US President Donald Trump recently cited India’s electoral framework to bolster support for the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act. Pointing to India’s 646 million voters in its last general election, Trump highlighted on Truth Social that every voter presented valid photo identification and less than 1% used postal ballots. He noted that India’s Chief Election Commissioner, Gyanesh Kumar, had shared these metrics with his administration. The remarks were echoed by US Ambassador to India Sergio Gor following high-level bilateral meetings in New Delhi. However, political analysts and legal scholars emphasize that comparing the two systems ignores fundamental differences in how elections are administered in each nation.
India operates under a central, constitutional authority—the Election Commission of India (ECI)—which manages a single, unified national voter roll. The ECI issues every voter an Elector’s Photo Identity Card (EPIC) and permits 12 alternative government-issued photo documents, such as passports, driving licenses, or Aadhaar cards, at polling stations. Crucially, citizenship verification in India occurs at the time of registration under the Representation of the People Act, not at the ballot box. Because the ECI has achieved near-universal EPIC coverage across the country, requiring photo identification on election day creates minimal friction for eligible citizens. Furthermore, postal voting in India is strictly restricted to specific categories, including military personnel, election staff, and elderly or disabled voters.
If you enjoyed reading this article, you can help support our journalism by adding OHeraldo as a preferred source.
In stark contrast, the United States lacks a centralized election authority. The US Constitution assigns election administration to individual states, resulting in a complex patchwork of voting rules across 50 jurisdictions. While some states require strict photo identification, others utilize non-photo documents or non-documentary verification. Citizenship in the US is verified during registration via self-attestation under penalty of perjury, cross-referenced against motor vehicle and social security databases. Additionally, voting by mail is deeply embedded in American civic culture, accounting for over 30% of all ballots cast in the 2024 presidential election, with several states conducting mail-in-only elections.
The SAVE Act, which has cleared the US House of Representatives but remains stalled in the Senate due to filibuster rules, primarily targets the registration process rather than in-person polling rules. It would mandate physical proof of citizenship—such as a passport or birth certificate—to register to vote. Voting rights groups, including the Brennan Center for Justice, argue that this requirement would disproportionately disenfranchise millions of eligible Americans who lack immediate access to these documents, particularly married women whose names differ from their birth certificates.
Moreover, empirical data demonstrates that non-citizen voting in the US is extraordinarily rare, with documented instances representing a tiny fraction of a percent over decades of elections. While the Indian comparison provides a compelling narrative for proponents of stricter US voter laws, it overlooks the reality that India’s identity requirements succeed precisely because of its centralized, state-funded infrastructure that ensures nearly every adult citizen possesses valid identification. Replicating those restrictions without similar universal documentation mechanisms presents profound administrative and constitutional challenges in the United States.
