How do election offices verify citizenship status during voter registration and what errors have audits uncovered?
Executive summary
Election offices verify citizenship using a mix of applicant attestation, state databases (often motor vehicle records), and federal verification tools such as USCIS’s SAVE program; large-scale reviews and audits using those tools have generally found noncitizen registration to be vanishingly rare but have also uncovered thousands of ambiguous or mismatched records that require manual follow-up [1] [2] register-vote" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">[3]. Audits reveal both the strengths of system checks and persistent sources of error — data gaps, false positives from database matching, and the potential for burdensome removals — fueling competing policy proposals to expand verification [4] [5] [6].
1. How verification actually works in practice: attestation, DMVs and SAVE
Most jurisdictions start with a sworn affidavit on the registration form where the applicant attests to U.S. citizenship — that attestation is the baseline required by federal and many state laws [7]. Beyond that, states routinely compare their voter files to state motor vehicle records (which in many states capture citizenship status) and, increasingly, to federal databases; the Department of Homeland Security’s Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) is a central federal tool that registered state and local agencies can use to verify citizenship or immigration status [1] [2]. USCIS has upgraded SAVE to allow broader, large-scale queries and to accept the last four digits of Social Security numbers, which has made batch matching easier for states [8] [9].
2. What audits and citizenship reviews actually find: tiny error rates, many unclear matches
Recent statewide citizenship reviews show extremely low rates of confirmed noncitizen registrations but substantial numbers of unresolved or ambiguous records. Utah’s office reported that 99.9% of more than 2 million registered voters were citizens, while about 70,000 records were unclear and further checks with federal databases reduced the unclear pool to a few thousand needing staff review [2]. Georgia’s first-ever citizenship audit found 1,634 people who could not be verified as citizens and thousands of registration applications flagged as “pending citizenship,” illustrating that verification drills identify a modest number of unverified applications but leave many cases in limbo [3]. Nationwide SAVE data reported very low returns of noncitizen status — one analysis cited 0.04% — but also notes that some flagged individuals had already provided proof when registering, showing the potential for duplicate or inconsistent records [4].
3. Where errors and ambiguity come from: data gaps, matching rules, and manual triage
A large share of audit “findings” are driven by data limitations rather than intentional fraud: motor vehicle records and federal systems don’t always align, Social Security or name variations can prevent automated matches, and systems like SAVE return “unable to verify” for many legitimate citizens, prompting manual follow-up [1] [8]. Reviews have documented cases where people confirmed noncitizenship twice to state DMV systems but were still on voter rolls until cross-checks began, and other situations where SAVE could not be used because required identifiers were missing [10] [3]. Independent watchdogs warn that erroneous removals would disproportionately affect Black, brown, low-income, disabled, and younger voters who may have more difficulty producing documentary proof if challenged [5].
4. Policy impulses, partisan agendas, and proposals to change the system
Political pressure is driving proposals to expand documentary proof requirements and tighter SAVE usage: federal bills like the SAVE Act, MEGA Act, and related proposals would require more routine comparisons to DHS databases and, in some versions, documentary proof of citizenship to register — measures supporters cast as basic security measures while critics argue they create new barriers to participation [9] [11]. State-level measures mirror that tension: California bills and initiatives discussed would mandate county-level citizenship verification and audits, while both advocates and critics point to audits such as Utah’s and Georgia’s for support of opposing narratives [6] [12] [2].
5. Bottom line: verification tools work but are imperfect; policy must balance accuracy and access
The empirical record from recent audits is consistent: confirmed noncitizen registration is rare, verification tools like SAVE help find mismatches, but automated matches produce many ambiguous cases that require careful human review to avoid wrongful removals and disenfranchisement; lawmakers pushing broad documentary requirements are responding to rare problems but risk imposing burdensome new checkpoints unless safeguards and clear auditing are built into any expansion [4] [1] [5].