Thread

1. legitster · 1790366819 · focus · HN ↗

   My human summarization of the decision:

   - SAVE was a database established in 1986 to determine if immigrants were eligible for federal benefits

   - Starting in 2005, some states used it to check their voter registrations

   - By executive order, the administration merged it with the SSN database to make bulk searches easier

   - Organizations sued, and a lower court said the administration had to hold off on rolling out the changes while the lawsuit was pending. The Supreme Court overruled the stay, saying the lawsuit had not proved enough merit to stop the policy while the lawsuits proceed.

   - It is still up to states whether they use SAVE or not. If someone shows up in the SAVE database, the state may ask them to provide proof of citizenship.

   The concern here from the dissent is that states are going to purge their voter registrations while awaiting the ruling. But realistically, the states interested in doing this don't have enough time before midterms to do this - as they would have to then process all of the proof-of-citizenship documentation or open themselves up to mass lawsuits.

   Update: Per NPR, the SAVE database covers 65 million voters in 26 states, of which 28,635 have been flagged as &quot;potential noncitizens&quot;. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.opb.org&#x2F;article&#x2F;2026&#x2F;09&#x2F;25&#x2F;the-supreme-court-revives-the-controversial-save-data-system&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.opb.org&#x2F;article&#x2F;2026&#x2F;09&#x2F;25&#x2F;the-supreme-court-rev...

   In Texas, using this dataset, they were only able to bring forward 117 cases of fraudulent voting.

   1. cosmicgadget · 1790368009 · focus · HN ↗

      As I understand it, one of the main disenfranchisement tactics is to challenge ballots already cast. It&#x27;s potentially very effective because the voter must see that their vote was challenged and then proactively contest it.

      Does the decision make this easier?

      1. legitster · 1790368362 · focus · HN ↗

         Based on this NPR article, there are only about 28k voters nationwide on the &quot;potentially fraudulent&quot; list. And when Texas tried pursing theirs, they only ended up being able to act on ~100 of them.

         Realistically, the rate of fraud nationwide is actually really low and this database would just a waste of time for the states that pursue it. But by holding it off the courts would be doing more to cover the administration (by giving them a plausible excuse) than letting it proceed.

         1. cosmicgadget · 1790368700 · focus · HN ↗

            Thank you, it makes me wonder why the administration is pursuing this at all. Optics? Or is there something more Stephen Miller-y going on here?

            1. dmitrygr · 1790371702 · focus · HN ↗

               &gt; it makes me wonder why the administration is pursuing this at all.

               Why do we pursue murderers? There are not that many.

               Either the law matters or it does not. Pick your own world to live in, but be consistent.

               1. cosmicgadget · 1790382924 · focus · HN ↗

                  &gt; We are hypocrites if, at great expenditure, we don&#x27;t use flock cameras to enforce jaywalking and drones to ensure all landscaping is permitted.

                  Okay.

                  1. dmitrygr · 1790434046 · focus · HN ↗

                     That is not a quote of anything I said. My original comment had not been edited. If you choose to convert my statements to strange exaggerated strawmen, do so without a quote implication please.

                     1. cosmicgadget · 1790633932 · focus · HN ↗

                        Nah, I&#x27;m good.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.