WASHINGTON, DC (Michigan News Source) – In a move that’s causing quite the stir amongst those who fight for election integrity, all Michigan Democrats in the House of Representatives, including Senate-hopeful Elissa Slotkin, voted against the newly proposed Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, also referred to as HR 8281.

This bill, championed by the GOP and introduced by Republican Rep. Chip Roy of Texas in May, aims to enforce stricter proof-of-citizenship requirements for voters in federal elections.

A vote against election security?

MORE NEWS: Michigan Dems Learn Nothing from Nov. 5, Back Bills for ‘Birthing People’

The SAVE Act passed the House with a 221-198 vote, but not without significant controversy. While five Democrats broke ranks to support the bill, the Michigan contingent stood united in opposition, their collective stance raising questions about their priorities regarding election security.

Speaker Mike Johnson and bill sponsor Rep. Roy argue that the legislation is crucial to prevent non- citizens from voting, a problem they claim is widespread. However, Democrats argue that it is not an issue with the left-leaning progressive Brennan Center for Justice finding only 30 suspected cases of noncitizen voting out of 23.5 million votes cast.

Slotkin faces scrutiny over SAVE Act vote amid senate campaign.

Elissa Slotkin’s vote against the SAVE Act is particularly eyebrow-raising. As she gears up for a Senate run herself, her opposition to the bill might not sit well with voters who prioritize election security. Slotkin’s stance aligns her with the broader Democratic narrative that the bill’s true intention is voter suppression, especially among minorities.

Critics, like Rep. Robert Garcia, a Peruvian American politician and educator in California, argues that the bill is more about disenfranchising legitimate voters than about stopping a nonexistent problem. Liberal media outlet the Washington Post says about the bill: “it would make Americans’ lives more difficult in service of addressing a problem that is not demonstrably significant.”

Political ploys and rhetoric.

Speaker Johnson, when introducing the bill, had said, “Some have noted that it’s already a crime for non-citizens to vote in a federal election, and that is true.”

Johnson went on to say, “But here are four things that are also true: (1) It is true that there is no mechanism to ensure only those registering or voting are actually citizens… (2) It is true that Biden has welcomed millions and millions of illegal aliens, including sophisticated criminal syndicates and agents of adversarial governments, into our borders and even on humanitarian parole… (3) It is true that a growing number of localities are blurring the lines for noncitizens by allowing them to vote in municipal elections… (4) It is true that Democrats have expressed a desire to turn non-citizens into voters.”

Johnson explained how the legislation would strengthen protections against non-citizens and illegal aliens voting in U.S. elections including requiring an individual to provide proof of citizenship in order to register to vote in federal elections; allowing state officials to accept a wide variety of documents that will make it easy for CITIZENS to register to vote in federal elections; and providing states with access to federal agency databases so they can remove noncitizens from voter rolls and confirm citizenship for individuals lacking proof of citizenship.

Michigan responds (and doesn’t) to how they voted on the legislation.

MORE NEWS: Flush With Money: Detroit Schools’ Superintendent Nikolai Vitti Led District Back to Financial Stability

Slotkin and her Michigan Democratic colleagues’ opposition to the SAVE Act highlights the deep partisan divide on voter security issues. As Slotkin campaigns for the Senate, her vote against this bill could become a focal point for both her supporters and critics. Whether seen as a defender of voter rights or an enabler of electoral insecurity, Slotkin’s stance reflects the broader debate raging across the country. The reasoning behind Slotkin’s vote is unclear as she did not return our request for comment when we reached out to her office for clarification.

Other Michigan Democrats are also not explaining why they voted against the legislation – but Republicans have made statements about why the bill received a yes (aye) vote from them.

Republican Congressman Bill Huizenga said in a statement : “Only American citizens should vote in our elections. The SAVE Act safeguards our elections and strengthens election integrity by requiring states to obtain proof of citizenship to vote in federal elections.”

Republican Congressmen John James and Tim Walberg also posted statements on X about voting for the bill:

Michigan GOP leader, Pete Hoekstra, told Michigan News Source about the bill, “The SAVE Act is a reasonable step to protect the integrity of federal elections. Disappointed that no Michigan Democrats voted for it.”

President Biden and former President Trump have differing opinions on the legislation.

Former President Trump, on Truth Social, urged his party to vote for the SAVE Act saying, “Republicans must pass the SAVE Act, or go home and cry yourself to sleep.”

Biden, on the other hand, has vowed to veto the bill if it gets to his desk. In a statement of administration policy released by the White House from the Office of Management and Budget, it says they “strongly” oppose the SAVE Act. They explain, “States already have effective safeguards in place to verify voters’ eligibility and maintain the accuracy of voter rolls. This bill would do nothing to safeguard our elections, but it would make it much harder for all eligible Americans to register to vote and increase the risk that eligible voters are purged from voter rolls.”

Speaker Johnson, however says, “If just a small percentage, a fraction of a fraction of all those illegals that Joe Biden has brought in here to vote, if they do vote, it wouldn’t just change one race, it might potentially change all of our races.”

The path forward.

The SAVE Act now heads to the Senate, where its future is uncertain. In a political landscape where perception often trumps reality, the true impact of the SAVE Act, if enacted, remains to be seen. For now, it serves as another flashpoint in the ongoing struggle over the future of American democracy.