Bill Overview
Title: Sustaining Our Democracy Act
Description: This bill establishes and provides funds through FY2032 for the State Election Assistance and Innovation Trust Fund for purposes of promoting election activities. Specifically, the bill establishes the Democracy Advancement and Innovation Program, through which the Office of Democracy Advancement and Innovation (also established by this bill) shall make allocations to states for carrying out democracy promotion activities. These activities include improving the administration of federal elections, recruiting and training nonpartisan election officials and poll workers, and increasing voting access. The bill requires each state, in order to receive allocated funds, to (1) submit a plan for approval that describes how the state will distribute resources and carry out democracy promotion activities, and (2) establish uniform and nondiscriminatory state-based administrative complaint procedures. The bill prohibits states from using funds for certain activities, including any activity that diminishes the ability of any eligible voter to participate in the electoral process.
Sponsors: Sen. Klobuchar, Amy [D-MN]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals eligible to vote in democratic elections globally
Estimated Size: 260000000
- The bill affects all individuals eligible to vote in federal elections in the United States, as it aims to improve voting access and election administration.
- The population impacted includes potential voters as the bill targets increasing voting engagement through better administration and accessibility.
- Nonpartisan election officials and poll workers will also be directly impacted as the bill includes provisions for their recruitment and training.
Reasoning
- The Sustaining Our Democracy Act impacts individuals eligible to vote in the United States as well as those involved in election administration. Since this policy aims to enhance election activities, nearly everyone eligible to vote or participate in elections will be affected in various ways. The key considerations here are improving voting access, administering elections better, and supporting election workers, which can directly influence individuals' wellbeing by empowering them to engage more fully in the democratic process.
- The policy's funding allocation through FY2032 ensures it has a long-term impact, making sustained improvements in election-related activities. This spread over years encourages consistent support for voting rights and can lead to gradual improvements in civic engagement.
- Given the budget constraints, the policy must maximize its resources by targeting strategic improvements especially in states with lower voter turnout or considerable logistical challenges in election administration.
- The interviews should reflect the diverse impact across different demographics, including marginalized communities who may face greater barriers in voting, as well as election workers who will receive training and support.
Simulated Interviews
retired teacher (Miami, Florida)
Age: 67 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe it's crucial to have a fair voting system that everyone can trust. This policy should help make voting more accessible for many people, especially those who struggle to get to polling places.
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 |
graduate student (Austin, Texas)
Age: 24 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a recent graduate and first-time voter, having easy access to voting information and places is vital. This policy seems like it will make that more possible.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
farm owner (rural Kansas)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We rely on mail-in voting out here, and anything that secures and improves that is welcome. It's important that our voices are heard in federal elections.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
NGO worker (New York City, New York)
Age: 30 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy seems like a good step towards ensuring everyone's voting rights are maintained and improved. The systemic changes it proposes are long overdue.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
high school principal (Los Angeles, California)
Age: 56 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I work to ensure my students understand the importance of voting. This policy could help eliminate some barriers young people face when trying to vote for the first time.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
software engineer (Atlanta, Georgia)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having a chaotic work life, it's not always easy to find time to vote. Anything that could make it simpler and quicker to vote is much appreciated.
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 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
election official (Detroit, Michigan)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improving the administration of elections and having more resources allocated will help us enormously. It's a necessary move to ensure our elections run smoothly and efficiently.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
small business owner (Seattle, Washington)
Age: 62 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Restoring faith in our election processes is crucial. This policy could prove vital in regaining public trust.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
construction worker (Phoenix, Arizona)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Voting access isn't great in some parts of the city. This policy might really help by improving the number of polling places or making voting easier.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
student (Hispanic-majority neighborhood in Chicago)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I want to vote and make my voice heard, but it's intimidating sometimes. This policy makes it sound like there could be more support and resources.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $800000000 (Low: $700000000, High: $900000000)
Year 2: $820000000 (Low: $720000000, High: $920000000)
Year 3: $840000000 (Low: $740000000, High: $940000000)
Year 5: $880000000 (Low: $780000000, High: $980000000)
Year 10: $960000000 (Low: $860000000, High: $1060000000)
Year 100: $1440000000 (Low: $1280000000, High: $1600000000)
Key Considerations
- Ensuring efficient and equitable allocation of funds to states based on population and need.
- Monitoring program implementation to prevent misuse of funds.
- Balancing federal oversight with state autonomy in election management.