Arguments for the unconstitutionality of the SAVE Act (H.R. 22) under the Tenth Amendment are built on the principle of "dual sovereignty"—the constitutional division of power between the federal government and the states.

A strong legal case would focus on two primary Tenth Amendment doctrines: the Anti-Commandeering Doctrine and the State Authority over Voter Qualifications.

1. The Anti-Commandeering Doctrine

The Supreme Court has established in cases like Printz v. United States (1997) that Congress cannot "commandeer" or press state and local officials into federal service to administer federal regulatory programs.

• Mandatory Federal Service: The SAVE Act mandates that state and local election officials perform specific, onerous tasks, such as verifying original physical documents in person and establishing complex new administrative processes.
• Administrative Burden: Critics argue that by requiring state officials to resolve documentation discrepancies and swearing affidavits for those without proof, the Act forces state employees to execute a federal program against their will, violating the sovereign independence of state executive branches.
• Criminalization of State Workers: The bill subjects state election workers to federal criminal penalties—up to five years in prison—for administrative errors in registration. This federal control over the conduct of state employees is a hallmark of unconstitutional commandeering.

2. State Sovereignty Over Voter Qualifications

Under the Constitution, the power to determine voter "qualifications" is traditionally reserved to the states.

• Interference with State Processes: While Congress has the power to regulate the "Times, Places and Manner" of federal elections, legal experts argue this does not include the power to dictate the underlying evidentiary requirements for proving citizenship—a core qualification.
• Override of State Law: By mandating a specific set of "documentary proof" (such as passports or birth certificates) and rejecting state-issued REAL IDs or military IDs as sufficient proof, the SAVE Act arguably overrides state-level determinations of what constitutes valid proof of eligibility.
• Precedent in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council: In this 2013 case, the Supreme Court ruled that while the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) required states to "accept and use" a federal registration form, states still retained the power to determine who is "qualified" to vote. A Tenth Amendment challenge would argue that H.R. 22 crosses the line from a "procedural" registration rule to a "substantive" federal qualification that infringes on state territory.

3. Unfunded Mandate and Financial Solvency

The Tenth Amendment also protects "state solvency" from federal laws that impose crushing costs without providing the means to pay for them.

• Massive Administrative Costs: The SAVE Act is an unfunded mandate. It requires states to retrain staff, buy new equipment, and implement complex new database checks without any federal funding.
• Economic Coercion: Opponents would argue that forcing states to divert limited local resources to fulfill a federal mandate—especially one that necessitates "sifting the entire ocean to find a single seashell"—improperly impairs a state’s ability to structure its own integral government operations.

4. Displacement of State Verification Systems

Nearly every state already has its own systems to verify eligibility and maintain voter rolls using state and federal data.

• Disregarding State Success: The Act effectively displaces these established, functioning state systems in favor of a rigid, one-size-fits-all federal requirement.
• Traditional Government Functions: Because conducting elections and managing voter rolls are "traditional government functions" of the states, any federal law that "directly impairs" a state's ability to manage these functions is vulnerable to a Tenth Amendment challenge.