A strong case for the unconstitutionality of H.R. 22 — SAVE Act under the 14th Amendment centers on the principles of Equal Protection and Due Process, particularly concerning the creation of arbitrary and disparate burdens on the fundamental right to vote.

A legal challenge would likely focus on the following four pillars:

1. Violation of the Equal Protection Clause

The 14th Amendment prohibits states from denying any person "equal protection of the laws." The SAVE Act is argued to violate this by imposing unequal burdens on different classes of citizens.

• Discrimination Against Low-Income and Minority Voters: U.S. citizens of color are statistically three times more likely than white citizens to lack the specific documents (like passports or birth certificates) required by the Act.
• Wealth-Based Barriers: Only 1 in 5 Americans with household incomes under $50,000 possess a passport, compared to much higher rates for those earning over $100,000. By mandating a high-fee document ($130 for a passport), the Act creates a wealth-based hurdle that effectively values the vote of one class over another.
• Geographic Inequality: Rural voters, who may live far from government offices, face a significantly higher burden due to the Act's in-person presentation requirements than those in urban areas with easy access to election offices.

2. Disparate Impact on Women and Specific Groups

Under 14th Amendment jurisprudence, laws that create "arbitrary and disparate treatment" among groups can be struck down.

• Burden on Married Women: Approximately 69 million women have changed their names due to marriage and do not have a birth certificate that matches their current legal name. The SAVE Act forces this specific group—but not most men—to jump through additional, costly hoops to provide "bridge" documentation like marriage licenses.
• Naturalized Citizens: The bill has been criticized for targeting naturalized citizens for "chilling or intimidation," subjecting them to more frequent audits and the risk of being purged from rolls based on potentially flawed database checks.

3. Substantive Due Process and the "Fundamental Right"

The Supreme Court has held that once a state grants the franchise (the right to vote), it cannot later draw lines that are inconsistent with fundamental fairness.

• Onerous and "Unnecessary" Requirements: Critics argue the Act violates due process by inverting the government's responsibility to verify eligibility onto the individual citizen.
• Lack of Proportionality: A due process challenge would argue the state's interest (preventing noncitizen voting, which is already illegal and "vanishingly rare") does not justify the massive burden placed on tens of millions of legal citizens. In Kansas v. Fish, a similar state-level law was struck down as unconstitutional because its "onerous" requirements were not proportional to the problem they sought to solve.

4. Deprivation of Liberty Without Proper Safeguards

The 14th Amendment's Due Process clause also protects against the arbitrary removal of rights without adequate notice or opportunity to be heard.

• Systematic Voter Purges: The Act mandates frequent voter roll purges based on potentially flawed database information.
• Failure of "Cure" Processes: Critics point out that the SAVE Act does not require individual notification of voters before they are removed from the rolls, denying them the due process needed to correct clerical errors or database glitches before they are disenfranchised.