Nicole Russell's Excellent Adventure in Conflating Two Different Things and Calling It Insight
USA Today Decides That Reading the Actual Bill Is Optional
Nicole Russell published an opinion piece in USA Today titled “Americans want the SAVE Act. Republicans need to pass it.” The piece makes several claims about voter integrity, the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, and public support for stricter voting requirements. Let us examine these claims with the analytical rigor they deserve, because when someone asks us to accept something as self-evident, that is precisely when we should demand evidence.
The Conservative Principle: Make Things as Difficult as Possible, Especially for Your Own Voters
Russell argues that Americans overwhelmingly support the SAVE Act because 83% of Americans favor requiring photo ID to vote, and 83% support requiring proof of citizenship when registering to vote for the first time. These numbers come from Gallup polling, and we should accept them as accurate. However, Russell commits a fundamental logical error that would get a college freshman marked down in any decent writing course. She conflates two distinct concepts: voter identification at the polls and documentary proof of citizenship for registration. These are not the same thing, and treating them as identical is either intellectually dishonest or reveals a basic misunderstanding of the legislation in question.
The SAVE Act goes far beyond requiring someone to show an ID when they vote. The legislation would require every American registering to vote to present documentary proof of citizenship in person. Acceptable documents include a United States passport, a military ID with birth records, a government-issued photo ID with a United States birth location, or a birth certificate. This matters because according to the Center for American Progress, approximately 146 million American citizens do not possess a valid passport.
146 Million Americans Lack Passports: Apparently They're All Sneaky Non-Citizens Hiding in Plain Sight
Russell writes as though presenting these documents is a simple, trivial matter. The Center for American Progress analysis of the SAVE Act reveals significant complications. In seven states, less than one-third of citizens have a valid passport. These states are West Virginia, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, and Oklahoma. Notably, these are predominantly states with older populations and lower average incomes, communities that would be disproportionately affected by the requirements Russell supports.
Women Who Changed Their Names After Marriage: America's Premier Voter Fraud Threat
Additionally, 84% of women who marry change their surname, which means up to 69 million American women may not have a birth certificate with their current legal name on it. The SAVE Act makes no provision for marriage certificates or name change documentation as alternative proof of citizenship. The legislation was written without considering how millions of Americans actually document their identity.
Russell claims to value showing receipts and demonstrating sound reasoning, yet her article ignores the documented impacts of the very legislation she champions. The Center for American Progress analysis notes that only 1 in 4 Americans with a high school diploma or less have a valid passport, and only 1 in 5 Americans with income below $50,000 have a passport. Russell’s legislation would disproportionately burden working-class and lower-income citizens.
Historical Context is for People Who Care About Facts
Russell does not spend much time on history, but she makes a passing reference to the current electoral system. What she does not mention is the historical context that undermines her implicit argument. Before 1926, as many as 40 states allowed non-citizens to vote in elections. The practice was common, legal, and unremarkable for most of this nation’s existence. Arkansas was the last state to outlaw non-citizen voting in state elections in 1926.
Non-Citizen Voting in Federal Elections Has Been Illegal Since 1996: But Why Let Reality Ruine a Good Story
This historical fact matters because Russell presents current citizenship requirements as timeless and obvious. They are neither. The United States operated as a functional democracy for 150 years with more permissive voting rules. Thenation survived. It grew. It prospered. The current prohibition on non-citizen voting in federal elections traces not to the founding era but to the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, less than 30 years ago.
Federal law has prohibited non-citizens from voting in federal elections since 1997, with penalties including fines, imprisonment, inadmissibility, and deportation. The problem Russell claims to be solving was already solved by legislation passed during the Clinton administration. If non-citizen voting in federal elections were actually occurring at meaningful scale, that existing law would address it.
When Your Solution Creates Far More Problems Than the Problem You Claim to Be Solving
The SAVE Act would fundamentally transform how every American registers to vote. Online voter registration, used by 8 million Americans in the 2022 election cycle, would be upended or eliminated. Voters could no longer mail in registration applications. Automatic voter registration through motor vehicle agencies would be severely gutted. For context, only 5.9% of Americans who registered to vote or updated their registration in 2022 did so in person at an election office.
The Brennan Center for Justice, which Russell cites in her article, has stated that the bill would “undermine Americans’ freedom to vote.” Russell quotes this criticism but dismisses it without addressing the substance. The Center notes that roughly half of Americans do not even have a passport, and millions lack access to a paper copy of their birth certificate. These are not partisan complaints. These are factual statements about documentation availability that Russell simply hand-waves away.
## Russell’s Conflations
Russell compares voting requirements to showing ID to travel on an airplane or purchase alcohol. This comparison fails on multiple levels. Airline travel involves federal jurisdiction over interstate and international commerce. Alcohol sales involve the regulatory power granted by the 21st Amendment. Voting is a fundamental right, and burdens on that right receive heightened constitutional scrutiny for good reason.
Russell asks why Democrats would oppose something that most Americans support. This framing assumes that opposition to specific legislative mechanisms equals opposition to election integrity. A person can favor secure elections while also recognizing that the SAVE Act creates unnecessary barriers to the fundamental right to vote. Russell offers no evidence that the existing verification system, which already prohibits non-citizen voting in federal elections, is inadequate. She simply asserts the problem exists and that her solution is necessary.
## The Real Question Russell Avoids
Russell asks why Democrats would oppose the SAVE Act. A better question is why Russell and her supporters need new barriers to voting when federal law already prohibits non-citizen voting in federal elections. Where is the evidence that non-citizen voting in federal elections is occurring at meaningful scale? Russell provides none because the evidence does not exist.
The 2024 Gallup poll she cites asks about support for voter ID and proof of citizenship requirements in the abstract. It does not ask whether Americans support eliminating online voter registration or requiring in-person document presentation for every registration update. It does not ask whether Americans support a law that would burden millions of citizens who lack the required documentation. Russell treats these as the same question. They are not.
I Love Conversation,’ Says Woman Who Immediately Dismisses Every Piece of Contradictory Evidence
Russell claims to value conversation, data, and receipts. Her article contains assertions, not analysis. It contains polling data about abstract concepts, not evidence about the legislation’s actual impacts. It contains confidence about problems that may not exist and solutions that would create genuine harms for millions of American citizens.
Nicole Russell's excellent adventure in misunderstanding everything can be witnessed in full splendor here: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2026/02/04/save-act-voter-id-elections-republican-support/88491081007/
Works Cited
Center for American Progress. (2025). The SAVE Act: Overview and facts. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-save-act-overview-and-facts/
Congress.gov. (2025). H.R.22 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): SAVE Act. https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/22
Gallup, Inc. (2024). Americans endorse both early voting and voter verification. https://news.gallup.com/poll/652523/americans-endorse-early-voting-voter-verification.aspx
Russell, N. (2026, February 4). Americans want the SAVE Act. Republicans need to pass it. USA TODAY. https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2026/02/04/save-act-voter-id-elections-republican-support/88491081007/
Wikipedia. (2025). Non-citizen suffrage in the United States. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-citizen_suffrage_in_the_United_States