How do state voter roll audits identify and verify suspected noncitizen registrants?

1. How matches are generated: database cross-checks and the SAVE overhaul

Audits begin with automated comparisons: states run their voter files against state motor-vehicle databases and, increasingly, the Department of Homeland Security’s SAVE (Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements) system, which was redesigned to permit bulk screening of voter records ^{[2] [5] [6]}. States report that SAVE provides verification information but does not itself adjudicate voter eligibility; agencies using SAVE must follow SAVE-required steps, including manual review and giving registrants opportunities to correct records before removal ^[1].

2. The local role: notices, hearings and county-level investigations

When a match suggests noncitizenship, the state typically forwards names to county election officials who are statutorily tasked with notifying the registrant, allowing a response (often 30 days), accepting proof of citizenship, or scheduling hearings before any cancellation — procedures described in multiple states’ guidance and statutes ^{[7] [8] [5]}. Texas, for example, provides counties the flagged files to investigate and instructs counties to cancel registrations only after notice and failure to respond, and to reinstate anyone who produces acceptable proof ^{[7] [9]}.

3. Manual verification and error correction reduce false positives

Audits routinely turn up mismatches caused by data errors, incomplete records, or administrative mistakes rather than intentional fraud; Utah’s statewide review validated over 99.5–99.9% of registrations and found only a single confirmed noncitizen who never voted, while hundreds of other flags reflected missing or incorrect information ^{[3] [10] [4]}. Federal SAVE guidance requires manual follow-up when responses are anything other than “U.S. citizen,” and several state reports note that many flagged people are later confirmed citizens after county review ^{[1] [5]}.

4. Criminal referrals, prosecutions and political stakes

When audits conclude that a noncitizen actually voted, some states refer cases to prosecutors; Texas’s plan includes referring any deemed noncitizens who voted to the attorney general, and Georgia publicized referrals after its audit ^{[7] [11]}. These enforcement steps, and public releases of audit totals, have political consequences: proponents frame audits as protecting electoral integrity, while critics warn that aggressive use of federal databases and mass flagging can chill or disenfranchise eligible voters — a tension reported in state and national coverage ^{[12] [9]}.

5. Limitations, safeguards and legal requirements

Federal SAVE rules and state statutes impose procedural safeguards: agencies cannot rely solely on SAVE to remove registrants, must permit appeals and corrections, and must provide notice and due process before cancellation ^[1]. Nonetheless, past audits have produced wrongful cancellations when notices were ignored or administrative practices were overbroad, prompting calls for transparency and careful manual review ^{[9] [13]}.

6. What audits actually find and how to read the numbers

Empirical findings from recent state efforts show that confirmed noncitizen registrations are extremely rare compared to the size of voter rolls: Georgia reported a handful of confirmed noncitizens amid millions of registrants, Utah found one confirmed noncitizen after reviewing more than two million registrations, and Texas’s bulk SAVE match flagged thousands as “potential” noncitizens but left county investigations and manual verification to determine how many are truly ineligible ^{[11] [3] [9]}. That pattern underscores that initial matches are screening tools, not final judgments, and that accurate outcomes depend on careful human follow-up and legal protections ^{[1] [8]}.