Latest action: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
Referred to one or more standing committees for review, hearings, and possible markup.
Specific committees not parsed from action data.
The committee may hold hearings, amend the bill, or let it die without action.
Next: Reported
Full chamber floor — Speaker / Majority Leader controls scheduling
Bill aims to improve how states and local areas run elections and keep voting secure.
The problem
Election security varies widely across states and localities. Some areas lack modern voting systems, training, or cybersecurity measures. Concerns exist about election integrity and public confidence.
The proposal
The bill likely establishes security standards, provides funding for election upgrades, requires staff training, and improves coordination between federal and state election officials.
The impact
Election officials, poll workers, state governments, and voters are affected. Changes could improve voting security and consistency while requiring spending and administrative changes.
Better security standards help prevent hacking and fraud. Modern systems and training reduce vulnerabilities. This protects the integrity of elections.
Federal guidelines create similar security levels nationwide. This reduces confusion and weak spots. All states follow the same basic rules.
Improved security measures help voters trust elections are fair. Transparency about improvements reassures the public. This strengthens democracy.
The bill likely provides money to help states upgrade equipment and training. This reduces costs for cash-strapped local governments.
Elections have been run locally and by states for centuries. New federal rules could limit state control over their own elections. Some view this as government overreach.
States and counties must spend money on new systems and training even with federal help. Small rural areas may struggle with expenses. Compliance could strain budgets.
More rules and coordination between levels of government create complexity. This could confuse election workers or delay processes. Implementation challenges may emerge.
Election security often becomes politically divisive. Some parties may oppose certain measures. Implementation could be slowed by disagreements.
Generated by AI from the bill text. Not a prediction and not legal or policy advice. The percentage is the model's own rating of each item — self-reported, and not a measure of how accurate it is.
Loading map…
Loading...
0 citizens have already voted
Free · No spam · See how your representatives voted
Be the first to weigh in
Your vote starts the conversation
How citizen engagement works
Citizens vote & comment
Public opinion data is aggregated and updated in real time.
Patterns become visible
Representatives can see constituent sentiment broken down by district.
Your voice on the record
Contact your rep directly — one constituent call can shift a staffer's priority list.
Research shows that constituent contacts — especially calls — are among the most effective ways to influence a legislator's position on active bills.
Other bills in this policy area
SRES 929
A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate regarding equity stakes held by the Federal Government in private companies.
HR 5235
Skills-Based Federal Contracting Act of 2025
HR 2332
SHARE Act of 2026
HR 9191
National Fossil Act of 2026
Individual contributions, grouped by employer · FEC
Where their individual donors work · 2026 cycle
Money from people who work there, not from the company. Not tied to this bill.
Itemized individual contributions via FEC, grouped by the employer each contributor self-reported. Companies and unions cannot contribute to federal candidates from their treasuries, so these totals are money from people who work at an employer — never from the organization itself. They are campaign contributions covering a full election cycle and are not connected to this bill.
Senate LDA lobbying disclosures
Couldn't load lobbying disclosures right now.