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: Sen. Cruz, Ted [R-TX]
Target Audience
Population: Voters in federal elections worldwide
Estimated Size: 170000000
- The SERVIS Act aims to impact individuals participating in federal elections, potentially capping this number at the total voting-age population.
- The act is specific to whether states can impose requirements related to COVID-19 vaccination status and masking at polls, which impacts people intending to vote.
- The act affects voters, a portion of each country's population, specifically countries holding federal elections with similar legislation.
- Recent data indicates that COVID-19 vaccination remains a public concern, so this act pertains to many interested in COVID-19 restrictions and election accessibility passages.
Reasoning
- The policy targets voters who potentially face barriers due to COVID-19-related health safety measures at polling places. Considering the usual voting population, the impact will vary across different demographics based on attitudes towards vaccination and masking.
- Not all voters will be affected by this policy. People indifferent to masking and vaccination requirements might not perceive any change in wellbeing.
- The policy may positively impact those who feel disenfranchised by current measures, such as those opposed to vaccine passports or uncomfortable with mask mandates.
- Respect for individual privacy regarding health matters can enhance feelings of autonomy and respect among the voters, potentially improving their wellbeing.
Simulated Interviews
Software Developer (Austin, Texas)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I value my personal freedom and believe these requirements are an overreach.
- This act respects personal choice, which is essential during elections.
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 |
Retired (Miami, Florida)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I understand the need for safety, but no one should be forced to disclose medical information.
- This may ease tensions and improve turnout.
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 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Nurse (San Francisco, California)
Age: 35 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry about the health of others, removing these requirements might be unsafe.
- Voting is important, but so is public safety.
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 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Factory Worker (Rural Ohio)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I haven't been able to vote comfortably in some elections due to these restrictions.
- I feel my rights are being respected with this act.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Graduate Student (Boston, Massachusetts)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This change is concerning from a health perspective, but increases accessibility should be balanced with safety.
- Maintaining safety protocols should remain paramount.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Homemaker (Phoenix, Arizona)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I find all these restrictions too much to handle when I just want to exercise my right to vote.
- This policy helps bring balance and relief.
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 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Small Business Owner (Chicago, Illinois)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- COVID restrictions have impacted my business and voting seemed another area of control.
- This act helps in stepping back from unnecessary controls.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Retired Teacher (Atlanta, Georgia)
Age: 70 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy makes voting feel more inclusive and accessible, particularly for those uncomfortable with certain health mandates.
- Feeling freer at polling stations will be nice.
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 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
College Student (Portland, Oregon)
Age: 19 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm excited to vote, but find mandates make things more difficult than they need to be.
- Simplifying the process is beneficial. This policy sounds good.
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 |
Freelance Artist (Denver, Colorado)
Age: 33 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This seems like a sensible reform, but my overall electoral engagement won't change much.
- It's good to consider the needs of non-majority viewpoints.
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 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $8500000 (Low: $7000000, High: $10000000)
Year 2: $8500000 (Low: $7000000, High: $10000000)
Year 3: $8500000 (Low: $7000000, High: $10000000)
Year 5: $8500000 (Low: $7000000, High: $10000000)
Year 10: $8500000 (Low: $7000000, High: $10000000)
Year 100: $8500000 (Low: $7000000, High: $10000000)
Key Considerations
- The cost of mask provision relates directly to voter turnout, estimated at $1 per voter.
- The act may trigger lawsuits or challenges around voting access, potentially extending costs beyond statutory appeals.
- State budgets may face adjustments, particularly in alignment of state and federal laws, but these do not directly change federal expenditure.
- The act's federal expenditure impact is chiefly administrative and enforcement based.