Since the changes to American voting procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic—and the disputed 2020 presidential election that culminated in the events on Jan. 6 in Washington—millions of Americans have questioned whether the country’s election system is sufficiently transparent and secure. Whatever one thinks of the events of 2020, restoring public confidence in elections is a pressing national issue.
With this in mind, the U.S. House of Representatives recently passed the SAVE Act (Safeguard American Voter Eligibility). The legislation would require documentary proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections. Applicants would generally be expected to present acceptable documentation, and voters using mail ballots would face additional identification requirements. Related proposals supported by the president seek to restrict mail-in voting to circumstances such as military service, illness, disability, or extended travel.
Polling consistently shows that a clear majority of Americans support measures such as voter identification and proof of citizenship for voting.
Yet, opposing politicians and advocacy groups continue to argue that more election safeguards are unnecessary because voter fraud is virtually nonexistent. A recent example of this contention was aired a short time ago on Newsmax’s Wake Up America Weekend. During a discussion of the SAVE Act, an opponent asserted that even the conservative Heritage Foundation has concluded there is “less than zero percent” evidence of election fraud in the United States. Although they spoke in favour of the bill, neither the hosts nor the other panelists challenged this statement directly.
This claim, however, is deliberately misleading.
The Heritage Foundation has never published a study concluding that election fraud occurs at some infinitesimal percentage. Instead, it maintains an Election Fraud Database—sometimes called the Election Fraud Map—which documents proven cases of election fraud from across the United States, including criminal convictions, civil findings, and elections overturned because of fraud. As of late 2025, the database contained roughly 1,600 documented cases accumulated over several decades.
Heritage readily admits that its database is not a comprehensive count of all election fraud. Rather, it is a catalogue of cases that were detected, investigated, and successfully resolved. Like any database of criminal behaviour, it almost certainly understates the total number of offences committed, although by how much no one can say with confidence.
Critics of the SAVE Act interpret the available evidence in a tendentious manner. They compare the approximately 1,600 documented cases with the billions of ballots cast in American elections over the same period and conclude that proven election fraud represents an exceedingly small fraction of all votes—far below one-tenth of one percent and, in many analyses, well below one-thousandth of one percent. They further insist that there is no evidence demonstrating election fraud on a scale sufficient to have altered the outcome of a U.S. presidential election.
Such conclusions, right or wrong, do not mean that election safeguards are unnecessary. Even relatively small numbers of fraudulent votes can matter in close contests, particularly in local or state elections decided by a few hundred ballots. Moreover, election integrity involves more than prosecuting fraud after it occurs. Accurate voter rolls, reliable verification of citizenship, secure voting procedures, and consistent standards across states all contribute to public confidence in election outcomes.
Indeed, the bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform, then chaired by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker, observed that “the electoral system cannot inspire public confidence if no safeguards exist to deter or detect fraud or to confirm the identity of voters.” That conclusion remains as relevant today as when it was written two decades ago.
Supporters of the SAVE Act argue that requiring documentary proof of citizenship is a modest and reasonable safeguard. Most Americans already provide comparable documentation when obtaining a passport, a driver’s licence, or numerous other government-issued credentials. They contend that asking for similar proof before participating in federal elections is neither burdensome nor discriminatory but simply reinforces confidence that only eligible citizens are voting.
Late last month, on the grounds that election integrity should be the country’s number one priority, President Trump canceled an event to sign into law a bipartisan bill that the White House saw as one of the most important pieces of housing affordability legislation in American history. He posted on social media: “Today’s Housing News Conference and Signing is hereby cancelled until such time as we pass the desperately needed SAVE America Act, which I consider to be a National Emergency.”
Reasonable people can disagree about the specific provisions of the SAVE Act or whether it strikes the right balance between election security and voter access. But dismissing serious concerns by claiming there is “zero evidence” of fraud does nothing to ensure honest elections. It should not be difficult for those who hold the opinion that documented fraud is relatively uncommon to also agree with eliminating obvious vulnerabilities in the existing system.
Public confidence in elections is essential for a healthy democracy, and passing the SAVE Act is a far more responsible approach than pretending that fraud does not exist at all.
With tipping point mid-term elections on the horizon, Senators who insist on opposing this bill may be destined to conclude that whistling past the graveyard of election integrity was not a good strategy for advancing the best interests of the USA.
