LaLota "Yes", Suozzi "No" Over Election Integrity Law
- 3 hours ago
- 3 min read
By Rupert Deedes
Last week the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act - to improve integrity and reduce the risk of fraud in elections - by a narrow vote of 218–213.
The two members from Long Island's north shore - Nick LaLota (R-NY1 Huntington, East End) and Thomas Suozzi (D-NY3 Oyster Bay, N Hempstead) came out on opposite sides.
The bill would imposing stricter documentation requirements for voter registration and ballot casting, including voter ID and stricter "mail-in" ballot rules.
"Ballot integrity" has become a partisan issue over election security, voter access, and federal versus state control of election laws.
The core provisions of the bill include: Requiring documentary proof of U.S. citizenship before a person can register to vote in a federal election; mandating state election officials to share unredacted voter rolls with federal authorities (e.g., DHS) to help validate citizenship in some versions of the bill; and requiring government-issued photo ID for voting, whether in person or by mail.
Proponents of the SAVE Act argue the measure will tighten election integrity, stemming from concerns about noncitizen voting and election fraud.
Critics of the measure counter that noncitizen voting in federal elections is already illegal and rare, and that the SAVE Act would erect significant obstacles for many eligible voters, especially those without ready access to the required documents.
The SAVE Act passed the House, but it faces an uncertain future in the Senate, where it would need to overcome a 60-vote threshold to proceed.
The House vote was nearly uniform along party lines, with Republicans in favor and Democrats opposed. Only one Democrat voted with Republicans on this measure - Rep. Henry Cuellar of Texas.
Long Island’s Delegation: LaLota vs. SuozziIn this contentious vote, Long Island’s Republican representative — Nick LaLota — voted yes and backed the SAVE Act as a way to strengthen what he and supporters describe as electoral integrity.
LaLota, a co-sponsor of the bill, issued a statement: he emphasized that the legislation reinforces the principle that only U.S. citizens should be registered to vote and that it helps ensure “confidence in our elections.” LaLota also framed the requirements as commonsense and supported by broad public opinion.
By contrast, Tom Suozzi, the Democratic representative from NY 3rd District, voted no on the SAVE Act. Suozzi’s vote was consistent with the broader Democratic opposition to the bill. Democrats generally argued that the SAVE Act would make voting more difficult for eligible citizens, particularly those who lack the specific forms of identification the bill would require, and that it represented an unnecessary federal intervention into election administration.
Suozzi’s “no” vote also aligns with traditional Democratic priorities around voting access, civil rights protections, and state authority over elections.
Broader DebatesThe debate over the SAVE Act underscores two central fault lines in U.S. electoral politics.
1) Integrity vs. AccessSupporters of the bill emphasize election integrity, stricter documentation, and uniform federal standards as safeguards against fraud and to maintain public trust in electoral outcomes. They argue that many citizens already must present ID for basic functions (e.g., driving, banking), and that voting — the most fundamental civic act — should be no different.
Opponents argue that the practical effect of the bill, if enacted, would be to raise administrative barriers which disproportionately affect eligible voters — including naturalized citizens who may lack the requisite proofs or struggle to obtain them. Critics also point out that federal criminal law already makes noncitizen voting illegal, and that studies show such occurrences are extremely rare.
The partisan split reflects long-standing philosophical differences over federal election policy: whether the focus should be on restricting potential fraud through uniform requirements, or on maximizing access and avoiding disenfranchisement.
2) State vs. Federal ControlThe SAVE Act — if eventually enacted — could reshape federal election administration by imposing the first nationwide documentary citizenship and photo ID requirements.
Opponents fear these mandates will shift more control over elections toward federal standards and potentially reduce turnout among vulnerable populations; supporters believe they will bolster confidence in U.S. electoral outcomes.
The bill’s future remains unclear: even with House passage, significant opposition in the Senate and likely legal challenges stand between the measure and its enactment.