Bill Overview
Title: SERVIS Act
Description: This bill prohibits requiring voters to present vaccine passports or other information regarding their COVID-19 vaccination status, and also restricts masking requirements, for voting in federal elections. Specifically, the bill makes it unlawful for any state or political subdivision to require a voter to present a vaccine passport or other information regarding the voter's COVID-19 vaccination status. Further, a state or political subdivision may require a voter to wear a mask in order to enter a polling location only under certain circumstances. In particular, the state or political subdivision must (1) make masks readily available and at no cost to the voter and to an individual who accompanies the voter, and (2) provide reasonable accommodation from such masking requirement to an individual with a disability.
Sponsors: Rep. Bishop, Dan [R-NC-9]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals eligible to vote in federal elections
Estimated Size: 258000000
- This bill directly affects individuals who are eligible and wish to vote in federal elections, as it outlines conditions related to voting requirements.
- The key group impacted is voters who may not have a COVID-19 vaccine passport or do not wish to disclose their vaccination status.
- The legislation also impacts voters who either are unable or unwilling to wear masks for various reasons, including medical disabilities.
- By removing the vaccine passport requirement and limiting mask requirements, it addresses all registered voters' ability to participate in elections without these specific restrictions.
- The bill targets all voting-age individuals, as federal elections include all eligible voters.
Reasoning
- The SERVIS Act impacts a large segment of the population by removing barriers for those who are unvaccinated or unwilling to disclose vaccination status when voting in federal elections.
- There are substantial portions of voters who are currently unvaccinated or oppose mask mandates, and this policy particularly targets their needs, enhancing their ability to vote without restrictions.
- The financial allocation suggests a focus on implementation logistics like providing masks and ensuring compliance across various polling locations.
- Despite a large population being eligible to vote, not all will be directly affected by changes to vaccination status requirements as many are vaccinated or indifferent to these requirements.
- The policy's budget spread over ten years indicates intent for a sustained effort to manage voting access related to health protocols.
- This measure mainly concerns those who opted out of vaccination and those with mask-related concerns, though indirectly it reassures all voters about their rights irrespective of health status disclosures.
Simulated Interviews
Teacher (Austin, TX)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this policy is a good step in ensuring everyone feels welcome and safe to vote.
- Personally, I'm vaccinated and don't mind wearing a mask, but I understand not everyone can or wants to go through these things.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Farmer (Rural Alabama)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't need the government telling me I have to show papers or wear a mask just to vote.
- This policy feels like it respects my personal freedom.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Student (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 22 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy isn't necessary here as most people are vaccinated and okay with masks.
- I appreciate the focus on rights and accessibility though.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Healthcare worker (Chicago, IL)
Age: 56 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Stripping away requirements could endanger public health at polling stations.
- Voting access is important, but safety shouldn't be compromised.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Small business owner (Miami, FL)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- With this policy in place, I feel more willing to exercise my right to vote.
- Glad to see some resistance to vaccination cards and mask mandates.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Freelance writer (New York, NY)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't have issues with showing my vaccination status, but I understand how this helps others.
- Content that mask provision is included.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Retired (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 63 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Masks make it hard for me to breathe; I am relieved to see accommodations for disabilities.
- This policy acknowledges the challenge for those like me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Tech Engineer (Seattle, WA)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 17/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While I understand ensuring voter rights, it feels like a step backward health-wise.
- I appreciate the emphasis on disability accommodations though.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Construction worker (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It feels right that this kind of policy comes into play, protecting personal choice.
- Voting is too important to have these constraints; I'm grateful.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Non-profit Director (Denver, CO)
Age: 41 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I understand the need to reduce barriers, but health should still be a priority.
- Hoping this encourages more people to participate in elections safely.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 2: $30000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $50000000)
Year 3: $25000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $40000000)
Year 5: $20000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $35000000)
Year 10: $20000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $35000000)
Year 100: $20000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $35000000)
Key Considerations
- The policy ensures all eligible voters can participate in elections without needing to present vaccine-related documentation.
- State and local governments will bear most of the cost of compliance, potentially diverting resources from other voting administration tasks.
- Minimal fiscal impact at the federal level due to the primary responsibility on states for implementing changes.