Arguments for the unconstitutionality of the SAVE Act (H.R. 22) under the Twenty-Fourth Amendment center on the claim that its stringent requirements function as a "modern-day poll tax" by imposing direct and indirect financial burdens on the right to vote.

A strong legal case against the Act would likely focus on the following pillars:

1. Imposition of Costs for Required Documents

The Twenty-Fourth Amendment prohibits denying or abridging the right to vote "by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax". The SAVE Act requires specific "documentary proof of citizenship" that many citizens do not possess and must pay to obtain:

• Passport Fees: A U.S. passport is a primary acceptable document but currently costs $130. Critics argue that requiring a high-fee document to register is a material requirement that violates the Amendment's absolute prohibition.
• Certified Records: Many voters must rely on birth certificates or naturalization papers. Obtaining certified copies of these often involves state-level fees, ranging from $14 to nearly $40, which courts have previously found to be an unconstitutional burden on low-income voters.
• Name Change Documentation: An estimated 69 million women have names that do not match their birth certificates due to marriage. To comply with the Act, these individuals may need to pay for legal name-change documents or marriage licenses to link their current ID to their proof of citizenship.

2. Creation of "Material Requirements" (The Harman Standard)

In Harman v. Forssenius (1965), the Supreme Court ruled that a law is unconstitutional if it imposes a "material requirement" solely on those who refuse to pay a tax to vote.

• Forced In-Person Registration: By effectively eliminating mail-in, online, and third-party registration drives, the SAVE Act requires most voters to present documents in person to a government office.
• Indirect Economic Costs: This creates indirect costs, such as travel expenses for rural voters (some of whom may need to fly) and lost wages for hourly workers who must visit election offices during business hours. Under Harman, these secondary burdens can be viewed as unconstitutional abridgments of the right to vote.

3. Disproportionate Socioeconomic Impact

The Twenty-Fourth Amendment was ratified specifically to remove barriers that prevent the poor from voting.

• Low-Income Barriers: Only 1 in 5 Americans with an income below $50,000 possess a valid passport. By mandating documents that are statistically less available to low-income and working-class citizens, the Act creates a wealth-based barrier to the ballot.
• Natural Disaster and Displacement: Individuals who have lost records due to natural disasters or housing instability would be forced to pay to replace them before they can re-register, a hurdle that primarily impacts the economically vulnerable.

4. Lack of Federal Funding or Fee Waivers

Unlike some state voter ID laws that survived court challenges by providing a "free" ID option, the SAVE Act is an unfunded mandate. It does not provide federal funds for states to waive the fees for birth certificates or other documents, nor does it waive the federal fee for passports. Without a no-cost path to obtaining the required proof, the mandate functions as a mandatory fee for participation in federal elections.