Senate Votes 50-49 on SAVE America Act
Washington, D.C. - June 14, 2026
Senate Approves SAVE America Act Amendment on 50-49 Vote but Falls Short of Procedural Threshold
The U.S. Senate voted 50-49 Thursday night in favor of an amendment offered by Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) to include the House-passed SAVE America Act in a budget reconciliation package. The measure would require proof of U.S. citizenship for federal voter registration and strengthen voter identification requirements nationwide.
Because the amendment was offered as a waiver to budget rules, Senate procedures required a three-fifths supermajority of 60 votes for adoption. Every Democratic senator voted against the proposal, leaving supporters 10 votes short of the threshold needed to overcome procedural objections.
The vote marked an improvement over an earlier election-integrity amendment offered by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), which failed 48-50 after four Republicans joined Democrats in opposition. When Lee later offered the clean House version of the SAVE America Act, Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) switched her vote to support the measure. Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Mitch McConnell (R-KY), and Thom Tillis (R-NC) continued to oppose the amendment.
Vice President JD Vance, serving as president of the Senate, was available to cast a tie-breaking vote if needed, meaning supporters effectively demonstrated the ability to secure 51 votes.
“The motivation behind this effort is to ensure that only eligible citizens participate in federal elections and to strengthen public confidence in the outcomes,” supporters of the legislation argued during debate.
Opponents maintained that existing state and federal safeguards already prevent non-citizens from voting and that additional documentation requirements could create unnecessary barriers for eligible voters.
The SAVE America Act has been a top Republican priority for election administration reform. The House previously passed the legislation, and it has received strong support from President Trump and Vice President Vance. Republican leaders have emphasized citizenship verification as a central component of election security ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.
The Thursday night vote occurred during a marathon “vote-a-rama” session tied to broader legislation that includes approximately $70 billion in immigration enforcement and border security funding. Because the SAVE Act amendment did not clear the 60-vote hurdle, the underlying border security measure is expected to advance without the election provisions attached.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune has repeatedly identified the 60-vote cloture requirement as the primary obstacle to passing election-related legislation, given unified Democratic opposition. Thursday’s tally reinforced that assessment while also showing that a Senate majority can be assembled behind the core elements of the SAVE America Act.
The outcome has renewed discussion among Republicans about Senate rules and potential alternative pathways to advance the legislation in the future. For the present, the measure remains blocked by procedural requirements despite securing majority support in the chamber.
The vote also highlighted internal divisions within the Republican conference on election-related matters. While most Republicans supported the clean House version, three senators continued to oppose it on final passage.
Supporters view the 50-49 result as evidence that the legislation enjoys sufficient backing to move forward under different procedural circumstances. Critics of the current Senate rules argue that the filibuster effectively allows a minority to prevent majority-supported election integrity measures from becoming law.
The SAVE America Act provisions are expected to remain a point of contention in coming months as lawmakers prepare for the 2026 midterm elections and continue debating the balance between election security and access.
Nearly 150,000 California Mail Ballots Rejected In Primary
California election officials are examining why nearly 150,000 mail-in ballots were rejected during the state’s June primary, with late-arriving ballots accounting for most of the increase.
The higher rejection rate comes despite years of election law changes designed to make voting more accessible and ensure more ballots are ultimately counted.
According to data compiled by the California Secretary of State’s office, 148,241 mail-in ballots were rejected during the June primary, representing 1.73% of all mail ballots returned.
That marks an increase from the 2024 primary, when 108,982 ballots were rejected, or 1.56% of all mail ballots cast.
The largest reason for rejection was ballots arriving too late to qualify under California law.
State data shows that 93,479 ballots were rejected because they failed to meet the state’s deadline requirements.
California allows mail ballots to arrive up to seven days after Election Day, provided they are postmarked on or before Election Day.
Voting experts believe many of the rejected ballots received postmarks dated after Election Day, making them ineligible to be counted even if they arrived within the seven-day grace period.
Kim Alexander, president of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation, said the timing of postal processing appears to be a significant concern.
“Ballots rejected due to lateness are caused primarily to being postmarked too late to count, not because they arrived too late to count,” Alexander said.
Election experts have questioned whether recent operational changes within the U.S. Postal Service may be contributing to delayed postmarks.
Earlier this year, a group of mostly Democratic U.S. senators wrote to the Postal Service expressing concern that mail-processing changes could affect ballot handling during federal elections.
Updated Postal Service procedures mean postmarks may reflect when mail is processed at regional facilities rather than when it first enters the mail system.
Because processing centers have been consolidated in some areas, election officials have warned that postmark timing could be affected.
Before the June primary, California election officials encouraged voters to mail ballots as early as possible because of potential postal delays.
The June election also featured a highly competitive race for governor, which some experts believe encouraged many voters to wait until the final days before casting ballots.
In addition to late-arriving ballots, approximately 44,000 ballots were rejected because election officials determined the voter’s signature did not match the signature on file.
Another 8,300 ballots were rejected because the return envelope did not contain a signature.
State records also show that 743 ballots were rejected because those voters had already cast another ballot.
Other rejected ballots involved missing ballots inside return envelopes or multiple ballots submitted in a single envelope.
The highest rejection rate in the state occurred in Tulare County, where 3.52% of returned mail ballots were rejected.
Alpine County and Merced County followed closely, each recording rejection rates of 3.36%.
California has frequently faced criticism for taking weeks to complete vote counting after major elections, largely because state law permits ballots meeting certain requirements to continue arriving after Election Day.
Following the June primary, President Donald Trump again criticized California’s election system, while the Department of Justice opened an investigation into election administration in Los Angeles County.
Election experts emphasize that the increase in rejected ballots should not be interpreted as evidence of widespread voter fraud.
A 2025 report by the Brookings Institution found documented cases of mail ballot fraud remained extremely rare, estimating roughly four cases for every 10 million mail ballots cast, The Associated Press reported.
State officials have not identified evidence of widespread fraud connected to the June primary, but the increase in rejected ballots is expected to receive additional scrutiny as election administrators evaluate whether changes in postal operations, voter behavior or election procedures contributed to the higher rejection rate.
