The Alaska Republican publicly opposed the SAVE Act, a bill aimed at strengthening voter eligibility requirements in federal elections. Her reasoning? She argues the legislation would federalize elections and undermine states’ constitutional authority to regulate them.
Murkowski laid out her case in a statement posted to X, pointing to Republican opposition in 2021 to sweeping Democratic election reform proposals.
“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,” she wrote. “Now, I’m seeing proposals such as the SAVE Act and MEGA that would effectively do just that. Once again, I do not support these efforts.”
Just gonna leave this here Lisa. https://t.co/tTzNAMV5UY pic.twitter.com/LSTFVUfmlw
— Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (@RepLuna) February 11, 2026
She emphasized that the Constitution gives states the authority to regulate the “times, places, and manner” of federal elections and warned that one-size-fits-all mandates from Washington rarely work in a geographically vast and logistically complex state like Alaska.
Murkowski also raised timing concerns.
“With Election Day fast approaching,” she continued, “imposing new federal requirements now, when states are deep into their preparations, would negatively impact election integrity by forcing election officials to scramble to adhere to new policies likely without the necessary resources.”
She concluded by stressing that public trust in elections is essential — but argued federal overreach is not the solution.
That argument, however, quickly ran into trouble.
Her post was hit with a community note pushing back on her constitutional claim. The note pointed out that while states administer elections, Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution explicitly grants Congress the authority to “make or alter” regulations governing federal elections. In other words, Congress does have the power to step in — a fact that undercuts Murkowski’s assertion that such legislation would be inherently unconstitutional.
The SAVE Act’s supporters argue the bill is narrowly focused on ensuring only eligible citizens vote in federal elections — a core issue for many Republicans who say voter confidence has eroded in recent years. They contend that setting baseline standards for federal contests does not amount to a sweeping federal takeover, but rather an exercise of authority clearly outlined in the Constitution.
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 effectively…
— Sen. Lisa Murkowski (@lisamurkowski) February 10, 2026
Critics of Murkowski say her opposition fits a broader pattern. She has frequently clashed with conservative members of her caucus, voting against party leadership on high-profile issues and positioning herself as an independent voice within the GOP.
The clash highlights a growing divide inside the Republican Party over how far Congress should go in shaping election policy. On one side are lawmakers pushing for stronger federal safeguards. On the other are those wary of centralizing authority — even in pursuit of election integrity.
With Election Day approaching, the debate over who controls election rules — and how — is intensifying. And as usual, Murkowski finds herself squarely in the middle of the storm.
