Bill Overview
Title: Time Off to Vote Act
Description: This bill requires an employer, upon the request of an employee, to provide the employee with a minimum of two consecutive hours of paid leave in order to vote in a federal election. The employer may determine the two-hour period, excluding any lunch break or other break. Taking such leave shall not result in the employee losing accrued employment benefits. The bill makes it unlawful for an employer to interfere with the right to take such leave or for an employer to discriminate against an employee for taking such leave. Further, the bill makes it unlawful for any employer to retaliate against an employee for (1) opposing any practice made unlawful by this bill; (2) filing a charge, or instituting or causing to be instituted any proceeding, under or related to this bill; or (3) testifying or preparing to testify in an inquiry or proceeding relating to such leave. The bill specifies penalties for employers who violate these provisions.
Sponsors: Rep. Cartwright, Matt [D-PA-8]
Target Audience
Population: Employed individuals eligible to vote in federal elections
Estimated Size: 115000000
- The bill impacts employed individuals, as it provides paid leave to vote.
- The bill's main effect is on employees of voting age who participate in federal elections.
- Data from 2020 suggests there are approximately 160 million registered voters in the USA.
- Not all registered voters will be employed, estimating a subset as the target population based on employment rates.
- According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were approximately 155.2 million employed individuals in 2023.
- Assuming a similar employment rate applies to voters, most employed registered voters will be impacted.
- The global estimate includes employed federal election voters in other democracies following similar practices.
Reasoning
- The Time Off to Vote Act primarily affects employed individuals who are registered voters.
- The American target population is estimated to be about 115 million people, based on employment and voter registration statistics.
- The policy budget restricts impacting all at once. Initial priority may be workplaces with higher concentrations of registered voters or those with longer work hours during polling times.
- Considering varying work environments, shift workers, and those in high-demand election areas (like swing states or urban centers) might experience more significant benefits.
- Not all employees will take time off to vote, given flexibility in work schedules or already voting during personal time. Thus, the impact varies.
Simulated Interviews
Retail Worker (New York, NY)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy would be really beneficial for me, as my retail job often has me working long hours. I sometimes struggle to find time to vote, and this ensures I don't lose any pay to fulfill my civic duty.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Software Engineer (Dallas, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While I appreciate the intent, as someone with a flexible schedule, I usually manage to vote without extra time off. It's more of a nice-to-have for me.
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 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Nurse (Charlotte, NC)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a nurse, it's challenging to leave the hospital during peak election day hours. This policy definitely eases my stress about finding time to vote without penalizing me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Construction Worker (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This makes a big difference for someone like me, who has to travel far for work and start early. It's a relief knowing I won't lose wages for voting.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Barista (Miami, FL)
Age: 26 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's a solid step towards ensuring everyone has the opportunity to vote, even with unpredictable schedules. I'll feel a lot less stressed about missing work.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Warehouse Manager (Chicago, IL)
Age: 41 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Managing a team means I worry about operations when voting. This policy helps me align our schedules and ensures my team doesn’t have to sacrifice pay.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Teacher (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a teacher, it's hard to leave during the day. This policy allows me the opportunity to vote without worrying about my students or taking unpaid time off.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Accountant (Portland, OR)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Voting is critical, and having dedicated time ensures I can participate meaningfully. Thankfully, my employer supports this initiative, which is reassuring.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Factory Worker (Detroit, MI)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This kind of policy is particularly good for laborers who are often barely able to make it to the polls. Knowing our union supports it makes me feel supported.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Administrative Assistant (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our office already supports voting time, but it's good knowing this is a broader legal backing. I like the reassurance, even if it doesn't change much for me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $1725000000 (Low: $1380000000, High: $2070000000)
Year 2: $1725000000 (Low: $1380000000, High: $2070000000)
Year 3: $1725000000 (Low: $1380000000, High: $2070000000)
Year 5: $1725000000 (Low: $1380000000, High: $2070000000)
Year 10: $1725000000 (Low: $1380000000, High: $2070000000)
Year 100: $1725000000 (Low: $1380000000, High: $2070000000)
Key Considerations
- The distribution of costs will vary significantly depending on whether businesses typically accommodate voting during lunch breaks or outside work hours.
- This statutory requirement might encourage broader participation in elections, potentially affecting future legislative landscapes.
- The cost borne by businesses is largely dictated by employee participation rates, which might be hard to predict accurately.