Background

The Freedom to Vote Act (FTVA) is a bill under consideration in the U.S. House of Representatives that would expand protections for voting rights in the United States. The bill was originally introduced in 2019 during the 116th U.S. Congress as the For the People Act (FTPA). After being blocked in the Senate, the FTPA underwent revisions and became the FTVA. Despite these changes, the bill still failed to pass due to the use of a filibuster. Its current iteration remains stuck in committee today.

The FTVA includes an expansive set of provisions that, were the bill to pass, would impact many different components of voter law.

• Expanding ballot access: The bill includes a set of policies that aim to expand ballot access across the United States. These policies would require all 50 states to offer a minimum of two weeks for early voting, establish a standardized vote-by-mail system for all eligible voters, and provide more options for identity confirmation in states with voter ID requirements.

• Expanding voter registration: The bill seeks to expand voter registration options by mandating that all 50 states offer online, automatic, and same-day voter registration. It also introduces a standardized review system for purging voter rolls to ensure eligible voters are not mistakenly removed during post-election voter roll cleanups.

• Addressing election security: The FTVA focuses on enhancing election security by requiring voter-verified paper ballots and creating standard procedures for post-election audits. It would make threatening, intimidating, or coercing election workers a federal crime, and would also safeguard against interference with voters. The bill would create federal grants for the recruitment and training of non-partisan election officials.

• Reforming campaign finance: The FTVA targets campaign finance reform, diminishing the power of super PACs and 501(c)(4) organizations and strengthening the power of the Federal Election Commission (FEC). It aims to eliminate dark money, or funds spent to influence elections that cannot be traced due to the anonymity of a donor, by incorporating provisions from the DISCLOSE Act to increase donor transparency. Additionally, the FTVA seeks to enhance FEC enforcement by requiring a majority vote to dismiss campaign fraud cases early and by extending the statute of limitations for campaign finance crimes from five to 10 years.

• Addressing redistricting: The FTVA offers several policy directives to address redistricting, including a federal prohibition on “mid-decade” redistricting, or the practice of redrawing pre-established district lines using the same census information.  It also aims to ban partisan gerrymandering by defining gerrymandering through statistical analysis and authorizing legal challenges against it. Under the FTVA, states would be required to publish district map proposals, and the data used to create them, for public transparency. 

Arguments in Favor of the FTVA

Supporters of the bill emphasize its role in safeguarding against restrictive voting access laws. 

They highlight the hundreds of state-level bills that aim to impose restrictions on voting access and argue that the FTVA offers a national remedy. Given that many argue strict ID requirements, inconvenient registration options, and limited voting methods disproportionately impact communities of color and disabled people, supporters see the FTVA as crucial for increasing equal access to voting in the U.S..

Proponents also argue that the FTVA could increase trust in the American election system by providing a guardrail against administrative malpractice by state election officials. They hold that election certification has become increasingly political, with multiple election boards attempting to delay or refuse the certification of election results since the 2020 U.S. presidential election. Since the FTVA contains provisions that limit election officials’ ability to interfere with local election administrators, supporters claim that the bill will restore trust in the legitimacy of election results. 

Finally, proponents of the FTVA reject the argument that the bill upsets the power balance between state and federal authority. They point to the Election Clause of the Constitution which gives Congress authority over states’ voting procedures for members of the House and Senate. They argue that this clause allows the FTVA standards to override pre-existing state election standards in the case of federal congressional elections.

Arguments Against the FTVA

Arguments against the bill largely concern the efficacy of its provisions. Both a study by American University in 2008 and a study from the University of Wisconsin found that early voting, a provision of the FTVA, decreased voter turnout. Critics argue that these studies suggest the early voting provisions in the FTVA may hinder rather than encourage voter turnout, making them obsolete. In addition, evidence from Princeton University indicates that making Election Day a federal holiday – another provision of the FTVA – would privilege middle- and upper-class voters. Opponents use this to argue that the FTVA might not promote equal access to voting to the extent its supporters claim. 

Opponents also argue that the FTVA’s provisions encroach on states’ rights, because they would transfer consolidated power over election procedures to the federal government. Given that the states currently have the right to pass their own election laws, critics claim states might lose freedom to control their own election standards if the FTVA were to pass. 

Conclusion

After its reintroduction by Senator Amy Klobuchar in July 2023, the current iteration of the FTVA was referred to committee, where it remains today. Given that support and opposition for the bill run largely along partisan lines, the likelihood of the FTVA being passed likely depends on the composition of future congressional sessions.