Cuellar and three other Democrats, Reps. Jared Golden (D-ME), Ed Case (D-HI), and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-WA) had previously crossed the aisle to pass a previous voter ID bill, titled the SAVE Act, which the SAVE America Act is based on, back in April 2025.

Golden, a moderate Democrat who is retiring at the end of his term, told the Washington Examiner he opposed the legislation because he has “never supported voter ID at the ballot box.”

“They’re not even the same bill,” Golden said. “They’re not even close. I just want to drive that point home, they’re literally different.”

The SAVE America Act is expected to be dead on arrival in the Senate, where the push to implement more strict voting ID requirements has stalled out in the upper chamber, as 60 votes are needed to break the filibuster. 

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) has already vowed to vote against the legislation, meaning Republicans would need at least eight Democrats to join them to surpass the 60-vote threshold. 

“Election Day is fast approaching. Imposing new federal requirements now, when states are deep into their preparations, would negatively impact election integrity by forcing election officials to scramble to adhere to new policies likely without the necessary resources,” Murkowski wrote on X Tuesday. “Ensuring public trust in our elections is at the core of our democracy, but federal overreach is not how we achieve this.”

The passage of the SAVE America Act marks the latest instance of the House passing voter ID requirements, after having passed the SAVE Act twice before. 

“IF YOU ARE NOT AN AMERICAN YOU DO NOT GET TO VOTE IN OUR ELECTIONS,” Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) wrote on X ahead of the vote. “This is not some radical extremist position, it’s common sense and it’s the ONLY way to secure our elections moving forward. If we don’t send the SAVE America Act to President Trump’s desk we lose our nation.”

Frustrations from House Republican members against the Senate have been building as the upper chamber has declined to take up voter ID legislation, with hardline members going as far as to threaten holding up the House floor if the Senate did not take up the SAVE Act. 

In an effort to appease House GOP members, the White House proposed a method called a “talking filibuster” last week to Luna and Rep. Tim Burchett (D-TN) that would require members to actually speak on the floor of the Senate to block a bill. Once the number of members speaking runs out, then the bill can pass by a smaller margin.

ECONOMY ADDED 130,000 JOBS IN JANUARY: THE KEY FACTS AND FIGURES

But Senate Republican leadership, as well as a handful of establishment rank-and-file Republicans, have been wary of eliminating the 60-vote filibuster, arguing it sets a precedent when Democrats regain control. Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) told reporters on Monday the SAVE America Act could get a vote in the Senate “in the not-too-distant future.”Democratic leadership has continuously slammed the new bill, with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) calling the legislation “Jim Crow 2.0” and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) saying it’s “worse” than the original SAVE Act.

House Democratic leadership formally whipped against the SAVE America Act, which would also eliminate mail-only registrations, saying it is “particularly oppressive” for women, older voters, voters who are low-income, and voters of color.