Referred to the House Committee on House Administration.
The bill amends the Help America Vote Act to bar States from soliciting, receiving, or spending payments, property, or personal services from private entities for administering Federal elections. The prohibition covers programs including voter education, outreach, and registration, but explicitly allows accepting donated space for polling places or early voting sites.
Liberals worry about reduced voter outreach and access
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly imposes a statutory prohibition on States receiving or using most private-sector funds, property, or services for Federal election administration and integrates that prohibition into HAVA.
The bill amends the Help America Vote Act to bar States from soliciting, receiving, or spending payments, property, or personal services from private entities for administering Federal elections.
The prohibition covers programs including voter education, outreach, and registration, but explicitly allows accepting donated space for polling places or early voting sites.
It updates statutory cross‑references and takes effect for Federal elections held after enactment.
Narrow but politically sensitive restriction lacking funding offsets and bipartisan compromise lowers chances despite straightforward drafting.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly imposes a statutory prohibition on States receiving or using most private-sector funds, property, or services for Federal election administration and integrates that prohibition into HAVA. It includes a single narrow exception (donation of space) and an effective date.
Liberals worry about reduced voter outreach and access
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Liberals worry about reduced voter outreach and access
Skeptical and cautious.
Supports limiting private partisan influence, but worries the ban will reduce nonpartisan voter assistance and harm underfunded local election operations.
Wants clear safeguards and federal backfill funding before supporting implementation.
Pragmatic and mixed.
Approves the goal of preventing outside influence in election administration but is concerned about operational impacts and unfunded gaps.
Would favor the bill if accompanied by funding and clearer definitions to avoid unintended consequences.
Generally supportive.
Sees the prohibition as protecting election integrity and public responsibility for administering federal elections rather than private actors.
May still note administrative costs but prioritizes removing private influence, especially partisan philanthropy.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow but politically sensitive restriction lacking funding offsets and bipartisan compromise lowers chances despite straightforward drafting.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberals worry about reduced voter outreach and access
Narrow but politically sensitive restriction lacking funding offsets and bipartisan compromise lowers chances despite straightforward draft…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly imposes a statutory prohibition on States receiving or using most private-sector funds, property, or services for Federal election administration and integrat…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.