Bill Overview
Title: Save Voters Act
Description: This bill prohibits a state from removing registrants from the official list of eligible voters unless it meets certain verification and notice requirements. Specifically, the bill prohibits a state from removing a registrant from the official list of eligible voters unless it verifies, on the basis of objective and reliable evidence, that the registrant is ineligible to vote in federal elections. Further, a state is prohibited from considering failure to vote in an election or failure to respond to any election mail as evidence of ineligibility to vote. Additionally, the bill requires a state to provide individual registrants who are removed with a notice, which must include the grounds for the removal and information on contesting the removal. Public notice must be provided after conducting any general program to remove the names of ineligible voters.
Sponsors: Sen. Klobuchar, Amy [D-MN]
Target Audience
Population: Eligible voters globally
Estimated Size: 260000000
- The bill is aimed at preventing eligible voters from being improperly removed from voting lists, which implies it affects all eligible voters in the United States.
- According to the United States Election Project, there are over 230 million eligible voters in the US as of 2021.
- Voter rolls need constant maintenance, and states often update their lists; thus, any eligible voter could potentially be wrongly removed under current practices without such legislation.
- The law affects the processes within state governments, but the direct impact concerns individual citizens whose voting rights could be incorrectly revoked without proper legislation.
- Since the bill establishes standards based on eligibility verification and mandatory notifications, it aims to protect every registered voter from wrongful disenfranchisement.
Reasoning
- The bill has broad applicability because it covers all eligible voters in the U.S., potentially impacting the entire voting-age population. Given the high number of eligible voters in the U.S. (estimated at 260 million), the policy is designed to protect against disenfranchisement due to administrative errors.
- The policy's budget must consider the cost of implementing verification processes and notifications. The budget constraints may limit the extent or speed at which each state adopts the new verification requirements, potentially leading to varied impacts across different regions.
- The impact on individual well-being will differ based on a person's previous experiences with voter roll removals, their engagement level in the election process, and their understanding of voting rights.
- Not everyone will feel a direct impact, especially those who have not been at risk of wrongful voter roll removal. Therefore, perspectives from both directly and indirectly affected individuals are important to understand the policy's comprehensive impact.
Simulated Interviews
Teacher (Los Angeles, California)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this policy is crucial for protecting our voting rights.
- I have seen people wrongly removed from voting lists, and it discourages civic participation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Retail Worker (Jackson, Mississippi)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy would have saved me a lot of trouble last election season.
- It's a good step to make sure everyone's vote counts, especially in states like mine.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 2 |
Ranch Owner (Rural, Wyoming)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This seems like a positive change, although I haven't personally faced issues with being delisted.
- Mail can be unreliable out here, so anything that ensures I stay registered is welcome.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Graduate Student (New York, New York)
Age: 24 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Voting integrity is essential, and this policy seems like it protects that.
- Young voters are often underrepresented, so not getting delisted is important to us.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Retired (Miami, Florida)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I have never had issues with my registration, but I know some who have.
- This legislation ensures the system remains fair and unbiased.
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 |
Factory Worker (Detroit, Michigan)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry about being removed from voter rolls because I missed voting once when I had to work double shifts.
- This policy could ensure my voice is always heard.
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 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Retired Nurse (Austin, Texas)
Age: 77 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Removing voters without solid proof is unfair.
- This policy seems like a sensible measure to protect voters.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Software Engineer (Seattle, Washington)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Seeing stability in voter rolls is reassuring.
- Anything that decreases administrative errors is great.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Freelance Writer (Phoenix, Arizona)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a step in the right direction for voter integrity.
- More transparency in voter management processes is always a plus.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 6 |
Entrepreneur (Raleigh, North Carolina)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Knowing I won't be penalized for one-time vote absence is comforting.
- This policy allows more ease of mind for busy individuals.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $80000000 (Low: $60000000, High: $100000000)
Year 2: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Year 3: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Year 5: $40000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $50000000)
Year 10: $30000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $35000000)
Year 100: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $6000000)
Key Considerations
- The primary driving factor for costs will be the need for enhanced voter registration systems and administrative processes to comply with the mandates of the bill.
- Variations in state capabilities and the current state of electoral infrastructure will lead to differing cost estimates among states.
- The policy focus is on preventing voter disenfranchisement; hence, financial impacts are largely seen in administrative adapts rather than direct savings or revenue.