Policy Impact Analysis - 117/HR/8517

Bill Overview

Title: COCOA Act of 2022

Description: This bill requires states to provide designated congressional election observers with full access to observe the administration procedures of federal elections. The bill prohibits such an observer from handling ballots or elections equipment, advocating for a position or candidate, taking any action to reduce ballot secrecy, or otherwise interfering with the elections administration process. Designated congressional election observer refers to an individual who is designated in writing by specified congressional committees to gather information with respect to an election, including in the event that the election is contested in the House of Representatives or the Senate and for other purposes permitted by Article I, Section 5 of the U.S. Constitution.

Sponsors: Rep. Steil, Bryan [R-WI-1]

Target Audience

Population: People eligible to participate in U.S. federal elections

Estimated Size: 239000000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Election Official (Dallas, TX)

Age: 45 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 2.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Having designated observers could improve the credibility of elections.
  • I worry about possible disruptions with the increased number of observers.

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 7 6
Year 20 6 5

Retired (Atlanta, GA)

Age: 60 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 14/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Having official observers might make me feel more confident about election results.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 6 6
Year 5 6 6
Year 10 6 5
Year 20 5 4

Poll Volunteer (Portland, OR)

Age: 30 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 12/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Observers could help reduce inconsistencies I've seen before.
  • I hope they know how to respectfully observe without interrupting.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 7 5
Year 5 6 5
Year 10 6 4
Year 20 5 4

College Student (Chicago, IL)

Age: 22 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 18/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • It's essential to have transparency in elections; it boosts my trust in democracy.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 8
Year 2 8 8
Year 3 8 7
Year 5 8 7
Year 10 8 6
Year 20 7 5

Lawyer (Miami, FL)

Age: 55 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Access for observers could minimize disputes by providing transparency.
  • The key is ensuring observers don't interfere with fair process.

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 7 6
Year 10 7 6
Year 20 6 5

Elementary School Teacher (Rural Kansas)

Age: 35 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 15/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Any additional oversight seems good if it doesn't affect voting ease.
  • Observers from DC might not understand local voting issues.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 5
Year 2 6 5
Year 3 5 5
Year 5 5 4
Year 10 5 4
Year 20 5 3

Software Developer (Phoenix, AZ)

Age: 40 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 12/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Enhanced election observation could help secure elections better.
  • Observers should ideally have tech-savvy knowledge to be effective.

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 6
Year 10 7 6
Year 20 7 5

Retired Teacher (Brooklyn, NY)

Age: 75 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 2.0 years

Commonness: 13/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • More transparency is always better, but integrity and respect must be maintained.
  • Removing interference is key to trust.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 6 6
Year 3 6 6
Year 5 6 5
Year 10 5 5
Year 20 5 4

Journalist (San Francisco, CA)

Age: 50 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 7.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This could lead to greater public discourse on election fairness.
  • Critical to ensure observer impartiality.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 7
Year 2 8 7
Year 3 7 6
Year 5 7 6
Year 10 7 5
Year 20 6 4

Activist (Austin, TX)

Age: 28 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 9/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Observers could play a role in identifying and preventing voter suppression.
  • Worried about observer bias and overreach.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 5
Year 2 6 5
Year 3 6 4
Year 5 5 4
Year 10 5 4
Year 20 4 3

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $30000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $40000000)

Year 2: $30000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $40000000)

Year 3: $30000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $40000000)

Year 5: $30000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $45000000)

Year 10: $30000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $50000000)

Year 100: $30000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $50000000)

Key Considerations