- 5/20/2025
During remarks on the Senate floor Tuesday, Sen. Alex Padilla (D-CA) debated Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) on voter registration legislation.
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00Happy anniversary. Happy anniversary. 32 years ago today, President Clinton signed
00:10the National Voter Registration Act into law. The so-called Motor Voter Act, that's
00:17what it became known as, made common sense yet unprecedented strides to
00:25registering more eligible Americans to vote. Imagine that, taking advantage of
00:32the fact that motor vehicle agencies and other state and local government offices
00:38that interact with Americans every single day can easily, efficiently,
00:45securely assist U.S. citizens with one of those most fundamental rights,
00:54registering to vote and participating in our elections. A little over three years
01:00after it was signed into law, on May 24th, 1996 more precisely, I proudly completed
01:07my own training as a deputy registrar in Los Angeles County, which qualified me to
01:15register voters in my own community. Now nearly two decades later, I was sworn in
01:22as California's 30th Secretary of State, becoming the chief elections officer to the
01:29most populous and most diverse state in the nation. And just earlier this year, I was
01:36proud to become the ranking member of the Senate Rules and Administrations Committee
01:42with jurisdiction over federal elections. So it would be an understatement for me to
01:49say that I'm proud to bring my decades of election administration experience to the
01:54discussions and deliberations of this body. Now throughout my time in public service,
02:03I've seen personally that one of the single greatest ways to increase not just civic engagement
02:10more broadly, but voter registration and voter participation more specifically, is to meet
02:16Americans where they already are. And Motor Voter tried to do exactly that, registering
02:25voters at state departments of motor vehicles and other public agencies, including state
02:30colleges and universities, military recruitment offices and others. That's a good thing for
02:37our democracy, because we should all believe in that most basic of lessons that I believe
02:45we all learned in high school civics class, that our democracy works best when as many
02:51eligible people participate. Now one other place that the National Voter Registration
02:58Act can and should extend to is naturalization ceremonies, giving new eligible United States
03:07citizens the information they need to register to vote should they want to. Now, if you've
03:17never had the opportunity to attend one before, I can tell you personally, there are few experiences
03:25that give you more of that patriotic feeling than inside the four walls of a naturalization
03:35ceremony. If you've ever had doubts or questions about what it means to be an American, I encourage
03:44you to talk to and ask a newly naturalized citizen. Now, when I served as California
03:50Secretary of State, it was such an honor to speak at a number of these ceremonies and part of the
03:58sacredness of the experience that I felt was standing up on the stage, looking out at the
04:05audience and being told by the USCIS personnel how many countries were represented there. Maybe
04:11it was dozens of people, maybe it was hundreds of people representing literally dozens or hundreds
04:15of countries. So walking into the auditorium, walking into the Convention Center Hall, they
04:21were immigrants from countries all over the world. But upon taking that oath and leaving
04:29that ceremony, they were all United States citizens. And while some people get to that
04:38point of naturalization having been in the country for a couple of years, some after several decades,
04:44some coming from working-class families, others from very wealthy families, some families that
04:52have been here just a few years, others that have been here maybe multiple generations. Maybe some
04:58of these new citizens never had a chance to go to college or even high school. Others were there
05:07with not just bachelor's and master's degrees but PhDs, maybe multiple degrees. The one thing
05:15that was constant for everybody is that as a United States citizen, you now had the right to
05:23vote. And in our elections, not only does every vote count, every vote counts equally. Think about
05:36that. How beautiful is that? Now, as I think about the people who go through the process, I can't
05:48help but also think about my parents because they went through the naturalization process. And when
05:56I see the dozens or hundreds of immigrants becoming citizens, I envision what their preparation was
06:04like because it was very similar no doubt to what my parents did. Taking classes, studying, showing up
06:13at every important appointment, filling out all those forms. And on the day they finally take the
06:21Oath of Allegiance, they earn the full benefits of United States citizenship. And so it was an honor
06:32and a privilege to be able to address those audiences as Secretary of State and encourage them
06:38not just to get involved in community but to register to vote and exercise their new right
06:45to vote. And of course, I would do it on a nonpartisan basis. But the statistics tell us
06:53that registration amongst naturalized citizens still lags behind other voters. During the 2022
07:01election, only 61% of naturalized citizens were registered to vote compared to 70% of native-born
07:09Americans. So the data tells us that we have a responsibility to do more here. And so that is why
07:18today I'm asking my colleagues to pass the Include New Voters in the Electorate Act, also known as
07:26the Invite Act. My bill would use the powers of the National Voter Registration Act to designate
07:34USCIS field offices as voter registration agencies, effectively giving our field staff
07:43not just the opportunity but the duty to help new eligible United States citizens register to vote.
07:52Rather than just hand out a form, it would empower USCIS personnel to actually assist
07:59new citizens in completing and returning their voter registration forms. Now I can predict what
08:09some of the counter argument might be, so let me just say to everyone who regularly expresses
08:14concern about non-citizens voting, I would suggest what better place to make sure
08:22citizens are registered than at a naturalization ceremony.
08:30With the flexibility to work with state and local agencies however they see fit,
08:35my bill would take those spaces that are so crucial to our democracy and turn them into
08:41catalysts for democratic participation. Because the responsibilities that come with citizenship
08:48don't end upon taking the oath of citizenship, that's just the beginning. So I urge all of my
08:56colleagues, Republican and Democrat, to join me in supporting this common-sense bill to invest in
09:03and strengthen our democracy. So notwithstanding Rule 22, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
09:11proceed to the immediate consideration of my bill which is at the desk. I further ask unanimous
09:17consent that the bill be considered read at their time and passed and that the motion to reconsider
09:22be considered made and laid upon the table. An objection. Madam President. The senator from Utah.
09:27Madam President, reserving the right to object, I want to thank my friend and colleague, the
09:33senior senator from the state of California, for his passion in pursuing what is itself a laudable
09:41which is helping newly sworn in, newly naturalized U.S. citizens register to vote.
09:49But I've got no choice but to object to this unanimous consent request, this effort to
09:56pass it without further debate, without any debate today. I want to point out that this is a bill that
10:02hasn't gone through any of the regular processes and it's therefore inappropriate for us to consider
10:09it at this point. Look, the bill itself was just barely introduced. It hasn't had a hearing, hasn't
10:17had a markup before the Senate Judiciary Committee on which we both serve or otherwise, nor has there
10:23been any debate on this topic. Now, no doubt it's important to make sure that our newly naturalized
10:31citizens have the opportunity to register to vote, but that puts the cart before the horse
10:38in many regards. If we haven't done our homework, we could cause problems. Now, no one disputes the
10:44fact, at least no one disputes the fact now, that there are in fact non-citizens voting in federal
10:54elections and no one disputes that there are already laws on the books making it a crime for
11:01non-citizens to vote in U.S. elections. U.S. federal elections are for U.S. citizens and no one else and
11:09it's a crime to do otherwise. Now, we've had some of these discussions over the last year and in the
11:17months leading up to the 2024 general election, there were a lot of unsubstantiated claims made
11:23to the effect that non-citizens don't vote. We know now that that is not true. There are a number
11:29of documented instances from this last general election alone in which that happened and this
11:35reflects the fact that we often do a poor job of making sure that non-citizens don't vote.
11:44On the current voter registration form, the federal voter registration form,
11:51there's just a box, a little box that one checks for the applicant to indicate whether he or she
12:00is a U.S. citizen. Provided that he or she checks that box and later signs the form for a driver's
12:08license, that person can then obtain voter registration in the same state in which he or
12:16she has applied for a driver's license. And all we have to go on is that person's word as to
12:22citizenship. No one asks for documentary proof of citizenship. Now, one might ask, why? Why does no
12:31one ask for this, especially if it's a known problem? Well, this dates back to an interpretation
12:37of the 1993 National Voter Registration Act, the NVRA, also sometimes referred to as the
12:44motor voter law. It was a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that interpreted provisions
12:50of the NVRA as prohibiting the state officials administering that form, receiving that form,
12:59from asking for any kind of proof of citizenship. Now, that interpretation was, in my view, wrong.
13:05I agree with Justice Alito's dissent in that case, saying that this statute contains no
13:12such requirement. There's nothing in there prohibiting states from doing that. Nonetheless,
13:15that ruling stands, remains on the books today, prohibiting state officials when receiving those
13:21forms from doing any verification requesting any proof as to citizenship. That's why I last year
13:30introduced a bill called the SAVE Act that would amend the National Voter Registration Act to make
13:35clear what I believe was already clear but that the Supreme Court got wrong, allowing state
13:43officials to request proof of citizenship at the time these documents are submitted and setting
13:50requirements for that to happen. Now, the SAVE Act identifies and establishes and outlines
14:00acceptable documentation for proving citizenship, and it requires the states to set up
14:08alternative verification processes for citizens who don't have the normal, necessary, contemplated
14:17documentation, including for those instances, very, very common instances, in which a woman
14:26marries and thereafter changes her name to a married name not evident on any birth certificate
14:35she may have. Now, when you contemplate the many dozens of women who support the SAVE Act in this
14:42chamber and in the other and who voted for it in the other chamber, who were part of the process
14:47of drafting this bill, they and I and the others who were involved in its drafting,
14:55we all went out of our way to make sure that these documentation standards were not unduly
15:01onerous. In fact, if anything, they are less onerous than those requirements, those documentation
15:10standards that already exist in other areas of the law. Take, for example, labor and employment.
15:16Anytime any American citizen starts a new job as an employee, he or she is required to fill out
15:23a form called the I-9. The I-9 form requires an American citizen to provide proof of citizenship,
15:32and if you're not an American citizen, then you have to provide proof of your work eligibility,
15:37providing proof of your visa and the documentation that goes along with that. Now, just as it is true
15:45that married women who have changed their name to their married name,
15:53a married last name that is different than that found on their birth certificate, just as women
15:59every single day across this country are able to start a new job without that being an impediment,
16:05we made sure that the SAVE Act would lead things the same way. If anything, we made it easier
16:11in the context of casting this sacred, important vote and registering to become eligible to cast
16:18such a vote. The legislation, the SAVE Act, also compels states to purge noncitizens from
16:26voter rules and establishes federal penalties for intentionally registering noncitizens to vote
16:34in federal elections. Over the last four years, many, many millions upon millions of illegal
16:43aliens have entered our country's borders, and of those, a non-zero but ultimately unknown
16:52number of them were improperly registered to vote. No one disputes that this is happening.
16:59They don't now. They did last summer. They don't now, because the proof is there,
17:03and it remains undisputed. At a time when trust in voting is as important as it's ever been,
17:10if not more so, we must stop any avenue for foreign election interference, and we need to
17:20pass the SAVE Act. Voting is both a sacred right and an important responsibility that accompanies
17:27American citizenship, and allowing people, people of other countries, people of other countries who
17:34are not citizens of our country to violate the law and to access our elections and vote in our
17:39elections, contrary to law, is a grave blow to our security and our self-governance. The House of
17:47Representatives overwhelmingly passed the SAVE Act a few weeks ago, and now it's our turn to
17:53pass the SAVE Act, and that we must do. In light of the foregoing, Madam President, and in light of
18:01the fact that if we were to take a step like that, contemplated and proposed by my friend and
18:07colleague, and he is both a senior senator from California, without putting in place these
18:13additional safeguards that we need in the SAVE Act, safeguards that are no more intrusive than,
18:18and in fact, if anything, are less intrusive than those already in existence in
18:26everyday events like starting a new job, I must object, and I hereby do object. The objection is heard.
18:38Madam President, thank you. I think I tried to make the point clear, while I respect
18:43where my colleague from the state of Utah is coming from, I just fundamentally disagree. The
18:50National Voter Registration Act, which this body passed on a bipartisan basis back in 1993, was
18:57designed to expand voter registration opportunities by making it easier for eligible Americans to
19:04register when they interact with government agencies, plain and simple, and that's all this
19:10bill seeks to do by designating USCIS as a voter registration entity under the NVRA, and the point
19:22is simple, Madam President. When anybody goes to apply for a driver's license or a state ID,
19:30as you're filling out those forms, you do add name, date of birth, your address,
19:36your signing, all that same information for a driver's license or an ID that you're putting
19:44on the voter registration card or form when you're registering to vote, and yes, you do sign as to
19:50the accuracy of the information under penalty of perjury, so it's not just, you know, check the
19:56box nonchalantly. You're signing under penalty of perjury, and there have been cases when people are
20:03charged with false registration or improper registration, so the laws are working.
20:11The instances of ineligible voters voting are very, very rare, but they happen. That means
20:19our laws are working, so we'll keep trying to work on the INVITE Act, but I encourage my colleagues
20:28to think about not just the spirit of this proposal but the context of the success of the
20:34NVRA over the last several decades. Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, we need to
20:43remember a couple of things. First, when someone has gone through the process of immigrating to
20:49the United States, they've completed a journey, perhaps a lengthy odyssey, of moving to the United
20:58States, applying for and ultimately obtaining U.S. citizenship. They've provided a lot of
21:03documentation. They've done a lot of things to make that happen, and it would be an insult to
21:08those who are U.S. citizens, whether natural-born or naturalized citizens, to make it easy for people
21:18to cheapen that, to undermine it, to dilute that by coming in and saying, you know, I'm filling out
21:23my driver's license application, and all I have to do here is check a box. Check a box, sign my
21:30name saying, yeah, I'm a U.S. citizen. Well, you know, that's not an option in other areas where
21:35citizenship is required. It's absolutely not an option, for example, in applying for a passport,
21:43which is one of the documents that can be provided and often is provided when someone
21:50completes the process of filling out an I-9 and thereby establishing their work eligibility as
21:57a U.S. citizen. One of the forms that they can provide to help establish that is a U.S. passport.
22:05But regardless of what combination of identification they use, they do have to establish
22:10their citizenship. Why? Well, because that is the law. There are very good reasons why we have those
22:17laws in place to make sure that when someone starts a job, they're either a U.S. citizen
22:22or they have a visa with some type of work authorization in it. So it makes zero sense that
22:32for something as significant and important to the very foundations of our constitutional
22:37republic as the right to vote, that we could just so lightly cast aside the need to verify
22:43citizenship when we go out of our way in other contexts, like starting a new job,
22:49to make sure that they prove it. So sure, yeah, my friend and colleague points out when people
22:56fill out that driver's license application, they do have to check that box and they do have to sign
23:01their name, but why make it so that someone could lie? Especially when read against the backdrop
23:09of the Supreme Court ruling 12 years ago, concluding, wrongly in my view, but concluding
23:14nonetheless, and that decision's on the books, that not only do they not have to prove citizenship,
23:21but no state official when receiving the driver's license application form may even inquire.
23:26Even if they have reasons to doubt even if the person has admitted something or otherwise,
23:33they can't ask. Even if there has been a wave in that state or in that area or across the country
23:39of non-citizens registering to vote and that state wants to make a decision, you know,
23:46we really ought to provide some degree of documentation. They're not allowed to do any
23:51of that. So this is filling that gap and it's important to do that. To that end, Madam President,
23:56notwithstanding Rule 22, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate
24:01consideration of H.R. 22, the SAVE Act, which is at the desk. I further ask unanimous consent that
24:08the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be
24:13considered made and laid upon the table. Is there objection? Reserving the right to object. The
24:19Senator from California. Thank you, Madam President. I reserve the right to object,
24:27not for the first time on this proposed SAVE Act, not even for the second time on this proposed
24:34SAVE Act. This is an item that my colleague has brought up repeatedly here before the Senate,
24:41so I won't repeat the arguments and explanations that I've made in prior objections to the SAVE Act,
24:49but to suggest it is a solution in search of a problem. Audit after audit, review after review,
25:00investigation after investigation has demonstrated that the instances of
25:08ineligible immigrants voting in elections is exceedingly, exceedingly, exceedingly rare,
25:15which again means our current laws are working, and to suggest that birth certificates be required
25:23for a certain task when it's already secure. I don't make it a habit of walking around with
25:28my birth certificate in my pocket. A passport's another acceptable form of documentation for
25:37citizenship. Half the American public doesn't have a current valid password because everybody
25:42travels abroad on a regular basis, so they're unnecessary. Our current laws are working,
25:51and therefore I object. The Senator from Utah. Madam President,
26:01with great respect, my friend and colleague, the distinguished Senior Senator from California,
26:06he suggested that the SAVE Act, which merely requires some type of proof of citizenship
26:14when someone registers to vote in U.S. elections, that the SAVE Act is itself a solution
26:23in search of a problem. My friend also suggests that no documentary proof of citizenship is or
26:31should be made necessary. Even considering the Supreme Court's ruling that states are not even
26:38allowed to request such documentation where they may deem it necessary, he suggests that this is
26:46the case because, as he puts it, the occurrence of noncitizens voting in U.S. elections is not
26:55only rare, but it's exceedingly, exceedingly, exceedingly rare, as he puts it. I don't know
27:03exactly what that means, but I do know that taken to its logical conclusion, that same logical leap
27:10could and would lead us to all kinds of outcomes that we would never dream of.
27:16There are all sorts of things that may be rare by some standard or another. Sure, it's true that
27:25most of the people voting in U.S. elections are not noncitizens. And, in fact, I would say that
27:31they would be a small, small, small minority of those casting votes, because most people
27:39here in the United States, most people voting in U.S. elections are, in fact, U.S. citizens.
27:46Taken to its logical conclusion, that would suggest that there's no need for
27:50TSA, which, actually, I'd be fine with for all sorts of reasons. But, taken to its logical
27:57conclusion, that would suggest there's no need for you to identify yourself when you go through TSA
28:05because instances of terrorism are exceedingly rare, or instances of people boarding an airplane
28:10in somebody else's name are exceedingly rare. Sure, that happens. Taken to its logical conclusion,
28:16it would also suggest that because instances of people starting a job, beginning employment
28:23in the United States as an American citizen, or as a noncitizen pretending to be an American citizen,
28:29are exceedingly, exceedingly, exceedingly rare, as he puts it. And, therefore, we should require
28:35no documentary evidence of either U.S. citizenship on the one hand, or work eligibility with a visa
28:40on the other hand. I could go on and on, but it is not an answer to the need for the SAVE Act,
28:50to the demand that 80 plus percent of the American people agree with, which is
28:55noncitizens shouldn't vote in U.S. elections. It's not an answer to that demand, to that
29:01widely held bipartisan supermajority view. Not an answer to that to suggest that because
29:09noncitizen voting is rare, we need not require any proof of citizenship, ever.
29:18Why? Well, there are so many reasons why, but here's the simplest one. When we make that easy,
29:25more people would do it. Some elections are decided by large margins. Others are decided by,
29:33to use his words, exceedingly, exceedingly, exceedingly small margins. We would be doing
29:40ourselves, and the American people, and the American Republic, and the U.S. Constitution,
29:44a grave, grave disservice, Madam President, if we didn't take that risk very seriously.
29:51Foreign election interference and meddling in our system is a real threat. We need to take it
29:59seriously. It's tragic and unfortunate. In fact, it's shameful that we haven't passed the SAVE Act.
30:06This is not the end of this issue. I'll be back. We'll get this passed.
30:13But between now and whenever we do get it passed,
30:18the American people are taking on a risk because of this body's unwillingness to act.
30:26And it's not this body, let's face it. It's members of this body on one side of the aisle
30:30and not on the other who are willing to incur this risk. That, tragically, is a sacrifice
30:37they're willing to make. We, tragically, are a sacrifice they're willing to make.
30:42Let's not let them continue to make it. Let's pass the SAVE Act. Thank you, Madam President.