Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Missouri House narrowly debates federal ‘Save America Act’ resolution amid access concerns
Loading...
Summary
The Missouri House debated House Concurrent Resolution 48 urging Congress to require documentary proof of citizenship at voter registration; supporters cited election integrity, opponents warned it could act as a poll tax and disenfranchise vulnerable Missourians. The chamber ultimately recorded passage of the resolution.
Representative (speaker 26) introduced House Concurrent Resolution 48, urging Congress to pass the "Save America Act," which would require documentary proof of citizenship when registering to vote. The sponsor told the chamber the resolution was intended to "safeguard our elections from noncitizens voting," arguing current federal practice accepts only an attestation of citizenship.
Opponents pressed practical and civil‑rights concerns. Representative (speaker 14) called the measure "a nightmare" that would impose burdens on voters — especially those who move, change names or lack ready access to birth certificates — and characterized it as effectively a poll tax. "This is gonna place an unfunded mandate on our local election authorities," the member said, warning it would end in‑person registration drives and strain state and local agencies charged with providing documentation.
Debate included disputes about the scale of noncitizen voting. Members referenced studies with divergent estimates: the Brennan Center study was cited as finding suspected noncitizen voting at an extremely low rate, while other analyses produced higher but still minimal estimates. The sponsor said the only verified records are those "caught" in reviews and argued that any noncitizen voting risk warrants preventive measures.
Multiple members described anecdotal cases and constituent experiences to support both positions. One lawmaker (speaker 28) said he had personally worked with immigrant communities who were led to register without understanding they were ineligible, while others (speaker 30 and speaker 33) argued the proposal risked disenfranchising students, the disabled, older voters and those in disaster‑affected areas.
A motion for the previous question was offered by the gentleman from Jasper (speaker 17) to end debate. The clerk recorded a vote on that motion reported in the record as 93 yeas and 42 nays. The transcript thereafter records that HCR 48 received a third reading and was passed; the numeric final tally recorded in the transcript text is inconsistent/unclear.
