For the People Act

The bill would require states to offer same-day voter registration for federal elections[3][2] and to permit voters to make changes to their registration at the polls.[3] It would require states to hold early voting for at least 15 days and would establish automatic voter registration.[3][2] Under the automatic voter registration provision, eligible citizens who provide information to state agencies (including state departments of motor vehicles or public universities) would be automatically registered to vote unless they opt out of doing so.[14] The bill would also expand opportunities to vote by mail and would make Election Day a federal holiday.[14] The bill would require states to offer online voter registration,[3][14] which has already been adopted in 39 states and the District of Columbia;[14] under the bill, states would be required to establish a system to allow applications to be electronically completed, submitted, and received by election officials, and to allow registered voters to electronically update their voter registration information.[14] The bill would make it a criminal offense "to corruptly hinder, interfere with, or prevent another person from registering to vote", would establish criminal penalties for such conduct, and would instruct the Election Assistance Commission to adopt recommendations for states on the prevention of interference with voter registration.[14]

The bill would also authorize 16- and 17-year-olds to pre-register to vote in advance of them becoming 18.[14][15] A proposal by Representative Ayanna Pressley to amend the bill to actually allow 16 year-olds to vote did not succeed.[2] The bill would also prohibit the practice of voter caging[14] and restrict the practicing of voter-roll purges[11] by limiting states' efforts to remove registered voters from the rolls[4] and setting conditions for when they could do so.[3] Specifically, the bill would require states to obtain certain information before removing voters from the rolls, and would prohibit voter purges from taking place less than six months before an election.[14] The bill would also require elections officials to timely notify any voter tagged for removal from the rolls and give them an opportunity to contest the removal or seek reinstatement of their registration.[14] The bill would also restore voting rights to felons who complete prison terms.[2][16]

The bill contains various provisions to promote voting access for individuals with disabilities, as well as for absent military and overseas voters.[14] It would also create a Congressional task force on voting rights in American territories.[14]

The bill contains election security provisions, including a voter verified paper ballot provision mandating the use of paper ballots that can be marked by voters either by hand or with a ballot marking device and inspected by the voter to allow any errors to be corrected before the ballot is cast. The bill would also require state officials to preserve paper ballots for recounts or audits, and to conduct a hand count of ballots for recounts and audits.[14] The bill would require the voting machines used in all federal elections to be manufactured in the U.S.[14]

The bill would introduce voluntary public financing for campaigns, matching small donations at a 6:1 ratio.[11] It also incorporates campaign finance reform provisions from the DISCLOSE Act,[11][17] which would impose stricter limitations on foreign lobbying, require super PACs and other "dark money" organizations to disclose their donors, and restructure the Federal Election Commission to reduce partisan gridlock. The bill expresses support for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United, in which the Supreme Court held that limits on independent political expenditures by corporations, labor unions, and other associations are unconstitutional.[4][18]

The bill would require the president and vice president, as well as presidential and vice-presidential candidates, to publicly disclose their previous 10 years of income tax returns. The bill would also eliminate the use of taxpayer money by members of Congress to settle employment discrimination claims, by requiring members of Congress to reimburse the Treasury for any such payments.[2][4][18][14][lower-alpha 1] Another part of the bill would require the Judicial Conference to establish rules of ethics binding on the Supreme Court of the United States, the only court in the U.S. without a binding canon of judicial ethics.[14][2][4]

The legislation would also set new disclosure rules and limitations on presidential inaugural committees.[15] Inaugural committees would be barred from taking money from corporations; a contribution limit to inaugural committees of $50,000 per person would be imposed (under current law, there is no limit); contributions of more than $1,000 would have to be disclosed within one day; and the use of funds donated to inaugural committees would be restricted only to use for inaugural events and for charitable contributions.[14]

The 2019 version of H.R. 1 made findings in support of admitting the District of Columbia as a state, affirming Congress's power (under the Constitution's Article IV) to create a new state in the populated area that is now D.C., while retaining a separate federal district comprising the Capitol Complex, White House, National Mall, and certain other federal areas.[14] In June 2020, the House approved H.R. 51, a separate piece of legislation that would make the populated portion of the District a state, on a nearly party-line vote; the measure was not taken up in the Republican-controlled Senate.[19]

The bill would thwart gerrymandering by requiring states to use independent commissions to draw congressional district lines,[20] except in the seven states with only one congressional district.[2] Partisan gerrymandering (creating a map that "unduly favor[s] or disfavor[s]" one political party over another) would be prohibited.[14] The legislation would require each commission to have 15 members (five Democrats, five Republicans, and five independents) and would require proposed maps to achieve a majority vote to be accepted, with at least one vote in support from a Democrat, a Republican, and an independent. The bill would require the commissions to draw congressional district lines on a five-party criteria: "(1) population equality, (2) compliance with the Voting Rights Act, (3) compliance with additional racial requirements (no retrogression in, or dilution of, minorities’ electoral influence, including in coalition with other voters), (4) respect for political subdivisions and communities of interest, and (5) no undue advantage for any party."[20]

Under current law, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) has six members, no more than three of whom can be members of the same political party, with at least four votes required for any official FEC action. The complaint is that this has resulted in an impotent and gridlocked FEC, with important reforms left unaddressed, such as the updating of campaign finance law for the digital age[21] and effective regulation of political donations.[22] Some advocates for reform have blamed the Republican FEC members for unwillingness either to investigate any potential violations or to impose tougher restrictions,[23] and for loosening restrictions simply by signaling what standards they are willing to enforce.[24]

The proposed bill would give the FEC five commissioners instead of six, reducing the likelihood of tie votes, and require that no more than two can be members of the same political party. It would set up a "Blue Ribbon Advisory Panel" consisting of an odd number of individuals selected by the president from retired federal judges, former law enforcement officials, or people with experience in election law, except anyone who holds any public office at the time of selection, but the president would not be required to choose from among those recommended by the panel. Some observers claim that there would be no built-in benefit for either party.[25]

The legislation is broadly supported by Democrats,[26] civil rights organizations[27] such as the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights (which includes the AFL-CIO, Common Cause, NAACP, Sierra Club, Center for Constitutional Rights, and others),[28] the League of Women Voters,[29] the Brennan Center for Justice,[30] the League of Conservation Voters,[31] and liberal political commentators.[32][33][34][35] The editorial boards of the New York Times and the Washington Post support the bill, with the former saying it would "make the American political system more accessible and accountable to the American people" and "put an end to at least some of the vile voter suppression practices that Republicans have embraced in recent years."[36][37]

In early February 2019, a video of House Representative Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (D-NY) at an H.R. 1 hearing, in which she criticized existing campaign finance law, received over 40 million views.[38] At a March 2019 news conference before the House of Representatives passed the bill, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said that the bill would "restore the people's faith that government works for the public interest, the people's interests, not the special interests".[38]

The legislation is opposed by Republican officials,[39][40][41] conservative organizations like the Heritage Foundation,[42] and conservative political commentators.[43][44][45] In 2019, then-Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell issued a statement criticizing the bill as a "one-sided power grab" by the Democratic Party and said that the bill would not pass the Republican-controlled Senate.[46] McConnell further criticized it for giving the federal government more power over elections, saying it would "[give] Washington D.C. politicians even more control over who gets to come here [Congress] in the first place."[46] On March 6, 2019, he told journalists that he would not allow the bill a vote on the Senate floor.[12] The Donald Trump White House issued a statement arguing that the bill would "micromanage" elections that are run largely by states and would establish "costly and unnecessary program to finance political campaigns".[47] The Wall Street Journal editorial board opposes the bill, contending that it was "designed to auto-enroll likely Democratic voters, enhance Democratic turnout, with no concern for ballot integrity".[44] U.S. Representative Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) falsely claimed in 2019 that the bill would "legalize" the type of fraud seen in North Carolina in 2018.[48]

The American Civil Liberties Union issued a statement opposing the version of the bill reported out of the House Administration Committee in 2019, stating that while "there are many provisions of H.R. 1 that we strongly support and have long championed" the ACLU believed the bill contained "provisions that unconstitutionally impinge on the free speech rights of American citizens and public interest organizations", particularly those that require organizations that engage in campaign-related disbursements to disclose the names and addresses of donors who give $10,000 or more.[49]