S-4203-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
Sponsored by Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
What it does
This bill would require states to offer online voter registration, automatic voter registration, same-day registration, and pre-registration for individuals under 18. It would restrict the removal of voters from voter rolls, prohibit voter caging, and require states to allow early voting and no-excuse voting by mail with secured drop boxes. The bill would restore federal voting rights to individuals convicted of a felony once they are no longer serving a felony sentence, and would permanently reauthorize the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), directing it to make grants to states for implementation.
Who benefits
Eligible voters who currently lack access to online or automatic registration, particularly younger, lower-income, and less mobile voters. Voters with disabilities who would gain expanded absentee access. Individuals with past felony convictions who have completed their sentences and would regain federal voting rights. States that would receive EAC grants to offset implementation costs. Election administrators who would have clearer federal standards. Advocacy organizations focused on voter participation.
Who is hurt
State governments that would lose discretion over their own election administration systems and face compliance costs beyond what EAC grants cover. Election officials in states with existing stricter registration and voting rules who would need to overhaul systems. Taxpayers who would fund EAC grants and state implementation. Voters and officials who support existing voter roll maintenance practices as a safeguard against inaccurate rolls. Private mail carriers and vendors whose voter-caging-adjacent data services could be curtailed.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the United States has one of the lowest voter participation rates among developed democracies, and that administrative barriers — not lack of interest — are a primary cause. They contend that automatic and same-day registration have been shown in states like Oregon and Colorado to significantly increase registration rates without measurable increases in fraud, and that restoring voting rights to people who have served their sentences reflects the principle that civic reintegration follows completion of a criminal penalty.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that election administration is a core state function under the Constitution's Elections Clause (Art. I, §4), and that imposing uniform federal mandates displaces legitimate state choices about ballot security and roll accuracy. They contend that removing restrictions on voter roll maintenance — such as caging and purge procedures — could allow inaccurate rolls to accumulate, and that same-day registration leaves insufficient time to verify eligibility, citing concerns raised by election officials in states that have resisted these changes.
Constitutional context
The Elections Clause (Art. I, §4) gives Congress authority to regulate the "time, place, and manner" of federal elections, which the Supreme Court has interpreted broadly. However, the Tenth Amendment and anti-commandeering doctrine (as reinforced in Murphy v. NCAA, 2018) raise questions about whether Congress can compel states to administer federal election mandates using state resources and personnel, rather than simply preempting conflicting state law.
Checks and balances
Congress would gain significant authority over state election administration for federal elections; the EAC would gain expanded grant-making and standard-setting power; states retain authority over non-federal elections but would face federal mandates for federal races, subject to judicial review.
Historical precedent
The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (the "Motor Voter" law) similarly imposed federal voter registration mandates on states for federal elections, including mail-in registration and registration at motor vehicle agencies, and survived constitutional challenge.