Indian Tribes Should Be Wary of the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act

Details

By Kevin Allis

October 16, 2024

Native Vote 2024. Guest Opinion.  The proposed Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act has ignited debate across the country, with its stated  aim to “strengthen voter integrity” by tightening voter eligibility requirements. While the legislation may be framed as a  protective measure, Indian Tribes should carefully examine its potential impacts on their communities. The unique  political, cultural, and historical status of Tribal nations in the U.S. raises significant concerns about how this legislation  could undermine the rights of Native voters and erode Tribal sovereignty. 

Here are some key areas of concern for Indian Tribes regarding the SAVE Act: 

1. Disenfranchisement of Native Voters  

The most immediate and alarming concern is that the SAVE Act could disenfranchise Native American voters. By  introducing more stringent requirements for voter identification and eligibility verification, the Act risks creating  additional barriers for many Native voters who already face significant challenges when accessing the ballot box. 

Native Americans have historically been one of the most disenfranchised groups in the United States. Factors such as  remote reservation locations, lack of traditional residential addresses, limited access to government services, and poverty  make it difficult for many Native citizens to meet new identification requirements. On many reservations, Tribal IDs are  commonly used as a form of identification, and the SAVE Act must explicitly recognize and accept these IDs to avoid  marginalizing Native voters. 

Furthermore, the logistics of voting in Indian Country can be daunting, with polling places often located far from home  and inaccessible due to poor infrastructure. Adding burdensome voter ID requirements only exacerbates these  challenges, making it harder for Native people to participate in elections. Tribal communities have fought for decades  for their rightful place in the democratic process, and the SAVE Act risks reversing that progress. 

2. Violation of Tribal Sovereignty  

A second critical issue is that the SAVE Act could infringe on Tribal sovereignty. Indian Tribes are sovereign nations  with the inherent right to self-govern, including the regulation of their own electoral processes for Tribal elections. While  the SAVE Act deals with federal and state voter eligibility, it could set a dangerous precedent by imposing federal rules  on how voter eligibility is defined in Indian Country. Tribes have the sovereign authority to determine their membership  and should not be subject to external dictates on what constitutes valid voter identification. 

Tribal governments, already under-resourced and overburdened, may find themselves entangled in federal oversight or  compliance issues that undermine their ability to administer Tribal elections freely. If the SAVE Act is not carefully  crafted to respect the autonomy of Tribes, it risks violating their political status and eroding self-determination. 

3. Lack of Access to Infrastructure and Documentation  

Many Native Americans live in rural and isolated areas with limited access to services that are readily available in urban  or suburban settings. These include government offices that issue forms of identification such as driver's licenses or state  IDs. The SAVE Act’s stricter voter ID requirements do not take into account the logistical challenges faced by Tribal  members in obtaining the necessary documentation to meet these new standards. 

For example, some Native Americans live in areas with limited mail service or no traditional street addresses,  complicating their ability to receive voter information or register for identification. Tribal IDs, which are common forms  of identification in these areas, may not be accepted under the new rules, leaving a significant portion of the population  without a viable path to participate in federal or state elections. The SAVE Act must account for these real-life difficulties,  or it will effectively disenfranchise a vulnerable population. 

4. Suppression of Political Voice  

Native Americans have a long history of being politically marginalized, and there is a well-founded concern that the  SAVE Act could suppress Native voices further. The Native vote is often a key factor in local, state, and federal elections  in regions with significant Indigenous populations. By making it harder for Native people to vote, the Act could reduce  their political influence and weaken the ability of Tribes to advocate for policies that benefit their communities.

The history of voter suppression in Native communities is deeply intertwined with the federal government’s efforts to  diminish Native political power. This Act, if passed without input from Tribal leaders, risks perpetuating this cycle of  marginalization. To protect Native voting rights, the federal government must consult with Tribes and include their  concerns in the drafting of any legislation that affects voter eligibility. 

5. Failure to Recognize Unique Barriers for Native Women  

Native women, in particular, may face heightened challenges under the SAVE Act. Due to historical inequities and the  ongoing crisis of missing and murdered Indigenous women, Native women often lack the required documentation to  meet stringent voter ID requirements. Additionally, issues such as domestic violence, which can lead to name changes  or the lack of a stable address, make it difficult for Native women to produce consistent identification records. 

The SAVE Act must account for the gendered impacts of its voter ID requirements, recognizing that Native women are  already disproportionately affected by the intersections of poverty, violence, and marginalization. Without addressing  these unique barriers, the Act risks further disenfranchising Native women and suppressing their political participation. 

6. The Need for Tribal Consultation  

One of the most critical omissions in the SAVE Act is the lack of mandated Tribal consultation. Any legislation that  affects the voting rights of Native Americans must be developed with the input of Tribal governments. Native American  leaders and advocates have a deep understanding of the barriers their communities face in accessing the polls, and their  voices should be central in shaping policy solutions. 

The SAVE Act should include a formal mechanism for Tribal consultation to ensure that any new voter eligibility  requirements do not inadvertently disenfranchise Native voters or violate Tribal sovereignty. Tribal leaders must be at  the table when decisions about voter eligibility are made, ensuring that the Act is crafted in a way that promotes inclusivity,  rather than exclusion. 

Conclusion  

The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, though well-intentioned, poses significant risks for Indian Tribes  if enacted without careful consideration of their unique concerns. Stricter voter eligibility requirements could  disenfranchise Native voters, infringe upon Tribal sovereignty, and exacerbate the structural inequalities that already  exist in Indian Country. To safeguard the voting rights of Native people, the Act must explicitly recognize Tribal  sovereignty, ensure that Tribal IDs are accepted as valid identification, and prioritize the removal of barriers to voting in  Native communities. 

At its core, voting is a fundamental right that should be accessible to all, including Native Americans who have fought  tirelessly for their place in the democratic process. Any efforts to strengthen voter integrity must also prioritize the  protection of Native voters' rights, ensuring that they are not left behind or silenced.

Kevin Allis (Forest County Potawatomi Community) is the founder and President of Thunderbird Strategic, LLC. Thunderbird is a DC-based Government Relations and Communications firm that specializes in advocacy and campaigns for American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal Nations and community based organizations. For more than 20 years, he has served Indian Country including in roles such as the CEO of the National Congress of American Indians and the Executive Director at the Native American Contractors Association.