Hey, let's talk about something that hits close to home for anyone who cares about voting here in Texas. You'd think that keeping voter rolls clean would be a pretty straightforward thing, right? Well, a federal system designed to do just that has turned into a real mess, catching legitimate citizens in a bureaucratic tangle and raising some serious questions about our rights. Imagine you're Brianna Lennon, who runs elections in Boone County, Missouri. She gets this email saying 74 people on her voter list might not be citizens, thanks to a new federal system. But get this: one of the folks flagged? She literally registered him at his naturalization ceremony. He just became a citizen! It turned out that more than half the people on that initial list were citizens. That’s not just a small mistake; it's a huge blunder that makes you wonder what's going on. Down here in Texas, we've seen the same kind of confusion. County clerks all over the state found tons of mistakes. The source of all this bad data? A Department of Homeland Security (DHS) system called SAVE, which stands for Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements. It used to check if immigrants qualified for public benefits. But now? It’s been beefed up to verify voter citizenship, and it’s hitting major snags. This whole push started with former President Donald Trump, who’s been saying for a while that millions of noncitizens are voting and messing with our elections. So, he told DHS to expand SAVE, pulling in confidential federal data to help states check voter citizenship in bulk. A lot of Republican secretaries of state jumped on board, eager to upload their voter lists. But here’s the kicker, and this is where the legal and policy issues really kick in: DHS apparently rushed this revamped tool into action. They were still adding data and couldn't always get the most current citizenship info, especially for people born outside the U.S. These folks might have become citizens later, but the system didn't always catch that change. It’s like trying to navigate with an old map – you're bound to get lost, or in this case, flag innocent people. Reports show DHS has had to fix information sent to at least five states, including Texas and Missouri, after SAVE wrongly identified citizens as noncitizens. This isn't just about sloppy data; it's about the very foundation of who gets to vote and the trust we place in our election systems. In Missouri, state officials actually told county election administrators to temporarily disable flagged voters' ability to vote *before* confirming SAVE's findings. Think about that for a second. You could show up to vote, a citizen, and be told you can't, all because a faulty government computer program made a mistake. That’s a direct challenge to a citizen's constitutional right to vote, implicitly protected by several amendments, including the 14th and 15th. It’s a due process nightmare, forcing eligible voters to jump through hoops to prove something they already are. Brianna Lennon, and dozens of other clerks, loudly complained. “It really does not help my confidence,” she said, “that the information we are trying to use to make really important decisions, like the determination of voter eligibility, is so inaccurate.” You can understand why. It's their job to make sure elections run smoothly and fairly, and this tool is making it harder, not easier. Here in Texas, things got confusing fast. Our Secretary of State’s office sent counties lists of flagged voters, telling clerks to demand proof of citizenship and remove people who didn't respond. Bobby Gonzalez, the elections administrator in Duval County, put it plainly: “I really find no merit in any of this.” All three voters flagged in his county turned out to be citizens. It's a waste of his time and resources, and it needlessly hassles his constituents. So, has this whole SAVE experiment actually shown widespread noncitizen voting? Not even close. Several states, with about 35 million registered voters combined, have run their lists through SAVE. They've found about 4,200 people flagged as noncitizens – that's roughly 0.01% of registered voters. And remember, many of those were errors! This number falls right in line with earlier studies that found noncitizens rarely, if ever, register or vote illegally. So, the premise behind this big federal push seems to be on shaky ground, at best. Brian Broderick, who leads the division at USCIS (the DHS branch running SAVE), admitted the system doesn't always have the most current info for naturalized citizens. But he defended the tool, saying it's up to the states to decide how to use the data. He framed it as, “If we can’t verify citizenship, then it’s up to you to determine whether to let this person on your voter rolls.” But that’s a huge burden to shift onto local clerks, especially when the federal data is unreliable. Texas Secretary of State Jane Nelson didn't want to be interviewed, with her spokesperson saying the office didn't review SAVE's findings before sending them to counties because it's not an investigative agency. She cited a “constitutional and statutory duty to ensure that only eligible citizens participate in Texas elections.” But what about the constitutional and statutory duty to protect *eligible* citizens’ right to vote? The 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause is meant to ensure that all citizens are treated equally under the law, and that absolutely includes naturalized citizens when it comes to voting. Making them prove their citizenship again, based on flawed data, seems to chip away at that principle. Missouri’s Secretary of State Denny Hoskins also called SAVE a “valuable resource” but acknowledged that “no system is 100% accurate.” When asked if it was an issue that his office told clerks to temporarily bar voters before verifying the findings, he called it a “good point.” Yeah, it's a good point because it treads awfully close to unconstitutional disenfranchisement. Beyond the errors, there's another really concerning aspect: when SAVE flags voters as noncitizens, those cases are also referred to DHS for potential criminal investigation. Think about that for a second. If you're Sofia Minotti, born in Argentina, a U.S. citizen for years, and SAVE mistakenly flags you, you're not just facing bureaucratic hassles; you're facing the possibility of a federal criminal probe for falsely claiming citizenship. That's a profound violation of due process and a huge burden on individuals, especially when the system making the accusation is flawed. You’re innocent until proven guilty, but here, the system effectively treats you as guilty until you prove your innocence – a complete reversal of our legal norms. Minotti, living north of Dallas in Denton County, was one of 84 voters flagged there. She and 11 others proved their citizenship. That means an error rate of at least 14% in her county, and likely higher, since some people might not respond in time. Minotti, still on the rolls, felt unfairly singled out. “I’m here legally, and everything I’ve done has been per the law,” she said. “I really have no idea why I had to prove it.” Her experience highlights the human cost of these systemic errors. It erodes trust, wastes resources, and creates unnecessary stress for people who are following all the rules. Now, election officials have always wanted better access to federal data on citizenship. States generally don't ask for proof of citizenship when you register to vote; you just attest to it under penalty of perjury. Past attempts to find noncitizens on voter rolls using state data haven't gone well. Remember in 2019, Texas had to scrap a similar effort after it mistakenly flagged thousands of citizens, many of them naturalized, as ineligible. It seems we didn't learn enough from that experience. Before, SAVE wasn't very useful because election officials needed an immigrant's DHS-assigned ID number, which isn't collected during registration, and they had to pay to do searches one by one. But in March, Trump’s executive order changed things, demanding DHS give states free, bulk access to federal citizenship data. This order kicked off a frantic scramble at USCIS. They had a 30-day deadline to remake SAVE. A document obtained by the ACLU showed the main addition was confidential Social Security Administration (SSA) data, letting states search with Social Security numbers and incorporating info on millions not previously in DHS databases. David Jennings, Broderick’s deputy, proudly stated on a video call that they “tested it and deployed it to our users in two weeks.” Two weeks! You don’t roll out something this significant, impacting millions of constitutional rights, that quickly and expect it to work perfectly. It’s a recipe for disaster. Perhaps because of this speed, USCIS apparently bypassed legal requirements to tell the public how this data would be collected, stored, and used. Voting rights groups sued over this. They also ignored warnings from groups like the Brennan Center for Justice about the accuracy of SSA’s citizenship data, which audits have shown is often old or incomplete, especially for people born abroad who get Social Security numbers before becoming citizens. This is a public policy failure: rushing a system with known flaws, ignoring legal notice requirements, and potentially infringing on privacy, all in the name of a problem that statistics show is vanishingly rare. Emails show SAVE first checks SSA data. If it thinks you’re not a citizen, it searches other databases, but matching all that info can be tough, leading to errors. Broderick insisted the work was done responsibly, but the evidence from the ground suggests otherwise. “Do I think it was reckless? Do I think it wasn’t planned? Do I think it wasn’t tested? Absolutely not,” he said. But the real-world results challenge that claim. By September, Texas had uploaded its entire list of over 18 million voters. Other states like Alabama, Arkansas, and Indiana also put their data in. And then the problems started popping up. Texas was quick to announce results in late October, saying SAVE had found 2,724 potential noncitizens. But the communication to local election officials? It was a mess. Nelson’s staff told county clerks to investigate, then send notices to those they couldn’t confirm. But some clerks hadn’t even gotten their lists yet! Marsha Barbee, in Wharton County, said a staffer admitted they were told *not* to tell clerks about the lists during early voting because clerks had “enough on our plates.” That’s a serious breakdown in administrative guidance and transparency, leaving local officials scrambling and creating inconsistent practices across the state. Clerks were left to figure it out themselves. Some held off, waiting for clear directions. Others, not knowing how to investigate, just sent out notices asking for proof of citizenship. Some chose not to remove non-responsive voters, like Dee Wilcher in Anderson County, who wanted to avoid removing citizens and looking “stupid.” This inconsistency itself is a public policy problem; citizens' rights shouldn't depend on which county they live in or which clerk handles their case. Chris McGinn, with the Texas Association of County Election Officials, said Nelson's staff ignored clerks' concerns. He felt the state's use of SAVE was “more political and appearance-based” than practical for election integrity. This points to a deeper policy issue: is the goal genuinely to secure elections, or is it to create the *appearance* of action, even at the cost of accuracy and constitutional rights? One easy way to check SAVE’s findings would have been to get info from the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS), which collects proof of citizenship when residents get driver’s licenses. But the Secretary of State’s office didn't do this, nor did it tell counties to. Some county officials who *did* check with DPS found that many of the flagged voters were, in fact, citizens. In Potter County, three out of nine flagged voters had citizenship proof with DPS. In Randall County, one in five had a U.S. passport. Travis County found 11 of its 97 flagged voters had proven citizenship to DPS. Travis County's voter registrar, Celia Israel, then felt even more uneasy about sending notices: “It has proven to be inaccurate. Why would I rely on it?” Her question is a potent challenge to the policy's soundness. To be fair, SAVE did identify some people who shouldn't have been registered – for instance, voters who marked themselves as noncitizens but were registered by error. But overall, the numbers remain tiny, reinforcing that noncitizen voting is rare. This makes the aggressive use of a flawed tool even more questionable from a policy standpoint, as the harms appear to outweigh any proven benefits. Our survey of Texas counties found that over 5% of flagged voters were indeed citizens. In some smaller counties, most flagged individuals were eligible. This suggests a significant and unacceptable error rate if the goal is truly precise voter roll maintenance without jeopardizing citizens’ rights. Frank Phillips, Denton County’s elections administrator, had to remove people who didn’t respond but worries many were eligible voters. “What is bugging me is I think our voter rolls may be more accurate than this database,” he said. “My gut feeling is more of these are citizens than not.” This isn't confidence-inspiring. Missouri initially took a more targeted approach, checking about 6,000 voters. But even then, errors appeared. In early November, USCIS told Missouri and four other states that some flagged noncitizens were actually citizens because they had “continued to refine” their processes. This ongoing refinement *after* deployment highlights the rush and initial incompleteness of the system. Missouri told clerks to change flagged voters’ status, temporarily making them unable to vote. This directive, especially after known errors, drew fierce pushback from county officials. Many recognized neighbors and colleagues who were citizens. St. Louis Election Commissioners, advised by their attorney, refused to alter eligibility based on the flawed lists. This demonstrates how local legal counsel understands the constitutional implications better than some state directives. Rachael Dunn, Missouri's spokesperson, cited state law allowing status changes during eligibility investigations, but those laws don’t directly address citizenship. In December, 70 clerks, both Republicans and Democrats, wrote a letter to the state legislature, saying there were better ways to keep noncitizens off the rolls. Their collective expertise and concern should carry weight in public policy debates. Later, a USCIS official explained that new passport data helped correct errors, but some of the *most accurate* DHS citizenship info still wasn’t searchable in SAVE because it needed a DHS identifier. They hoped for improvements by March. Clinton Jenkins, president of the Missouri Association of County Clerks and Election Authorities, summed it up perfectly: “You don’t start with something at that scale until you work the bugs out, and that is not the case here.” In January, Missouri sent revised lists, moving many flagged voters back to active status, restoring their eligibility. Zuzana Kocsisova, a naturalized citizen from Slovakia living in St. Louis, was on the first incorrect list. She felt this process did more to worry eligible voters than find actual ineligible ones. “It’s just a waste of resources. I don’t think it makes the elections any more safe,” she said. She’s right. When you’re spending public money on a faulty system that creates more problems than it solves, that’s a policy failure. It undermines public trust in the institutions meant to protect democracy. In Boone County, Lennon’s list dropped from 74 to 33 flagged voters. The citizen she helped register was now off the list. She said clerks would gladly accept accurate data, but SAVE isn't it yet. “This is not ready for prime time,” Lennon declared. “And I’m not going to risk the security and the constitutional rights of my voters for bad data.” And that’s the real takeaway for you. This isn’t just about numbers; it’s about your right to vote, the integrity of our elections, and the fundamental promise of equal protection under the law for all citizens, whether they were born here or naturalized. When the government rolls out tools meant to protect our elections, those tools have to actually work, and they absolutely cannot put eligible citizens’ rights at risk. Otherwise, we’re not protecting elections; we’re just creating more problems for ourselves and undermining the very democracy we claim to be safeguarding.