Bill Overview
Title: No Federal Funds for Ballot Harvesting Act
Description: This bill requires each state, in order to receive federal funds for election administration, to prohibit the knowing collection and transmission of a ballot in a federal election that was mailed to another person (commonly referred to as ballot harvesting), with exceptions.
Sponsors: Rep. Davis, Rodney [R-IL-13]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals participating in electoral processes globally, including voters and election workers, in nations with postal voting systems
Estimated Size: 158000000
- The bill primarily affects those involved in the electoral process, specifically in the collection and submission of ballots.
- All registered voters in the United States could be impacted by changes in how ballots are collected and transmitted, especially absentee or mail-in voters.
- Election officials and workers in states who would need to comply with new regulations to continue receiving federal funds.
- Organizations and individuals currently engaged in ballot harvesting practices may be directly impacted.
- Overall electoral participation might be affected depending on how this changes access to voting.
Reasoning
- Registered voters who rely on mail-in voting may see changes in their accessibility to voting, especially if they are dependent on others to collect and submit ballots for them.
- Election officials will have to adapt to the new regulations to ensure their states can still receive federal funding, which could include increased resource allocations towards compliance.
- Considering the diverse landscape of voting practices, the majority of voters may not be directly impacted, especially if they do not participate in mail-in voting.
- The policy may have a positive effect on perceived election integrity for some voters who are concerned about ballot harvesting, potentially increasing their wellbeing scores.
- The financial budget will be prioritized towards ensuring states adhere to compliance standards and alleviating any logistical challenges this imposes on election processes.
Simulated Interviews
Retired (Florida)
Age: 79 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried that this policy might make it harder for me to vote. I can't usually get to the polling stations, so I rely on my neighbor to help submit my ballot.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Software Engineer (California)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think it might make mail-in voting slightly less convenient, but if it improves the integrity of the voting process, maybe it's worth it.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Election Official (Texas)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This will increase our workload significantly as we must ensure compliance to continue receiving funding. It's necessary but will require major adjustments.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Non-profit Worker (Georgia)
Age: 58 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a challenge for our efforts to ensure everyone can vote, especially those who can't deliver ballots themselves.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Graduate Student (New York)
Age: 27 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry this could disenfranchise voters who need assistance the most. It could deter participation which we need more of, not less.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Retired Military (Ohio)
Age: 67 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe this policy is crucial for protecting our election integrity. We need to make sure our voting system isn't abused.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Homemaker (Nebraska)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried this policy will make it difficult for us to help community members who can't drive to submit their ballots.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
College Student (Colorado)
Age: 23 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It might make things a bit harder for people like me who don't live at home, but I hope there's some flexibility for students.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
School Teacher (Wisconsin)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Teaching my students the importance of voter access is crucial. This policy seems like a barrier to voting, particularly for vulnerable groups.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Small Business Owner (Nevada)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I usually vote in person, so this policy won't impact me directly. I just hope it doesn't reduce overall voter turnout.
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 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $150000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $200000000)
Year 2: $150000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $200000000)
Year 3: $150000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $200000000)
Year 5: $150000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $200000000)
Year 10: $150000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $200000000)
Year 100: $150000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $200000000)
Key Considerations
- Different state compliance levels will determine the financial impact on their election funding.
- Monitoring and enforcement measures need to be factored into cost estimates.
- States might seek alternative funding mechanisms if federal funds are reduced, altering the impact assessment.
- Potential opposition from stakeholders engaged in ballot harvesting activities could affect implementation.