Policy Impact Analysis - 117/S/3969

Bill Overview

Title: Protection and Advocacy for Voting Access Program Inclusion Act

Description: This bill authorizes the Department of Health and Human Services to distribute Protection and Advocacy for Voting Access (PAVA) program grants to the protection and advocacy systems of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and the American Indian consortium.

Sponsors: Sen. Lujan, Ben Ray [D-NM]

Target Audience

Population: Individuals with disabilities in CNMI and American Indian consortium areas

Estimated Size: 600000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Community Advocate (Navajo Nation, Arizona)

Age: 45 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I see this policy as a vital step towards ensuring that all voices in our community are heard.
  • Access to voting should be a right, and the resources are much needed here.

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

Teacher (Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands)

Age: 32 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 2/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy could bring much-needed support to our islands, making sure everyone can vote regardless of their physical abilities.
  • I expect an improvement in our community's participation in elections.

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 8 5
Year 20 8 5

Retired (Minneapolis, Minnesota)

Age: 60 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 4

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I think it's good they are finally recognizing the need for better voting support in marginalized communities.
  • For elders like me, these resources mean we can be more active in decision-making.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Policy Analyst (Los Angeles, California)

Age: 28 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy is essential for creating equal voting conditions across the board.
  • I'm hopeful it will empower indigenous communities which are often sidelined.

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

Social Worker (Tulsa, Oklahoma)

Age: 53 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm optimistic that this policy will bridge gaps in voting accessibility we've long struggled with.
  • Support for advocacy in these areas is much needed.

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 9 6
Year 10 9 6
Year 20 9 6

Retired Fisherman (Anchorage, Alaska)

Age: 67 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 8.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • We need more programs like this to support our basic rights.
  • I hope this funding finally makes its way to the right places.

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 8 5
Year 20 8 5

Student (Juneau, Alaska)

Age: 25 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy will be a game-changer for our communities, especially for young voters.
  • It shows that our voices matter in the grand political landscape.

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

Business Owner (Phoenix, Arizona)

Age: 40 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 7.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy is certainly a positive move to enhance our communities’ civic engagement.
  • Access to voting is crucial, and this can definitely aid in uplifting native voices.

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

Artist (Santa Fe, New Mexico)

Age: 50 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This act addresses essential voting barriers we face here.
  • I believe it represents a commitment to equitable access to democracy.

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

Software Developer (Seattle, Washington)

Age: 38 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 4.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • While I'm not in the direct target group, I see the broader impact this can have on promoting inclusive voting practices.
  • It's a step forward for accessibility rights.

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: $750000 (Low: $500000, High: $1000000)

Year 2: $600000 (Low: $400000, High: $800000)

Year 3: $600000 (Low: $400000, High: $800000)

Year 5: $600000 (Low: $400000, High: $800000)

Year 10: $600000 (Low: $400000, High: $800000)

Year 100: $600000 (Low: $400000, High: $800000)

Key Considerations