Kansas case and new immigration report deepen scrutiny of Colorado’s stance on SAVE

By Jen Schumann | Rocky Mountain Voice

A Kansas mayor’s felony voting case is renewing national attention on how noncitizens end up registered to vote and what states can do to prevent it. The issue is gaining urgency as federal agencies expand the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements program, known as SAVE, while Colorado and several other states reject federal data-sharing efforts even as federal law requires them to maintain accurate voter rolls.

A Kansas case shows the stakes of mistaken registration

The case driving the discussion is unfolding in Coldwater, Kansas, where Mayor Jose “Joe” Ceballos-Armendariz, a noncitizen, has been charged with voting in at least three elections.

The state’s case rests on Kansas election statutes that classify noncitizen voting as a felony, exposing anyone convicted to heavy fines and potential incarceration. Prosecutors allege that Ceballos-Armendariz completed a routine voter registration form, then participated in federal and local contests. 

According to his lawyer, he thought he had the right to vote. Federal law doesn’t make room for that misunderstanding. A noncitizen who knows they lack citizenship and votes anyway can face criminal charges, and a conviction can lead to removal.

Why Coldwater reflects a larger problem built into motor-voter law

The Center for Immigration Studies has tracked similar situations across the country and considers the Coldwater case another example of that wider trend.

Their Dec. 8 report notes that several noncitizens prosecuted in recent years were lawful permanent residents who encountered the voter registration form during routine motor-vehicle transactions. The National Voter Registration Act requires state motor-vehicle agencies to offer voter registration during license services but restricts what clerks can explain. 

The law forbids officials from making any statement that could “discourage” an applicant from registering and prevents states from altering the federal form to add clearer eligibility language. 

According to the report, these restrictions mean staff cannot warn someone who is not a U.S. citizen about the criminal implications of signing the form, even when the individual appears confused. 

The analysis traces the issue to congressional debates in 1993, when proposals to require documentation or add stronger advisories were rejected.

Federal appellate courts have repeatedly held that misunderstanding is not a defense. Under 18 U.S.C. § 611, prosecutors must show only that the individual knew they were not a U.S. citizen and voted. Intent to violate the law is not required. Combined with NVRA’s uniform registration requirements, these rulings leave states with limited options to intervene before a mistaken registration becomes a criminal case. 

The CIS report concludes that SAVE is one of the only tools capable of identifying citizenship mismatches early and allowing states to correct records before ballots are cast.

Federal officials expand SAVE to fill the verification gap

Federal agencies have moved in that direction. 

The Department of Homeland Security’s October privacy impact assessment states that SAVE is authorized to verify voter registrations and assist with maintaining current voter lists.

DHS notes in the assessment that SAVE verifies names, birth dates and Social Security numbers submitted by state agencies by checking them against records held by USCIS, the Social Security Administration and the State Department. It also outlines new bulk-processing capabilities and states that federal law requires DHS to provide verification information to state officials responsible for list accuracy.

States push back on federal data requests and SAVE involvement

Colorado and several other states have pushed back. 

A group of Secretaries of State—including Colorado’s Jena Griswold—wrote to the Justice Department and Homeland Security on November 18 to challenge federal requests for complete voter files and the prospect of those records being processed through SAVE. They raised questions about privacy concerns, data security and inconsistent statements from federal officials, yet the letter offers no claim that any statute bars states from using SAVE for voter verification.

The objections, considered as a whole, reveal a coordinated political bent rather than a legally driven hesitation—highlighting the ongoing resistance to federal oversight in voter-list administration.

Griswold referenced this letter last week when she doubled-down and told the DOJ to “take a hike.”

DOJ asserts broad authority to enforce voter-list laws

The Justice Department has taken the opposite view. 

In an August letter to Illinois, the Justice Department said federal law entitles it to the state’s complete voter file—including dates of birth and identifying numbers—so it can assess whether Illinois is meeting its list-maintenance duties under the National Voter Registration Act and the Help America Vote Act. The department also said federal statutes override any state privacy limits and that federal review is necessary to enforce voter-roll requirements.

Federal agencies have reinforced that stance through recent lawsuits. In September, the Justice Department sued six states for failing to provide voter registration rolls as required under federal law, stating that “clean voter rolls are the foundation of free and fair elections.”

Critics caution that SAVE’s data checks can produce errors

The Brennan Center for Justice has urged caution about the SAVE program, warning that reliance on federal data “increases the risks that state officials will carry out erroneous voter purges and disenfranchise eligible voters,” particularly if election offices skip required multi-stage verification steps. 

The brief states that SAVE could mislead officials “either because it incorrectly identifies someone as a noncitizen or fails to confirm immigration status,” which it argues could “fuel false conspiracy theories about the integrity of U.S. elections.” 

It also reiterates the organization’s position that “voter fraud,” including voting by noncitizens, “is extremely rare.” At the same time, the brief cautions that flaws in federal databases risk “enabling a weaponization of the tool to spread the sort of falsehoods that ran rampant in the aftermath of the 2020 presidential election” and says the public “should be highly skeptical of any claims of widespread voter fraud arising from searches in the overhauled SAVE system.”

Colorado has not said whether it will revisit the question of SAVE being used. The state remains aligned with the Secretaries who signed the November letter and continues to oppose federal requests for voter information. 

DHS and other federal agencies say the point of SAVE is to give states a way to catch citizenship conflicts early, before a noncitizen unwittingly registers to vote, votes—and is then prosecuted and deported.

As the gap becomes harder to deny, federal pressure intensifies

The case of the mayor in Kansas has drawn fresh scrutiny to the gaps in the registration process—and concern about how widespread illegal voting is because of it.  

The CIS report maintains that the NVRA leaves states without a meaningful way to prevent mistaken registrations and identifies SAVE as one of the few tools able to close that gap. 

Federal agencies have begun enforcing voter-list obligations more aggressively, filing suit against states that declined to provide required rolls. 

Colorado’s continued resistance places the state at odds with that national enforcement trend and raises a practical question that federal officials have not yet answered: whether states that refuse the use of federally authorized verification tools will ultimately face legal action aimed at compelling compliance with voter-list requirements.