefits. Each of these programs already requires valid photo ID and supporting documentation far stricter than documentation needed to vote. Are we to believe these same citizens, capable of managing complex federal requirements, can’t produce ID at the polling place?

The real divide isn’t between the enfranchised and the disenfranchised -- it’s between citizens who trust the system and politicians unwilling to verify it. Protecting elections from illegal participation should be a bipartisan, commonsense goal. If illegal voting is as rare as critics insist, they should welcome a law that confirms it.

Confidence in democracy depends on verification, not denial. The SAVE Act doesn’t restrict voting -- it restores integrity. The right to vote belongs only to citizens. Given the patchwork of state regulations, this duty must fall on the federal government to ensure it does.

The writer, Emerita Professor Politics at Rutgers-Camden, currently publishes political commentary in Spectator-World and American Thinker

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2026/03/illegal_voting_is_not_that_rare.html