For the People Act

Voting rights The bill would require states to offer same-day voter registration for federal elections and permit voters to make changes to their registration at the polls. Under the automatic voter registration provision, eligible citizens who provide information to state agencies (including state departments of motor vehicles or public universities) would be automatically registered to vote unless they opt out of doing so. A 2019 proposal by Representative Ayanna Pressley to amend the bill to actually allow 16- and 17-year-olds to vote did not succeed. and compels the attorney general to correct such misinformation. The bill contains various provisions to promote voting access for people with disabilities and provisions to strengthen the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) by providing additional protections for military and overseas voters. It also incorporates campaign finance reform provisions from the DISCLOSE Act, which would impose stricter limitations on foreign lobbying, require super PACs and other "dark money" organizations to disclose their donors, and restructure the Federal Election Commission to reduce partisan gridlock. The bill expresses support for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United v. FEC. The bill also raises the limit the national committee of a political party can spend on a political candidate to $100,000,000. Ethics The bill would require the president and vice president, as well as presidential and vice-presidential candidates, to publicly disclose their previous ten years of income tax returns. The bill would also eliminate the use of taxpayer money by members of Congress to settle employment discrimination claims, by requiring members of Congress to reimburse the Treasury for any such payments. Specifically, it affirms Congress's power under the Constitution's ArticleIV to create a new state in the populated area that is now D.C., while retaining a separate federal district comprising the Capitol Complex, White House, National Mall, and certain other federal areas. Separate legislation, H.R.51, would actually admit D.C. to the Union. The House of Representatives passed that legislation in June 2020 on a nearly party-line vote; the measure was not taken up in the Republican-controlled Senate. The House passage of H.R.51 marked the first time that either chamber of Congress had passed a D.C. statehood bill, and the Democratic leadership in the House vowed to bring a D.C. statehood bill to the floor again in the 117th Congress, which they did on April 22, 2021, and which passed again by a vote of 216-208. Gerrymandering The bill would attempt to thwart gerrymandering by requiring states to use independent commissions to draw congressional district lines, except in states with only one congressional district. and effective regulation of political donations. Some advocates for reform have blamed the Republican FEC members for unwillingness either to investigate any potential violations or to impose tougher restrictions, and for loosening restrictions simply by signaling what standards they are willing to enforce. The proposed bill would give the FEC five commissioners instead of six, reducing the likelihood of tie votes, and require that no more than two can be members of the same political party. It would set up a "Blue Ribbon Advisory Panel" consisting of an odd number of individuals selected by the president from retired federal judges, former law enforcement officials, or people with experience in election law, except anyone who holds any public office at the time of selection, but the president would not be required to choose from among those recommended by the panel. Some observers claim that there would be no built-in benefit for either party. ==Reactions and statements==

Support The bill was supported by then-President Joe Biden, congressional Democrats, and liberal political commentators. In addition, a number of civil rights organizations supported the bill, such as the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights (which includes the AFL–CIO, Common Cause, NAACP, Sierra Club, Center for Constitutional Rights, and others), the League of Women Voters, the Brennan Center for Justice, End Citizens United, and the League of Conservation Voters. The editorial boards of the New York Times and the Washington Post supported the bill, with the former saying it would "make the American political system more accessible and accountable to the American people" and "put an end to at least some of the vile voter suppression practices that Republicans have embraced in recent years." The Economist similarly voiced support for the bill, writing that "making voting easy and secure ought to be the aim of any party committed to democracy" and arguing that, while the bill "is not perfect", it would "restrict the ability of state parties to game voting laws". Common arguments in support of the bill are that it would have limited gerrymandering by mandating districts be drawn by independent redistricting commissions; that it would have made voting easier by expanding mail-in voting, requiring at least 15 consecutive days of early voting, and making Election Day a federal holiday; that it would have prevented forms of voter suppression like voter-roll purges; that it would have reduced the influence of dark money in politics; that it would have re-enfranchised felons who have served their sentences; and that it would reduce the influence of "big money" in politics by setting up a donation-matching fund for small-dollar donations. At a March 2019 news conference before the House of Representatives passed the bill, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said the bill would "restore the people's faith that government works for the public interest, the people's interests, not the special interests". In a June 2021 open letter, more than 100 university professors and scholars urged suspension of the filibuster to pass the Act, writing, "our entire democracy is now at risk" due to Republican efforts at "radical changes to core electoral procedures in response to unproven and intentionally destructive allegations of a stolen election" (the big lie). Opposition The legislation was opposed by Republican officials, conservative think tanks, including The Heritage Foundation and conservative political commentators. The Wall Street Journal editorial board opposes the bill, contending that it was "designed to auto-enroll likely Democratic voters, enhance Democratic turnout, with no concern for ballot integrity". The editors of National Review, a conservative magazine, similarly opposed the bill, calling it a "radical assault on American democracy, federalism, and free speech". Common criticisms of the bill include allegations that it would have undermined election security by, among other things, mandating no-excuse mail-in voting and automatic voter registration, restricting voter ID laws and voter caging, and prohibiting laws against ballot collection; that its financial disclosure regulations restricted free speech rights; Some Republicans have also expressed concern that it would make it more challenging for Republicans to be elected. In 2019, then-Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell issued a statement criticizing the bill as a "one-sided power grab" by the Democratic Party and said it would not pass the Republican-controlled Senate. He further criticized it for giving the federal government more power over elections, saying it would "[give] Washington, D.C. politicians even more control over who gets to come here [Congress] in the first place." U.S. Representative Dan Crenshaw claimed in 2019 that the bill would "legalize" the type of fraud seen in North Carolina in 2018. In March 2021, after the bill passed the House, the conservative organization American Action Network launched an ad campaign against it. On April 6, 2021, South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster invoked states' rights as reason to oppose H.R. 1, saying "H.R. 1 is a threat to the constitutional sovereignty of South Carolina". During a May 2021 Senate Rules Committee hearing, Senator Ted Cruz asserted that House Democrats had "designed" the Act such that it "directs" people "to break the law and register millions of people to vote who are not eligible to vote because they are not United States citizens" and "automatically registers to vote anyone who interacts with the government", regardless of their immigration status. The bill repeatedly states only U.S. citizens would be permitted to register. In a June 2021 editorial for the Charleston Gazette-Mail, Democratic Senator Joe Manchin, a crucial vote for the bill to see passage in the 117th Congress, wrote "I believe that partisan voting legislation will destroy the already weakening binds of our democracy, and for that reason, I will vote against the For the People Act." Other The American Civil Liberties Union opposed the 2019 version of the bill, praising the "many provisions of H.R.1 that we strongly support and have long championed" but arguing that other provisions would "unconstitutionally infringe the freedoms of speech and association" of citizens and public interest groups. The ACLU specifically opposed the DISCLOSE Act provisions (which, among other things, would require organizations that engage in campaign-related disbursements to disclose the names and addresses of donors who give $10,000 or more) and the expanded Stand By Every Ad Act provisions (which would broaden existing disclosure requirements). Some legal scholars, such as Trevor Potter and Franita Tolson, have rejected these claims, noting that the Elections Clause in ArticleI, Section4 of the Constitution gives the Congress the power "at any time" to "make or alter" state election regulations. In September 2020, the progressive group Take Back the Court published a report arguing that if H.R. 1 were enacted, the Supreme Court would likely strike down its key elements (independent redistricting provisions, automatic voter registration, public campaign financing, disclosure requirements) "on the basis of implausible constitutional analysis" of the Elections Clause and the First, Tenth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The report said that "though arguments ... that the Court's majority is likely to deploy are unpersuasive, the conservative majority has issued rulings that dismantle democracy and voting rights repeatedly, often relying on questionable rationales." ==Public opinion==

According to a January 2021 poll conducted by progressive think tank Data for Progress, American voters broadly supported the legislation, with nearly 67% supporting the bill, even after participants were provided opposition messaging. According to the poll, 77% of Democratic voters, 68% of independent voters, and 56% of Republican voters support the act. A recording of a private conference call obtained by The New Yorker between a policy adviser to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and the leaders of several prominent conservative groups revealed that the Koch Brothers-affiliated advocacy group Stand Together had invested "substantial resources" researching H.R. 1's popularity and message-testing opposition talking points. The group had concluded not only that the bill was broadly popular with the American public, but that opposition messaging to it was largely ineffective and so turning public opinion against it would be "incredibly difficult." It found that the argument that the bill "stops billionaires from buying elections" was particularly resonant with the public and conservatives should avoid publicly debating it, but instead attempt to stop the bill with legislative maneuvers such as the filibuster. ==Unsuccessful efforts to pass==

Passage in House in 2019 and 2020 and blockage in Senate In January 2019, the bill passed the Democratic-majority House of Representatives on a party-line vote, but was killed in the Republican-controlled Senate. In the next Congress, in January 2021, a nearly identical bill again passed the House. Continued blockage in the Senate Much attention has been paid to Senator Joe Manchin's position on H.R.1 and, relatedly, the filibuster. As the most conservative Senate Democrat, Manchin would need to support filibuster reform in order for H.R.1 to pass over unified Republican opposition. He vehemently opposes abolishing the filibuster, citing a desire for bipartisanship, but implied he was open to the idea of restoring the filibuster to its "popular imagination" where, in order to sustain a filibuster, senators must actually keep speaking on the Senate floor to extend debate and keep the bill open. Speaking to Axios's Mike Allen, Manchin said that "there should be pain to a filibuster" for those carrying it out, but later clarified that he does not support changing the 60-vote threshold to pass legislation or specific carve-outs for certain legislation like voting rights bills, as some progressive groups advocate. Unsuccessful narrower proposal: Freedom to Vote Act In early June 2021, Manchin came out against the For the People Act, but later that month proposed a list of changes that, if adopted, would allow him to support the legislation. The compromise proposal, the Freedom to Vote Act (S. 2747), was formally introduced by Manchin, Amy Klobuchar, and other Democratic senators on September 14, 2021. It kept many parts of the original bill (including automatic voter registration for eligible citizens, making Election Day a holiday, creating a minimum 15-day early voting period for federal elections, and a prohibition on partisan gerrymandering), but added several voter ID requirements and dropped several other provisions in the original bill, such as a requirement for states to offer no-excuse mail-in voting and same-day voter registration. Senator Bernie Sanders, and former President Barack Obama, but Senate Republicans rejected it. On June 22, 2021, Republicans blocked debate on the bill: a motion to proceed failed on a 50–50 party-line vote, ten votes short of the 60-vote supermajority required to move forward. == Legislative history ==

As of October 18, 2024: ==See also==