S-4659-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
Sponsored by Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)
What it does
The bill would appropriate $20,000,000 to the Election Assistance Commission for extra payments to eligible States, on top of the 2026 election security grants. A State is eligible only if it got a fiscal year 2026 election security grant and signs a written agreement with the Secretary of Homeland Security. Under that agreement, it must give DHS its complete official list of registered voters for federal office at least quarterly after September 30, 2026, to be checked through the SAVE system to identify non-citizens. Each State's payment would be no more than 10 percent of its 2026 grant, and the money is for improving election administration, including election technology and security.
Who benefits
States that already received 2026 election security grants and choose to sign the DHS agreement, which could receive up to 10 percent more. State and local election offices that could use the funds for technology and security upgrades. Federal officials and voters who want more frequent non-citizen checks of voter rolls, and DHS, which would gain regular access to state voter lists.
Who is hurt
States that decline to share full voter lists with DHS, which would not get the added funds. Registered voters whose personal information would be shared with a federal agency quarterly, and eligible citizens who could be wrongly flagged by database matches and have to prove citizenship. State election officials who would bear the costs and work of regular data transfers and of resolving flagged records. Taxpayers, since the $20 million is new spending.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue the bill uses a voluntary incentive, not a mandate, to encourage States to check rolls against a federal citizenship-verification tool, and that only States that opt in receive funds. They contend that regular checks help ensure only citizens are on voter rolls, that the capped 10 percent bonus is modest and targeted, and that the money also pays for technology and security upgrades that benefit election administration in participating States.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue the bill pressures States to hand sensitive voter data to a federal immigration-related agency, and that States have traditionally run elections under the Elections Clause. They contend that matching entire voter lists against SAVE can produce false flags on eligible citizens, that quarterly transfers raise privacy and security concerns, and that tying election funds to data sharing could deter participation or burden local officials.
Constitutional context
Congress may attach conditions to federal funds under the Spending Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 1), and South Dakota v. Dole (1987) allows such conditions if they are unambiguous, related to the federal interest, and not coercive; NFIB v. Sebelius (2012) limits coercive funding conditions. States run federal elections under the Elections Clause (Art. I, §4), and Congress may regulate them, which is relevant to how far DHS data sharing can be encouraged. Because participation is voluntary and the amount is capped at 10 percent of an existing grant, a coercion challenge would face a difficult argument.
Checks and balances
Congress appropriates the money and sets the condition; the Election Assistance Commission distributes it and DHS administers the agreements and SAVE checks, with States able to decline and courts available to review spending-condition challenges.
Historical precedent
Congress has previously funded election security grants to States through the Help America Vote Act of 2002 and later appropriations, but I am not certain of a directly analogous law tying such grants to voter-list sharing with DHS.