A strong case for the unconstitutionality of H.R. 22 — SAVE Act under the 15th Amendment centers on the bill’s potential to "abridge" the right to vote on account of race by implementing barriers that disproportionately exclude minority citizens.

The legal arguments for such a challenge would likely be built on the following pillars:

1. Discriminatory Impact on Voters of Color

The 15th Amendment prohibits any law that abridges the right to vote based on race. Opponents argue the SAVE Act does exactly this by mandating documents that are statistically less common in minority communities:

• Document Gaps: Research indicates that U.S. citizens of color are three times more likely than white citizens to lack the specific "documentary proof" required by the Act, such as a passport or birth certificate.
• Disparate Disenfranchisement: Because minority voters are statistically more likely to lack these documents, a law requiring them for registration could be seen as an unconstitutional "abridgment" that systematically targets and reduces the voting power of specific racial groups.

2. Targeting of Naturalized Citizens

The bill includes provisions for frequent audits and investigations specifically aimed at identifying non-citizens on voter rolls.

• Intimidation and Chilling Effects: Critics argue these provisions are designed to intimidate or "chill" naturalized citizens—who are disproportionately Latino and Asian American—from exercising their lawful right to vote.
• Unequal Scrutiny: Subjecting a class of citizens to heightened scrutiny and potential criminal investigation based on their "non-citizen" status or national origin can be challenged as a violation of the 15th Amendment’s protection against race-based barriers.

3. Reintroduction of Historical "Voter Suppression" Tactics

Legal experts have compared the SAVE Act to historical efforts to circumvent the 15th Amendment during the Jim Crow era.

• Modern-Day Poll Tax: By requiring expensive documents (like a $130 passport) and in-person registration (costing travel time and lost wages), the Act is described as a modern iteration of the poll taxes and literacy tests used to disenfranchise Black voters after the Civil War.
• "Onerous" Barriers: Just as historical courts struck down "grandfather clauses" and "uncouth" redistricting intended to block minority participation, a 15th Amendment challenge would argue that the SAVE Act’s "onerous" documentary requirements are an unconstitutional tool of racial exclusion.

4. Intentional Discrimination (The Mobile v. Bolden Standard)

To succeed in a 15th Amendment challenge, plaintiffs often must show that a law was enacted with a racially discriminatory purpose.

• Cynical Myths: Opponents contend the bill is based on "misinformation" and "dangerous myths" about widespread noncitizen voting—a problem that every serious analysis has found to be "vanishingly rare".
• Evidence of Intent: Legal arguments would focus on whether the true intent of the Act is "voter suppression" disguised as "election integrity," specifically targeting the growing demographic power of Latino, Asian American, and Native American communities.

5. Violation of the "Equal Openness" Principle

Under recent Supreme Court interpretations, a voting system must remain "equally open" to all.