Murkowski's Memory Problem
A viral tweet, a swift Community Note, and what the senator's own voting record reveals about the new SAVE Act debate
Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) recently took to X to voice concerns about Republican-backed election legislation, framing her objection in a very particular way: by invoking her party's united opposition to Democratic voting reforms in 2021. It was a rhetorically tidy argument. It also ran into a problem almost immediately.
"When Democrats attempted to advance sweeping election reform legislation in 2021, Republicans were unanimous in opposition because it would have federalized elections, something we have long opposed. Now, I'm seeing proposals such as the SAVE Act and MEGA that would effe…"
Senator Murkowski voted to advance the 2021 voter reforms she references here. She was the only Republican to do so.
The Community Note is accurate. And it points to a tension at the heart of Murkowski's current positioning — one that becomes even more striking when you understand what those 2021 bills actually contained, and who they were specifically designed to protect.
What Actually Happened in 2021
The Democratic-led voting reform push of 2021 consisted of two major bills. The Freedom to Vote Act would have set national minimum standards for elections — early voting, mail-in voting, automatic registration. The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act targeted something more specific: restoring the federal oversight requirement that the Supreme Court had effectively dismantled eight years earlier.
Murkowski did vote against a procedural motion on the Freedom to Vote Act, citing concerns about federalizing elections — the same argument she's deploying today. But on the John Lewis Act, she broke from her party entirely. She not only voted to advance the bill; she was its co-sponsor. She was the sole Republican to do so.
- ✗Voted against advancing the Freedom to Vote Act (citing federalization concerns)
- ✓Voted for advancing the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act — the only Republican to do so
- ★Co-sponsored the John Lewis Act alongside Sen. Joe Manchin
Her tweet implied uniform Republican opposition that she was part of. The record tells a more complicated story.
The Supreme Court Case at the Center of It All
To understand why the John Lewis Act mattered — and why Murkowski backed it — you have to go back to Shelby County v. Holder, the 2013 Supreme Court decision that reshaped American election law.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 required certain states and counties with documented histories of racial discrimination to obtain federal approval — called "preclearance" — before changing any voting rules. It was one of the most effective tools in the law. The Shelby County court didn't strike down preclearance itself, but it struck down the formula used to determine which jurisdictions were covered, ruling that it relied on data too outdated to justify. Without the formula, the preclearance requirement became a dead letter.
The practical effects were immediate. Texas announced a strict photo ID law within 24 hours of the ruling. Other states followed. The John Lewis Act was Congress's attempt to respond — to update the coverage formula with current data and restore federal oversight where it was most needed.
"Texas announced a strict photo ID law within 24 hours of the Shelby County ruling."
Why Alaska Made Murkowski's Position Coherent
Here is what makes Murkowski's co-sponsorship of the John Lewis Act not just politically notable but geographically logical: Alaska was itself a covered jurisdiction under the original Voting Rights Act.
When Congress amended the VRA in 1975 to extend protections to language minorities, Alaska was added to the preclearance list specifically because of its history of discriminatory practices against Alaska Native voters. The John Lewis Act, as written, directly addressed the barriers Alaska Natives continue to face — distant polling places, lack of transportation infrastructure, roads that become impassable during winter election seasons, and the need for voting materials in Native languages.
For Murkowski, supporting the John Lewis Act wasn't ideologically inconsistent. It was, arguably, constituent service.
The SAVE Act: A Very Different Kind of Federal Intervention
So where does the SAVE Act fit in? Murkowski's tweet frames it as the same kind of overreach she opposed in 2021. Critics argue that comparison collapses a crucial distinction.
The SAVE Act would require documentary proof of U.S. citizenship — a passport or certified birth certificate — to register to vote in federal elections, and would mandate that registration be done in person. It effectively eliminates online and mail-based registration for most voters.
The Kansas Warning
Opponents point to Kansas as a case study in what happens when these requirements are implemented. In 2011, Kansas passed its own proof-of-citizenship registration law. When it was finally struck down by the courts, the evidence at trial showed that more than 31,000 eligible citizens had been prevented from registering — roughly 12% of all applicants — while the number of noncitizens successfully stopped was a tiny fraction of that. The court also found that many of the noncitizen registrations that did occur were the result of state employee errors, not deliberate fraud. Kansas ultimately paid $1.9 million in legal fees. The state's own Republican Secretary of State, who had voted for the law as a legislator, later said plainly: "It didn't work out so well."
For critics, the SAVE Act repeats this experiment at national scale.
- ↔Freedom to Vote Act: Set national minimum standards; expanded access (early voting, automatic registration)
- ↔John Lewis VRA: Restored anti-discrimination oversight after Shelby County; required federal preclearance for covered jurisdictions
- ↔SAVE Act: Requires in-person, documentary proof of citizenship to register; restricts access; mirrors laws already blocked in courts
Both sets of laws involve federal standards for elections. But one expanded access and targeted proven discrimination; the other narrows access in ways courts have found produce significant rates of eligible-voter exclusion. Whether that distinction matters to Murkowski's argument is, in the end, a political question. But it is a distinction that exists.
The Bottom Line
Senator Murkowski's tweet painted a picture of unified Republican opposition to 2021 election reforms — opposition she implicitly placed herself within. The Community Note that flagged it was correct: she was not simply part of that opposition. She co-sponsored the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and cast the only Republican vote to advance it. Her current framing, while not without any factual basis, omits context that is directly relevant to her argument. For a senator representing a state whose own citizens were among the populations those bills were designed to protect, the omission is especially notable.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment