Texas Secretary of State Jane Nelson said her office has completed a statewide comparison of Texas’s 18-million-plus voter registration list against federal citizenship records in the Department of Homeland Security’s Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) system, identifying 2,724 potential non-citizens currently registered to vote. Counties received the records last week and will now conduct case-by-case eligibility reviews under the Texas Election Code; non-citizens who are found to have voted will be referred to the Attorney General, the release said. A county-level PDF breakdown accompanied the announcement.

Nelson said the use of SAVE was a “game changer”, crediting the Trump administration for its “decision to give states free and direct access to this data set for the first time.” Trump’s March 25, 2025 executive order,  “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections.” Section 2(b)(i) directs DHS to ensure state and local election officials have access to federal verification systems “without the requirement of the payment of a fee.”

Nelson went on to say that the use of the SAVE database will be one of many datasets her office will “use in Texas to ensure that only qualified voters cast a ballot in our elections.” According to the Oct. 20, 2025, press release, Texas was “among the first states to partner with USCIS to compare its voter list with the SAVE database.” Alabama, Indiana, Louisiana, Ohio, Iowa, and Virginia have also used SAVE in 2025 to verify citizenship status.

Under Texas Election Code §§ 16.033 and 16.0332, counties follow a set procedure to remove non-citizens. When a registrant is flagged as a possible non-citizen, the county voter registrar mails a notice. The person can keep their registration by submitting proof of U.S. citizenship. If the county doesn’t receive a response within 30 days, the registration is canceled. A canceled registration can be immediately restored once proof of citizenship is presented to an elections office or at a polling place.

SAVE is widely used by public agencies for benefit eligibility (Medicaid, SNAP, TANF), licensing, and DMV purposes, but is not as routinely used for voter registration file maintenance. It is, however, available for voluntary use. USCIS notes approximately 1,200 participating agencies and documents web and web-services access plus multi-step verification (initial query, additional verification if needed). In elections, some states run targeted checks (e.g., on new registrants with non-citizen indicators) or periodic audits, but nationwide election use is still the exception, governed by USCIS’s election-specific guidance and state law.

The Trump administration is pushing a variety of initiatives on election integrity, one of which is the 2025 proposed federal bill called the SAVE Act. Not to be confused with SAVE, the SAVE Act seeks to mandate more robust voter registration list maintenance and impose stricter requirements for citizenship verification.

There are a number of reasons states do not automatically use SAVE to routinely purge voter registration lists of non-citizens. SAVE is not a comprehensive “citizenship file” and can mis-flag eligible voters (e.g., naturalized citizens whose records aren’t linked yet). Some voter advocacy groups see SAVE as more useful in narrow, well-designed checks, believing that broad sweeps risk wrongly flagging citizens or violating federal protections. Some of the primary friction points are as follows:

• SAVE is not a “citizenship master file.” SAVE verifies immigration records for benefits and licensing purposes. Many U.S.-born citizens have no SAVE record at all, and naturalized citizens’ files can be incomplete or there may be a lag in name or identity changes. As a result, there can be false positives.
• Risk to National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) compliance (“90-day quiet period”). The NVRA restricts systematic list maintenance within 90 days of federal elections.
• SAVE has a documented history of bad matches. When states have run broad sweeps, significant numbers of eligible voters were allegedly flagged, often naturalized citizens. Florida’s 2012 effort became a national controversy, challenged by the DOJ and civil-rights groups. The case was ultimately dismissed. However, a 2014 ruling in a separate lawsuit (Arcia v. Detzner) stated Florida’s 2012 purge did violate the NVRA’s “90-day provision”.
• Due process and chilling effects on voters. Large SAVE-based mailings, some groups contend, can look like purge notices, confusing or intimidating eligible voters who must find and submit proof of citizenship on short timelines. Advocacy groups warn the burden falls disproportionately on new Americans, unfamiliar with the laws, increasing the risk of disenfranchisement even when removals are later reversed.
• Data is not current, verification isn’t always easy. SAVE responses can require additional verification steps and if states shortcut those, accuracy suffers. Election groups advocate for tight safeguards, targeted use, individualized notice and cure, clear appeal pathways, not blanket sweeps.

Portions of President Trump’s “Election Integrity” executive order are already on hold. In June 2025, U.S. District Judge Denise Casper (D. Mass.) granted a preliminary injunction sought by 19 states. The court found the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on claims that the President lacked authority to impose documentary proof-of-citizenship requirements through the EAC (including for military/overseas voters) and to add related agency and funding mandates that would be contingent on adopting a uniform ballot-receipt deadline. As such, the order enjoined EO §§ 2(a), 2(d), 3(d), 7(a), and 7(b) while the case proceeds. The ruling did not expressly enjoin the EO’s separate directive about fee-free access for election officials to federal verification systems (often described as access to SAVE).

Image: cagdesign via Pixabay, Pixabay License.