On Thursday, the House of Representatives passed a bill that should be as uncontroversial as oxygen: the SAVE Act, which clarifies in federal law what should be obvious to every citizen in the country—only U.S. citizens can vote in federal elections. The bill passed 220-208, with every Republican supporting it and just four Democrats crossing party lines. That alone tells you everything you need to know.
But if you thought a bill that simply defends the integrity of the ballot box would get a nod of common sense approval across the board, you haven’t been paying attention to how far the modern Democratic Party has veered off course.
Update: The House just passed the Republican voter suppression measure that threatens voting access for millions of Americans, including 69 million women whose married names don’t match their birth certificates.
Make sure your senators know you expect them to stand against it. https://t.co/cYTismZC4U
— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) April 10, 2025
Enter Hillary Clinton, the once-secretary, twice-failed presidential candidate, and now full-time Twitter alarmist. Not only did she go on a fearmongering spree over the SAVE Act, she also managed to turn what should be a bipartisan voter integrity measure into another bizarre culture war over married women and name changes.
Clinton claimed—without evidence—that the SAVE Act threatens the voting rights of “69 million women” who changed their names after marriage. Her hysteria included urging women to “call your senators” and issuing breathless warnings like “this is not a drill,” all while linking to Indivisible, a far-left organizing outfit best known for performative outrage.
4 Democrats Voted for the SAVE Act.
Just show an ID. Why would you not want to verify citizenship? https://t.co/lhAXAHISy0
— Chip Roy (@chiproytx) April 10, 2025
But the reality? The law doesn’t prevent anyone from voting, and certainly not married women. In fact, as Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX)—the author of the bill—calmly explained, anyone changing their name, such as after marriage, already has to update their identification anyway. It’s part of being a responsible adult in society, and the SAVE Act builds in mechanisms for states to process that information efficiently. There’s nothing in the bill that invalidates someone’s right to vote because of a name change.
Senator Mike Lee (R-UT), who introduced the Senate version of the bill, put it even more bluntly. If Clinton’s logic were true, “the same women would be unemployable,” because they’d fail to meet the basic requirements of employment verification like the I-9 form, which already requires proof of identity and citizenship. In short: Clinton’s claim is legally and factually absurd.
Hillary said we need more fact-checkers in 2016.
So we had one on The @WillCain Show:
The Congressman who wrote the bill she just lied about.@ChipRoyTX had receipts and made sure Twitter would not fall for this Misinformation!
Catch @RepChipRoy on FOX at 4 PM ET https://t.co/obrzcvzZkT pic.twitter.com/d4nnlnAqPF
— The Will Cain Show (@WillCainShow_) April 10, 2025
The reason for the meltdown isn’t confusion—it’s politics. Democrats are terrified of the SAVE Act not because it’s flawed, but because it’s popular. In fact, it’s massively popular.
-
A Gallup poll from October found that 84% of Americans support requiring photo ID to vote, and
-
83% support proving citizenship before registering.
That’s not a narrow partisan slice. That’s a national consensus.
So what do Democrats do when they’re on the wrong side of an 80–20 issue? They lie. They sow fear. They claim that enforcing citizenship requirements is “voter suppression.”
The truth is, the SAVE Act threatens a political strategy that has relied increasingly on murky election practices, open registration systems, and weaponized claims of racism and sexism every time a voter ID law is introduced. It threatens to shine light on the real vulnerabilities in our system, including evidence of noncitizen voting in past elections—such as a study suggesting millions of noncitizens may have voted in 2008, potentially tipping the balance in places like Minnesota and North Carolina.
