Bill Overview
Title: People Over Long Lines Act (POLL Act)
Description: This bill sets forth provisions related to voting and the administration of federal elections. Specifically, the bill requires states to ensure that voters wait no more than 30 minutes at any polling place to cast their vote in a federal election, establishes a private right of action for voters who experience longer waiting times, and directs the Election Assistance Commission to make payments to eligible states to prevent unreasonable waiting times. Next, the bill requires each state to provide for the minimum required number of voting systems, poll workers, and other election resources for each polling location on the day of any federal election and each day of early voting. The Department of Justice must issue uniform standards regarding the minimum number and distribution of such systems, workers, and other resources. The bill also prohibits a chief state election administration official from taking an active part in political management or in a political campaign with respect to any federal election over which the official has supervisory authority, with certain exceptions.
Sponsors: Rep. Williams, Nikema [D-GA-5]
Target Audience
Population: People voting in federal elections around the world
Estimated Size: 168000000
- The bill targets voters in federal elections, which include a significant portion of the adult population of each country conducting such elections.
- Voter turnout in federal elections varies by country, but in democratic nations, it often ranges between 50% to 80% of eligible voters.
- The bill specifically affects voters who encounter long lines at polling stations or who could be deterred from voting due to anticipated long wait times.
- All registered voters participating or intending to participate in federal elections are direct stakeholders, as their ability to vote without long delays is impacted.
- The legislation also impacts election officials responsible for the administration and staffing of polling places.
Reasoning
- The target population of this policy is registered voters in the United States, particularly those who have experienced long lines in past federal elections. Such voters are likely to benefit from the reduction of wait times, thus improving their voting experience and possibly their perception of civic engagement.
- The budget needs to be allocated efficiently to have a noticeable impact, hence focusing on states and districts historically known for longer wait times, particularly those with higher population densities and insufficient polling resources, will be critical.
- The diverse range of socio-economic backgrounds among voters means the impact of the policy will vary. While some voters may see a direct improvement in their voting experience and hence in their reported well-being, others who do not typically face such challenges might perceive no impact.
Simulated Interviews
Teacher (Atlanta, Georgia)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hopeful this policy will make voting less stressful. Waiting for hours isn't easy when you have kids and work to manage.
- I've always valued voting, but it becomes a hassle given the current line situation in my precinct.
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 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Farmer (Des Moines, Iowa)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't have issues with voting lines here, so this policy doesn't affect me.
- It's good for those in big cities, 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 | 8 | 8 |
Software Developer (Phoenix, Arizona)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Anything that streamlines voting is a plus. Long lines deter a lot of people.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Graduate Student (Austin, Texas)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Voting can be time-consuming, which is problematic during exams or work commitments.
- Reducing lines would be a relief for students like myself.
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 | 9 | 5 |
Retired (Rural Ohio)
Age: 61 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've never had to wait long, so I don't think this will change much for me.
- Seems targeted at urban areas where wait times are problematic.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Nurse (Boston, Massachusetts)
Age: 47 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Ensuring quicker votes would help me greatly, given my shift work.
- Looking forward to less stress on election days.
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 |
Retail Worker (Los Angeles, California)
Age: 22 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Long lines made voting frustrating. As a young voter, it felt discouraging.
- This policy would definitely encourage me to vote again.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Entrepreneur (Houston, Texas)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Waiting for hours affects my business schedule, so reducing lines would be beneficial.
- Hope this policy will help balance demands of civic duty with professional commitments.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Public Servant (Minneapolis, Minnesota)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a smart policy, long overdue.
- Should make voting fairer and more accessible for all, not just those with flexible schedules.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Journalist (New York, New York)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Streamlining the voting process can help enhance trust in the system.
- Urban centers desperately need this reform. Watching it implemented will be key.
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 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $500000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $600000000)
Year 2: $515000000 (Low: $410000000, High: $620000000)
Year 3: $530450000 (Low: $422300000, High: $638600000)
Year 5: $561622750 (Low: $446400000, High: $675058000)
Year 10: $635897891 (Low: $505400000, High: $764500000)
Year 100: $1500000000 (Low: $1200000000, High: $1800000000)
Key Considerations
- Implementation of standards and requirements will require interagency coordination and state cooperation.
- Potential legal challenges given the private right of action could influence costs.
- Addressing logistical and financial disparities among states to ensure uniform application of the act’s requirements.
- Long-term benefits include increased voter confidence and participation.