HR-9368-119
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 653.
Sponsored by Bryan Steil (R-WI)
What it does
This bill would amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to require voters in federal elections to present a valid photo ID before casting a ballot in person. Voters without ID could cast a provisional ballot but would have 3 days to present valid ID or a religious-objection affidavit for it to count. For mail and absentee voters, the bill would require a copy of a valid photo ID or, alternatively, the last four digits of a Social Security number plus an affidavit attesting inability to obtain ID. The bill also establishes a federal grant program to reimburse states and tribal governments that provide free photo IDs to individuals who attest they cannot afford one, and requires states to notify voter registration applicants of the ID requirement.
Who benefits
Election officials and jurisdictions that already have photo ID laws, who would gain a uniform federal standard. Voters in states without existing ID laws who prefer a consistent national requirement. Tribal governments, which would receive federal grants to issue free tribal photo IDs. Low-income individuals in participating states and tribes, who would receive free IDs under the grant program. Supporters of stricter ballot integrity measures broadly.
Who is hurt
Voters who currently lack qualifying photo ID — estimated by studies to include 11% of U.S. citizens, disproportionately elderly, low-income, minority, and rural voters. States with more permissive ID laws, which would face new federal mandates and implementation costs. Election administrators in all states, who would need to update systems, train staff, and manage provisional ballot processing within a 90-day window. Mail and absentee voters who lack photo ID and may not qualify for the SSN affidavit alternative. Individuals with disabilities who are not covered by the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act exception. Voters in states that do not participate in the grant program, who may still face costs to obtain qualifying ID.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that photo ID is a widely accepted, common-sense safeguard that 35 states already require in some form, and that a uniform federal standard would close inconsistencies across state lines. They contend that the bill's free ID grant program and affidavit alternatives directly address concerns about voter disenfranchisement, ensuring that cost is not a barrier. Supporters also point to polling data consistently showing that large majorities of Americans — including majorities across racial and income groups — support photo ID requirements, and argue that the bill strengthens public confidence in federal election integrity.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that in-person voter fraud — the specific threat photo ID addresses — is empirically rare, with studies finding it occurs at rates of less than 0.0001%, meaning the burden falls primarily on legitimate voters rather than bad actors. They contend that the 11% of eligible voters who lack qualifying photo ID, disproportionately Black, Latino, elderly, and low-income citizens, would face a real risk of disenfranchisement, and that affidavit and provisional ballot workarounds create procedural hurdles that suppress turnout among these groups. Opponents further argue that the 90-day implementation timeline is insufficient for states to build compliant systems without disrupting upcoming elections.
Constitutional context
Congress has broad authority to regulate federal elections under Article I, Section 4 (the Elections Clause) and has previously used the Help America Vote Act to set uniform federal voting standards. However, the bill's mandate on state election administration raises Tenth Amendment questions about federal commandeering of state officials, and the grant program structure — conditioning federal funds on states providing free IDs — echoes the spending power framework from South Dakota v. Dole (1987). Neither the Commerce Clause nor the active post-Loper Bright agency authority cases are directly implicated, as this bill sets statutory requirements directly rather than delegating rulemaking to an agency.
Checks and balances
Congress gains authority over federal election procedures; states retain administration of elections but must comply with new federal ID mandates; the Election Assistance Commission issues grants and voluntary guidance; federal courts would review challenges under the Elections Clause, Tenth Amendment, and potentially the 24th Amendment's prohibition on poll taxes if ID costs are at issue.
Historical precedent
The Supreme Court upheld Indiana's photo ID law in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (2008), finding the state's interest in election integrity sufficient to justify the burden, though the Court left open challenges by voters who could demonstrate specific hardship.