Elections & Representation

Any voter ID requirement must accept a broad range of documents without a photo requirement; a free government ID must be available on demand; voters without any ID must be permitted to cast a ballot by signed affidavit

Voter ID laws must accept many types of documents without requiring photos, provide free government IDs on request, and let people vote by signing a statement if they have no ID at all. This creates multiple pathways so ID requirements don't block eligible voters.

Any jurisdiction that requires voter identification at the polls must: (1) accept as qualifying identification any document issued by a federal, state, or local government entity, educational institution, employer, or utility provider that shows the voter's name — including driver's licenses, passports, student IDs, employee badges, utility bills, bank statements, and government-assistance documents — photo must not be required; (2) provide, at no cost and within 10 business days of request, a government-issued photo ID to any eligible voter who lacks one, with no underlying document requirements beyond a signed attestation of eligibility; (3) permit any voter who lacks qualifying ID to cast a regular ballot upon signing a written affidavit under penalty of perjury attesting to their identity and eligibility; (4) treat affidavit ballots as regular ballots subject to standard verification — they may not be segregated as provisional or counted separately unless a specific verification failure is identified; and (5) post signage in all languages required under the Voting Rights Act notifying voters of the affidavit option. Any voter denied the right to cast a regular ballot without being offered the affidavit alternative has a private right of action for injunctive relief and damages, with mandatory attorney's fees for prevailing plaintiffs.

Strict photo ID requirements have been repeatedly shown to burden minority voters, low-income voters, elderly voters, and young voters at disproportionate rates, functioning as barriers rather than meaningful security measures. Twenty-one states currently have no photo ID requirement; research has not found higher fraud rates in those states. The affidavit mechanism is used successfully in many states as a final backstop ensuring no eligible voter is turned away. The fundamental principle is that the constitutional right to vote cannot be made contingent on possessing a specific government document.

Federal statute must mandate independent citizen redistricting commissions for all congressional maps, with a binding criteria hierarchy and automatic pre-use judicial review

Federal law must require independent citizen commissions to draw all congressional districts, with courts reviewing maps before they are used. This prevents partisan gerrymandering at the source rather than fighting it case by case afterward.

In Rucho v. Common Cause, 588 U.S. 684 (2019), the Supreme Court held that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond federal courts' reach, leaving congressional redistricting entirely subject to state law with no federal judicial backstop.^[1] The result is that maps for approximately 40% of congressional seats are drawn by partisan state legislatures with minimal legal constraint. Computer-assisted redistricting now enables mapmakers to draw districts with surgical precision, producing partisan seat advantages that persist for an entire decade. The Brennan Center found that in the most gerrymandered states, extreme maps produce persistent legislative majorities disconnected from statewide vote shares by double-digit margins.^[2] Federal statute must require all 50 states to use independent citizen redistricting commissions for congressional maps, with the following mandatory features: (1) commissions composed of equal numbers of registered Democrats, registered Republicans, and voters registered to neither major party, drawn through a two-stage public screening and random-selection process; (2) categorical exclusion — for the 10 years prior to selection — of lobbyists, paid party officials, current or recent candidates, elected officials, and family members thereof; (3) a binding criteria hierarchy applied in strict order: (a) one-person-one-vote constitutional compliance, (b) Voting Rights Act compliance, (c) geographic contiguity and reasonable compactness, (d) preservation of counties, municipalities, and communities of interest — with partisan outcome explicitly prohibited as a criterion or tiebreaker at any stage; (4) mandatory public comment periods of at least 30 days with translated materials in all languages spoken by 5% or more of the population in the affected area; (5) automatic pre-use review by a three-judge federal district court panel within 45 days of map submission, with expedited appeal to the Supreme Court; and (6) a private right of action for any citizen to challenge a map that violates the criteria hierarchy, with mandatory attorney's fees for prevailing plaintiffs.

1. Rucho v. Common Cause, 588 U.S. 684 (2019). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-422_9ol1.pdf ↩
2. Royden, L., & Li, M. (2017). Extreme maps. Brennan Center for Justice. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/extreme-maps ↩

All congressional maps must meet partisan symmetry standards; any map with an efficiency gap exceeding 10% is presumptively invalid; communities of interest must be preserved; neutral algorithmic baseline maps must be published for public comparison

Congressional maps must be roughly fair to both parties, cannot waste more than 10% of votes through packing or cracking, and must keep communities together. Computer-generated comparison maps must be published so voters can see if their map is rigged.

Any congressional redistricting map — whether drawn by a legislative body, commission, or court — must: (1) demonstrate partisan symmetry, meaning each party would receive roughly equal seat shares given equal vote shares across the realistic range of election outcomes, measured using the efficiency gap, mean-median difference, and partisan bias metrics; (2) be subject to automatic judicial challenge if the efficiency gap exceeds 10 percentage points in favor of either party — the jurisdiction bears the burden of demonstrating the gap results from neutral geographic factors rather than intentional partisan design; (3) preserve communities of interest — including racial and ethnic communities, urban neighborhoods, rural communities sharing economic characteristics, and existing municipal boundaries — as a required criterion ranked above compactness in the mapping criteria hierarchy; (4) be preceded, at least 30 days before finalization, by publication of a computer-generated neutral algorithmic baseline map produced using only population equality, Voting Rights Act compliance, and compactness as inputs — without any partisan voter data — for public comparison; and (5) be subject to challenge by any voter in the affected jurisdiction via a private right of action with expedited review and mandatory attorney's fees for prevailing plaintiffs.

The efficiency gap, developed by Nicholas Stephanopoulos and Eric McGhee, measures the difference between each party's wasted votes as a proportion of total votes; maps with an efficiency gap above approximately 7–8% have historically corresponded to durable partisan asymmetry across a full decade of elections.^[16] The Supreme Court's refusal in Rucho v. Common Cause (2019) to create a federal judicial standard does not prevent Congress from establishing a statutory one. Algorithmic baseline maps — already used by academic redistricting researchers — provide an objective, non-partisan reference point against which any proposed map can be compared, making explicit any partisan distortion deliberately built into the final product.

Election certification is a ministerial duty; any official who refuses to certify a federal election result without a court order commits a federal felony; automatic judicial certification is available upon any unlawful refusal

Officials who certify election results must do so based on the actual vote count and cannot refuse to certify legitimate results. Election certification is an administrative task, not an opportunity to override voters' choices.

Federal law must: (1) require every election official — including county canvassing board members, state election directors, secretaries of state, and governors — to certify federal election results within the statutory timeline upon satisfaction of the canvass and any required recount; (2) make it a federal felony for any official required to certify to refuse, delay, or condition certification on any factor other than a federal court order finding specific, particularized evidence of fraud or irregularity affecting the outcome; (3) grant automatic federal court jurisdiction upon any certification refusal, with a mandatory 72-hour hearing schedule and authority to order certification by judicial decree when the official's refusal lacks a valid legal basis; (4) allow any candidate on the ballot, party committee, or registered voter to file for emergency injunctive relief to compel certification, with standing established by residence in the affected jurisdiction alone; and (5) impose escalating daily civil penalties on any jurisdiction that misses statutory certification deadlines without a court order excusing the delay. Criminal penalties must include mandatory minimum terms; civil penalties must be non-dischargeable. Any voter has a private right of action to enforce these provisions, with mandatory attorney's fees for prevailing plaintiffs.

The period following the 2020 election revealed that certification — previously understood as a routine ministerial step — could be weaponized as a chokepoint for attempting to overturn election results. County canvassers in Michigan temporarily refused to certify results; Georgia's Secretary of State faced documented pressure to alter official vote counts. The Electoral Count Reform Act of 2022 improved congressional counting procedures but did not create criminal penalties for state-level certification refusal or provide an automatic judicial backstop. A ministerial duty that can be discretionarily withheld is not ministerial in any meaningful constitutional sense.

Federal criminal penalties for threatening or intimidating election workers; civil service protection for career election administrators; mandatory security plans for all jurisdictions conducting federal elections

Threatening or intimidating election workers is a serious federal crime with civil and criminal penalties. Election workers perform an essential public service and must be protected from violence and harassment.

Federal law must: (1) make it a federal felony to threaten, harass, intimidate, coerce, or physically harm any election worker — including election administrators, canvassing board members, poll workers, ballot counters, and election security officials — for any act performed in the course of their official duties; (2) criminalize the publication of the personal home address, phone number, or other identifying information of any election worker with the intent to facilitate threats or harassment; (3) prohibit termination, demotion, suspension, or any other adverse employment action against any career election administrator for performing their legal duties under state or federal election law, with a federal private right of action providing reinstatement, back pay, and damages; (4) require every jurisdiction conducting a federal election to submit a documented security plan for protecting election workers and facilities to CISA at least 90 days before each federal election; and (5) provide federal grants for security upgrades at election facilities and mandatory security training for all election workers. Any election worker subjected to threats, harassment, or retaliatory employment action has a private right of action for damages and injunctive relief, with mandatory attorney's fees for prevailing plaintiffs.

The U.S. Election Assistance Commission and the Brennan Center have documented a sharp increase in threats against election workers following the 2020 election, with surveys showing significant percentages of workers receiving threats and experienced administrators leaving their positions as a result. The departure of experienced election administrators — who carry irreplaceable institutional knowledge about local voter rolls, equipment, and procedures — is a direct threat to election security and integrity. Existing state laws against threats are inadequate because local prosecutors in politically charged environments may be unwilling to act against constituents for threats against officials they view as adversaries.

Constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United — corporations and other artificial entities hold no First Amendment right to make campaign expenditures and Congress retains full authority to regulate election spending

A constitutional amendment must overturn Citizens United and establish that corporations do not have First Amendment rights to spend unlimited money on elections. Congress must have full authority to regulate campaign spending.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), struck down the federal prohibition on independent corporate political expenditures, holding that the government may not restrict political spending based on the speaker's corporate identity.^[1] Combined with SpeechNow.org v. FEC, 599 F.3d 686 (D.C. Cir. 2010), the ruling created super PACs capable of accepting and spending unlimited sums. Outside spending in federal elections surpassed $4.1 billion in the 2020 cycle alone, more than double the $1.7 billion spent in 2012, with a significant share originating from donors whose identities remain legally shielded from public disclosure.^[2] This platform supports enactment of a constitutional amendment providing: (1) corporations, limited liability companies, unions, and other artificial legal entities created under law are not natural persons and possess no First Amendment right to make campaign contributions or independent political expenditures; (2) Congress and the states retain full authority to regulate, limit, or prohibit contributions and expenditures in connection with any election, including independent expenditures; (3) Congress and the states may enact and enforce disclosure requirements applicable to any person or entity spending money in connection with elections; and (4) nothing in this amendment shall be construed to restrict the freedom of the press or the speech rights of natural persons acting in their individual capacity. The amendment does not silence any speaker — it restores to democratic majorities the authority to determine the rules under which elections are funded. Any voter or registered public-interest organization must have a private right of action in federal court to enforce contribution limits and disclosure obligations and to seek injunctive relief against violations.

1. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf ↩
2. OpenSecrets. (2021). Outside spending: 2020 overview. Center for Responsive Politics. https://www.opensecrets.org/outside-spending ↩

Federal small-dollar matching program — match contributions of $200 or less at 6:1 with public funds; condition participation on rejection of all PAC contributions

Small donations of $200 or less are matched 6-to-1 with public funds for candidates who reject PAC money. This amplifies the voices of ordinary donors and reduces the influence of wealthy special interests.

Eleven states and more than two dozen municipalities have implemented small-dollar matching or democracy voucher programs that amplify small donations and reduce candidates' dependence on large donors. New York City's 6:1 small-dollar match program dramatically expanded the contributing base from lower-income and historically underrepresented neighborhoods: analyses of the program found that small-donor participation rates increased substantially in lower-income zip codes under the matching system compared to elections without public financing.^[1] Seattle's Democracy Voucher program, launched in 2017, provides every registered voter with $100 in vouchers to direct to qualifying local candidates, substantially expanding campaign finance participation among constituencies that had rarely given to campaigns before.^[2] A federal small-dollar matching program must: (1) match individual contributions of $200 or less at a rate of at least 6:1 with public funds drawn from a Democracy Fund capitalized by campaign finance civil penalties and violation fines; (2) condition participation on the candidate's rejection of all contributions from PACs, super PACs, corporate treasuries, and other non-individual sources — violations terminate eligibility immediately; (3) require participating candidates to demonstrate a threshold of small-donor support within their district or state before qualifying for matching funds; (4) apply to primary and general elections for all federal offices — House, Senate, and presidential; (5) cap total public match per candidate at an inflation-indexed amount sufficient to fund a competitive campaign in the relevant race type; and (6) require real-time FEC disclosure of all matched contributions within 48 hours so voters can verify compliance. Any voter in a participating candidate's district or state must have a private right of action in federal court to challenge violations of the program's contribution prohibitions and to seek disgorgement of improperly received public funds.

1. Malbin, M. J., Brusoe, P. W., & Glavin, B. (2012). Small donors, big democracy: New York City's matching funds as a model for the nation and states. Election Law Journal, 11(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1089/elj.2011.0118 ↩
2. City of Seattle. (2022). Democracy voucher program: 2021 election cycle report. https://www.seattle.gov/democracyvoucher ↩

Pending Citizens United reversal: require affirmative shareholder approval for all corporate political expenditures above $10,000; ban expenditures by companies with active federal violations; private right of action for shareholders

Until Citizens United is overturned, corporations must get shareholder approval for political spending above $10,000, and companies with federal violations cannot spend on elections. Shareholders deserve a say in how their investment dollars are used politically.

Until and unless Citizens United is overturned by constitutional amendment, federal law must require: (1) any public corporation making political expenditures — including independent expenditures, electioneering communications, and contributions to super PACs or 501(c)(4) organizations — above $10,000 in any federal election cycle must obtain advance approval by a majority of all voting shares, not merely a board resolution; (2) all proxy statements must disclose prior-year political expenditures and any proposed political expenditure budget for the coming cycle; (3) corporations with any unresolved federal regulatory violation, environmental penalty, or active federal investigation for fraud or labor violations are prohibited from making any political expenditures until the violation is fully resolved; (4) the SEC must require quarterly disclosure of all political expenditures in a publicly searchable database within 10 business days of each expenditure; (5) any shareholder has a private right of action to challenge unauthorized political expenditures and to seek disgorgement of funds spent without proper shareholder approval; and (6) these requirements apply to all publicly traded corporations and their wholly owned subsidiaries.

Corporate political spending uses shareholder funds — capital contributed by investors who did not consent to specific political purposes. Multiple shareholder resolutions at major corporations have sought political spending transparency, consistently receiving significant shareholder support, indicating investor appetite for this accountability. The shareholder approval requirement creates a democratic check internal to the corporate form, consistent with Citizens United's own premise that corporations act through their members: if political expenditure is an expressive act of the corporation, it must reflect the affirmative will of the shareholders whose capital finances it. Corporations with active federal enforcement proceedings having the ability to spend unlimited sums against enforcement advocates represents an unacceptable structural conflict of interest in democratic governance.

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact must be enacted immediately; constitutional amendment abolishing the Electoral College must be pursued in parallel

States must join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact immediately, and if needed, a constitutional amendment must abolish the Electoral College. The president should be chosen by the people, not by an outdated state-based system.

The Electoral College has twice in the past 25 years produced a president who lost the national popular vote — in 2000 (by approximately 544,000 votes) and in 2016 (by approximately 2.9 million votes).^[1] The system concentrates presidential campaigns almost entirely in 6 to 8 battleground states, rendering voters in the remaining 42-plus states structurally irrelevant to presidential outcomes. It also produces per-capita Electoral College representation imbalances that systematically favor small-state voters over large-state voters. A constitutional amendment abolishing the Electoral College requires ratification by 38 states — a threshold that includes many small states with strong structural incentives to preserve their current disproportionate influence — making it effectively unachievable in the near term. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) provides the most viable near-term path: member states pledge their electors to the winner of the national popular vote once states holding a combined majority of electoral votes (270 or more) have joined. As of 2024, 17 states and D.C. representing 209 electoral votes have enacted the Compact.^[2] This platform supports: (1) immediate congressional and executive action to secure Compact adoption by states representing the remaining 61 electoral votes needed for activation; (2) federal legislation protecting the Compact against legal challenges and establishing its primacy over contrary state elections law in member states; (3) simultaneous pursuit of a constitutional amendment abolishing the Electoral College entirely and replacing it with a direct national popular vote, with a top-two runoff provision if no candidate clears 40%; and (4) mandatory federal reporting of the national popular vote margin in every presidential election cycle, regardless of Electoral College outcome, to document the democratic deficit. Any registered voter in a Compact member state must have a private right of action to challenge state actions that suppress, misreport, or manipulate the popular vote totals binding under the Compact.

1. National Archives and Records Administration. (n.d.). Historical election results. https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/results ↩
2. National Popular Vote Inc. (2024). Status of national popular vote bill in each state. https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/state-status ↩
3. Grofman, B., & Feld, S. L. (2005). Thinking about the political impacts of the Electoral College. Public Choice, 123(1–2), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-005-7191-z

No voter roll purge within 90 days of a federal election; purges require individual notice with a 30-day cure period; all purge lists must be publicly disclosed at least 6 months before the election; private right of action for wrongful removal

Voter roll purges are banned within 90 days of a federal election and must individually notify every affected voter. Last-minute purges disenfranchise legitimate voters who don't have time to re-register.

The following voter roll maintenance rules apply for all federal elections: (1) no voter may be removed from the rolls within 90 days before any federal election, regardless of stated reason, consistent with and strengthening existing National Voter Registration Act requirements; (2) outside the 90-day blackout window, any proposed removal must be preceded by written notice sent to the voter at their last known address and any email on file, specifying the reason for proposed removal and providing a 30-day period to contest the removal or update their registration; (3) all proposed purge lists must be published on a publicly searchable government website at least 6 months before the relevant federal election, with each affected voter's name, address, and stated reason for proposed removal, to permit third-party error review by civic organizations; (4) any voter removed in violation of these rules who appears to vote must be provided a regular provisional ballot, which must be counted if the voter was registered at the time of removal; and (5) any voter wrongfully removed has a private right of action for immediate reinstatement, injunctive relief, and damages, with mandatory attorney's fees for prevailing plaintiffs. Removal based solely on failure to vote or return a mailing is prohibited.

Aggressive voter roll purges — particularly those using inexact name-matching algorithms or unverified third-party data sources — have wrongly removed hundreds of thousands of eligible voters from rolls in recent election cycles. The National Voter Registration Act already prohibits purges within 90 days of federal elections, but enforcement has been inconsistent and cure rights have been inadequate. The Brennan Center has documented systematic purge errors affecting predominantly minority communities in multiple states following Shelby County. Public disclosure of purge lists is essential because individual voters rarely learn they have been removed until Election Day, when it is too late to cure the error through normal channels.

All federal elections must use voter-verified paper ballots or VVPATs; paperless DRE machines must be retired within two election cycles; risk-limiting audits are mandatory for every federal race

All federal elections must use voter-verified paper ballots or machines with paper audit trails; paperless voting machines are banned. Paper backups are essential for detecting hacking or malfunctions.

Direct-recording electronic (DRE) voting machines that produce no voter-verifiable paper record of voter intent have been deployed in jurisdictions covering millions of voters. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine concluded in its landmark 2018 report Securing the Vote that paper ballots or voter-verified paper audit trails (VVPATs) are essential because they provide the only reliable mechanism for post-election audits capable of detecting and correcting errors in counting software — whether caused by software bugs, hardware failure, or deliberate manipulation — and that paperless voting systems must be phased out of use.^[1] A software error or intrusion in a paperless DRE system is undetectable and uncorrectable after the fact; there is no independent record against which to audit. The Verified Voting Foundation's ongoing monitoring confirmed that as of 2023, paperless DRE machines remained in use in multiple states for federal elections.^[2] Federal statute must require: (1) every ballot cast in any federal election — presidential, Senate, or House — must be recorded on or produce a paper record that the voter can verify before leaving the polling place; (2) DRE machines without a functional VVPAT must be retired from all federal election use within two election cycles of enactment, with federal grants available to under-resourced jurisdictions for equipment replacement; (3) risk-limiting audits (RLAs) — statistically principled sampling audits designed to detect tabulation errors at a defined confidence threshold — must be conducted for every federal race in every jurisdiction following every election; (4) all RLA results must be published in a publicly searchable, machine-readable federal database within 60 days of the election; (5) any jurisdiction using a non-compliant paperless system in a federal election is subject to mandatory civil penalties, with proceeds directed to an Election Security Equipment Fund; and (6) any voter whose federal race is administered by a non-compliant jurisdiction must have a private right of action for injunctive relief prior to certification and for damages after certification.

1. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2018). Securing the vote: Protecting American democracy. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25120 ↩
2. Verified Voting Foundation. (2023). The verifier — polling place equipment. https://verifiedvoting.org/verifier/ ↩

CISA must certify all election systems used in federal elections; mandatory independent penetration testing must occur at least 90 days before each federal election; uncertified systems may not be used in any federal race

The federal Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency must certify all election systems used in federal elections, and independent audits are mandatory. Federal oversight ensures states meet minimum security standards.

The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) must: (1) establish mandatory security certification standards for all hardware and software used to administer federal elections, including voter registration systems, ballot-marking devices, vote tabulation systems, and results-reporting infrastructure; (2) conduct or commission independent penetration testing of all certified systems at least 90 days before each federal election; (3) maintain a publicly searchable database of certification status for all election systems in use nationally; (4) prohibit the use of any uncertified election system in any federal election, with federal grants available to cover replacement costs for under-resourced jurisdictions; (5) issue an immediate public security advisory and mandatory remediation requirement upon discovery of any critical vulnerability in a certified system; and (6) upon credible evidence of foreign interference with election infrastructure, activate a federal emergency response — including network isolation, independent forensic audit, and public disclosure — within 72 hours. Any voter in a jurisdiction using an uncertified system has a private right of action for injunctive relief before and after certification of results.

Election infrastructure is designated as critical infrastructure by the Department of Homeland Security, yet mandatory federal security certification does not currently exist for election systems. CISA currently provides only voluntary technical assistance, creating a patchwork in which the most vulnerable jurisdictions — those with the least technical capacity and resources — are the least likely to undergo security review. Documented foreign state intrusion attempts against election infrastructure in 2016 targeted voter registration systems in multiple states; without mandatory certification, there is no systematic mechanism to ensure those vulnerabilities are remediated before the next cycle.

Ban all coordination between foreign nationals and U.S. political campaigns; extend the prohibition to foreign-owned domestic subsidiaries; violations carry criminal penalties and automatic forfeiture of all affected contributions and expenditures

Any coordination between foreign nationals and U.S. political campaigns is banned, with extended statute of limitations for enforcement. Foreign interference in elections is a threat to national sovereignty.

Federal law must prohibit: (1) any coordination, communication, or exchange of value between a U.S. political campaign, candidate committee, party committee, or independent expenditure committee and any foreign national — including coordination on messaging, strategy, opposition research, advertising timing, voter targeting, or any other campaign activity; (2) any political contribution, expenditure, or in-kind donation to any U.S. political committee by any domestic legal entity in which foreign nationals hold a combined ownership or control interest of 5% or more, or in which a foreign government, foreign political party, or foreign principal holds any ownership or control interest; (3) any use of foreign-origin voter data, voter contact databases, or political intelligence by any U.S. campaign without full FEC disclosure of the source and acquisition within 48 hours; and (4) any foreign national serving in a volunteer, advisory, or compensated capacity for any U.S. campaign in a strategic, communications, or policy role. Violations are federal crimes carrying criminal penalties; all contributions and expenditures connected to a violation are subject to mandatory forfeiture. Any voter or registered organization has a private right of action to refer violations to the DOJ and to seek civil penalties in federal court.

Federal law already prohibits direct foreign national contributions to U.S. campaigns, but the prohibition does not clearly extend to strategic coordination, opposition research sharing, or contributions from partially foreign-owned domestic entities. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's 2020 bipartisan report documented extensive foreign interference in U.S. elections that went beyond direct contributions to include coordinated information operations and sustained campaign contacts. The 5% foreign ownership threshold for domestic subsidiaries is designed to prevent shell companies and partially foreign-owned entities from serving as conduits for foreign political influence while not sweeping in companies with purely de minimis foreign shareholders.

Enact the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act with a private right of action, mandatory attorney's fees, and automatic preclearance triggered by three or more court-documented violations

The John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act must be enacted with a private right of action for individuals. This restores protections against discriminatory voting laws.

Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013), struck down Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 — the formula designating jurisdictions required to obtain federal preclearance before changing voting laws — holding it impermissibly based on conditions that existed decades earlier.^[1] The Court's majority explicitly invited Congress to enact an updated coverage formula. In the decade following Shelby County, Congress has not done so, while formerly covered jurisdictions have enacted waves of restrictive voting laws — strict photo ID requirements, polling place closures, aggressive voter roll purges, and restrictions on early and mail voting — without any federal preclearance review. The John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act (H.R. 14, 118th Congress) would restore preclearance with a new coverage formula based on documented voting rights violations within the prior 25 years rather than 1960s-era registration data.^[2] This platform supports enactment of the Lewis Act as the minimum required legislative response to Shelby County, with the following additions beyond the Act's current text: (1) a private right of action for any individual voter or class of voters to enforce any provision of the Act in federal district court, without exhausting administrative remedies, with standing based solely on residence in the affected jurisdiction; (2) mandatory award of reasonable attorney's fees and litigation costs to any prevailing plaintiff; (3) automatic preclearance coverage triggered by any three federal court findings of voting rights violations — under the Act, the Constitution, or other federal statute — within the prior 25 years, without requiring a separate administrative determination; (4) a rebuttable presumption of discriminatory intent for any voting law change that produces a statistically significant disparate racial impact and is enacted within 24 months of a documented demographic shift in the jurisdiction's registered electorate; and (5) criminal penalties, including mandatory minimum prison terms, for any official who knowingly implements a voting law change subject to preclearance requirements before clearance is obtained.

1. Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47.pdf ↩
2. John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, H.R. 14, 118th Cong. (2023). https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/14 ↩

Every registered voter must automatically receive a postage-paid mail ballot for all federal elections; ballots postmarked by Election Day must be accepted if received within 10 days; jurisdictions must provide 24-hour secure drop boxes

Every registered voter must automatically receive a postage-paid mail ballot for federal elections. Universal mail voting gives everyone the option to vote safely and conveniently from home.

For every federal election, each jurisdiction must: (1) automatically mail a ballot to every registered voter no later than 21 days before the election at no cost to the voter; (2) pay all return postage — no stamp or fee may be required for returning a mail ballot; (3) accept and count any ballot postmarked on or before Election Day if received within 10 days after Election Day; (4) provide at least one secure, tamper-evident, 24-hour-accessible ballot drop box per 15,000 registered voters in each county, geographically distributed to minimize travel distance; (5) upon rejection of any mail ballot for a curable defect — including missing signature, signature mismatch, or minor technical error — immediately notify the voter by mail, email, and phone if on file, and provide a 7-day cure window; and (6) void a voter's mail ballot automatically and without penalty upon that voter casting an in-person ballot. A private right of action for injunctive relief and damages is available to any registered voter whose mail ballot is rejected without a required cure opportunity, with mandatory attorney's fees for prevailing plaintiffs.

Universal vote-by-mail dramatically expands access for workers with inflexible schedules, elderly and disabled voters, rural voters, and anyone who cannot reach a polling place on a single day. Colorado, Oregon, Washington, Utah, and Hawaii conduct all elections by mail with consistently high participation rates and documented low fraud rates.^[10] The 10-day receipt window reflects documented USPS delivery time realities; ballots postmarked on time but arriving after Election Day represent legitimate votes cast lawfully that must not be excluded due to postal delays outside the voter's control. Mail ballot rejection rates for curable defects disproportionately affect first-time voters and voters of color; mandatory cure notice closes this access gap.

Federal minimum of 15 consecutive days of early voting for all federal elections; polling places must open at least 12 hours per day including at least one full weekend during the early period

All federal elections must have at least 15 consecutive days of early voting. Extended early voting accommodates work schedules, travel, and unexpected life events.

Every jurisdiction holding a federal election must: (1) offer at least 15 consecutive calendar days of early in-person voting ending no earlier than the day before Election Day, including at least one full Saturday and one full Sunday during the early voting period; (2) keep early voting locations open for a minimum of 12 consecutive hours each day — hours must be set to include before 9 a.m. and after 6 p.m. to accommodate workers with standard business-hour schedules; (3) operate at least one early voting location per 10,000 registered voters, distributed to minimize travel distance for all voters including those in rural and low-density areas; (4) accept all registered voters at any early voting location within the jurisdiction regardless of assigned precinct; and (5) make federal grants available to under-resourced jurisdictions for the infrastructure costs of meeting these requirements. Any registered voter in a noncompliant jurisdiction has a private right of action for injunctive relief and attorney's fees.

Early voting reduces Election Day congestion, accommodates shift workers unable to leave during standard poll hours, and provides a buffer against administrative failures on a single day. States with robust early voting — particularly those with extended weekend access — consistently show higher turnout among working-class voters and voters of color.^[11] A single Election Day, even a federal holiday, remains a structural barrier for health care workers, first responders, retail workers, and parents with childcare obligations; 15 days of access ensures that no scheduling conflict becomes permanent disenfranchisement.

Federal mandate: one polling place per 4,000 registered voters; wait times exceeding 30 minutes trigger mandatory emergency resources within 2 hours; polling place closures within 90 days of a federal election require a federal court order

Federal law must require at least one polling place per 4,000 registered voters, and wait times over 30 minutes trigger mandatory expansion. This prevents long lines that discourage voting.

Every jurisdiction conducting a federal election must: (1) maintain at least one in-person polling place for every 4,000 registered voters assigned to vote in person, with locations distributed so no urban voter must travel more than 2 miles and no rural voter more than 10 miles to their assigned polling place; (2) upon wait times at any polling location exceeding 30 minutes at any point on Election Day or any early voting day, immediately deploy additional voting equipment, poll workers, and provisional ballot resources sufficient to reduce wait times — failure to deploy within 2 hours of documented wait time constitutes a federal civil rights violation; (3) obtain a federal court order demonstrating no discriminatory impact before closing or consolidating any polling place within 90 days of a federal election; and (4) report all Election Day wait time data to a federal public database within 30 days of each election. Federal grants must be appropriated for jurisdictions that cannot meet these standards without additional funding. Any voter subjected to systematic resource deprivation has a private right of action for injunctive relief and damages, with mandatory attorney's fees for prevailing plaintiffs.

Long lines are not neutral inconveniences — research by the MIT Election Data and Science Lab documents that Black voters wait significantly longer to vote than white voters as a systematic pattern across states and election cycles, even within the same jurisdiction.^[12] Since the 2013 Shelby County decision removed preclearance requirements, polling place closures have disproportionately occurred in counties with significant minority populations. The private right of action is essential because administrative agency enforcement cannot respond in real time to prevent Election Day disenfranchisement — the harm is immediate and irreversible once polls close.

Strengthen Voting Rights Act Section 2 to restore a full disparate impact results test; overturn Brnovich v. DNC by statute; any voting law producing statistically significant racially disparate effects must survive strict scrutiny

The Voting Rights Act Section 2 must be strengthened to restore full disparate impact analysis. Laws that disproportionately harm minority voters must be struck down even without proof of intentional discrimination.

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act must be amended by federal statute to: (1) establish that any voting law, practice, or procedure that produces a statistically significant racially disparate outcome in voter participation, registration, or access is presumptively unlawful without requiring proof of discriminatory intent; (2) codify a full results test under which any voting restriction that results in a denial or abridgement of the right to vote on account of race or color — regardless of stated intent — violates federal law; (3) require any jurisdiction defending a challenged law to demonstrate the law serves a compelling governmental interest and is the least-restrictive means to achieve that interest; (4) authorize courts to issue immediate preliminary injunctions when disparate impact is demonstrated, pending full trial; (5) abrogate by statute the interpretive framework established in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, 594 U.S. 647 (2021), which substantially narrowed the Section 2 results test; and (6) provide a private right of action with no administrative exhaustion requirement and mandatory attorney's fees for prevailing plaintiffs.

In Brnovich v. DNC (2021), the Supreme Court substantially narrowed the Section 2 results test, holding that facially neutral voting restrictions are generally permissible even when they produce racially disparate effects, as long as they fall within the "usual burdens of voting." The decision effectively gutted Section 2 as a meaningful check on suppressive laws that lack explicitly discriminatory text.^[13] The 1982 Section 2 amendments were enacted by Congress specifically to require only a showing of discriminatory results, not intent — restoring that statutory standard is the minimum required legislative response to a Court decision that rewrote Congressional intent in defiance of the statutory text.

Pre-trial detainees — presumptively innocent individuals who have not been convicted of any crime — must retain their full federal voting rights; every jail and detention facility must provide accessible voter registration and absentee ballot access

People held in jail awaiting trial retain the right to vote because they are legally innocent. Pre-trial detention cannot strip citizens of their constitutional rights.

Any person detained prior to conviction — held in any jail, detention center, or correctional facility pending trial — retains the full right to vote in all federal elections. Every jail and detention facility must: (1) provide voter registration assistance and absentee ballot request forms to any detainee who requests them, within 24 hours of request; (2) mail completed ballot applications and ballots to the appropriate election office at no cost to the detainee, within 24 hours of completion; (3) accept mail delivery of official ballots and ensure their timely return to election officials within applicable deadlines; (4) designate a staff coordinator responsible for facilitating detainee voting access, with mandatory annual training; and (5) post visible notice in all housing units informing detainees of their right to vote and how to exercise it. Facilities that obstruct or fail to facilitate voting access for pre-trial detainees are subject to federal civil rights enforcement and private suits by affected individuals, with mandatory attorney's fees for prevailing plaintiffs.

An estimated 470,000 to 500,000 people are held in pre-trial detention in the United States on any given day — the majority not convicted of any crime, held because they cannot afford bail or for other non-conviction reasons.^[15] These individuals are citizens in full legal standing with the right to vote, yet most jails have no systematic mechanism for facilitating voting. Detention pending trial is already a severe deprivation of liberty; stripping the vote without a conviction compounds it with a democratic penalty authorized by no court. Maine and Vermont already permit even sentenced prisoners to vote; at minimum, the unconvicted must be guaranteed this right not just nominally but in practice.

Expanded language access for all voting materials beyond current Section 203 thresholds; ballots, voter guides, poll worker instructions, and election notices must be provided in all languages spoken by 1% or more of registered voters in any jurisdiction

Voting materials must be available in all languages spoken by significant populations beyond current Section 203 thresholds. Language barriers must not prevent citizens from participating.

Every jurisdiction conducting a federal election must provide all voting materials — including ballots, voter registration forms, absentee ballot applications and instructions, poll worker assistance, voting machine interfaces, sample ballots, official voter guides, and any voter notification required by law — in every language spoken by 1% or more of the registered voting-age population in the jurisdiction, or by 5,000 or more registered voters, whichever is lower. This standard replaces and strengthens the current Section 203 thresholds of the Voting Rights Act, which apply only to language groups meeting a higher population threshold with documented limited-English proficiency. Jurisdictions must: (1) conduct a language survey of the registered electorate every four years; (2) publish a public list of covered languages; (3) recruit and train bilingual poll workers for all covered languages; and (4) provide telephone language assistance lines during all voting hours. Any voter who was unable to cast an informed ballot due to the absence of required language assistance has a private right of action, with mandatory attorney's fees for prevailing plaintiffs.

Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act currently requires language assistance only in jurisdictions where a language minority group comprises more than 5% of the voting-age citizen population and has a limited-English proficiency rate above the national average. This threshold excludes millions of eligible voters — particularly in urban jurisdictions with large, diverse immigrant communities — who cannot access ballots or instructions in their primary language. Language barriers in voting disproportionately affect Asian American, Latino, and Indigenous voters. Expanding covered thresholds and standardizing what "language assistance" requires — covering interfaces and poll worker training, not just printed materials — ensures the right to vote is exercisable in practice for all eligible citizens.

The Right to Vote Must Be Restored to Every Person Immediately Upon Release From Prison

Voting rights must be restored to every person immediately upon release from prison. Disenfranchisement after serving a sentence continues punishment beyond the courtroom and blocks reintegration into civic life.

Federal law must restore the right to vote in federal elections to every U.S. citizen immediately upon release from incarceration; no waiting period, completion of parole or probation, or payment of fines and fees may be required as a condition of re-enfranchisement. States may not condition restoration of state voting rights on payment of legal financial obligations — including court fines, fees, restitution, or supervision costs — which effectively constitute a modern poll tax conditioning political rights on wealth. People held in pretrial detention who have not been convicted of any crime must retain their full voting rights; jails and detention facilities must facilitate absentee voting for all pretrial detainees, provide registration assistance within 24 hours of request, and mail completed materials at no cost to the detainee. The Bureau of Prisons must provide voter registration assistance and a completed registration form to every person released from federal custody. Any person whose voting rights are unlawfully conditioned or withheld has a private right of action for injunctive relief, reinstatement, and damages, with mandatory attorney's fees for prevailing plaintiffs; willful obstruction of these rights by a government official is a federal criminal offense.

An estimated 4.6 million Americans are disenfranchised due to felony convictions, disproportionately affecting Black men. Several states continue to permanently disenfranchise people with felony convictions, and at least a dozen states impose fines and fees as a condition of re-enfranchisement that function as modern poll taxes. This card is distinct from ELEC-VOTS-0008, which restores rights upon completion of sentence including parole and probation; this position restores rights at the moment of release from physical incarceration, recognizing that parole and probation periods can last years and should not delay civic re-integration.

All Federal Elections Must Use Ranked Choice Voting to Ensure Majority Winners

All federal elections must use ranked-choice voting where voters rank candidates in order of preference. This ensures winners have majority support and eliminates the spoiler effect that punishes similar candidates.

All federal elections — including presidential, Senate, and House elections — must use ranked choice voting (RCV) in which voters rank candidates in order of preference; the winner must achieve majority support through ranked preference tabulation, with the last-place candidate eliminated and votes redistributed until one candidate holds a majority. Presidential elections must use a national popular vote with ranked choice; Congress must incentivize adoption of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact as a near-term mechanism until a constitutional amendment abolishing the Electoral College is ratified. Congressional elections must use multi-member districts of three to five members elected by proportional ranked choice (Single Transferable Vote) to produce legislatures that more accurately reflect the full range of voter preferences and reduce the structural dominance of two-party duopolies. The FEC must provide funding, technical assistance, and standardized open-source software to states and localities for RCV implementation. Any jurisdiction that fails to implement court-ordered RCV requirements is subject to federal civil rights enforcement; any registered voter in a noncompliant jurisdiction has a private right of action for injunctive relief and mandatory attorney's fees.

Countries and jurisdictions using ranked choice or proportional voting systems tend to have higher voter turnout and broader representation of diverse political views than first-past-the-post systems. RCV eliminates the spoiler effect — in which a third-party or independent candidate draws votes away from the candidate voters prefer to the winner, producing an outcome opposed by the majority. This card builds on ELEC-VOTS-0009, which establishes the basic RCV mandate; this position adds the multi-member proportional district framework, the Electoral College pathway, and the federal implementation support mechanism.

Ranked Choice Voting Must Be Required for All Federal Primary and General Elections, Third-Party Candidates Must Have Equal Ballot Access, and Congress Must Fund State RCV Adoption and Voter Education

Ranked-choice voting must be required for all federal primary and general elections, third parties must have equal ballot access, and Congress must fund state adoption and voter education. This creates a more representative system where voters can support their true first choice.

Congress must: (1) require ranked choice voting (also known as instant-runoff voting) for all federal primary and general elections — including elections for President, U.S. Senate, and U.S. House of Representatives — with voters permitted to rank as many candidates as appear on the ballot; (2) require the Federal Election Commission to promulgate uniform RCV ballot design standards and counting procedures within 18 months; (3) establish equal ballot access standards for all federal elections — prohibiting any state from requiring a third-party or independent candidate to collect more than 1,000 signatures or pay a filing fee exceeding $500 to appear on a federal general election ballot; (4) fund a $500 million RCV Voter Education and Implementation Grant Program — providing states with grants to: (a) upgrade voting equipment to count ranked ballots; (b) design and distribute voter education materials in all languages required by the Voting Rights Act; (c) conduct mock elections and community outreach before the first RCV election; (5) prohibit any state from using plurality voting ("first-past-the-post") in any federal election after January 1, 2028; and (6) require the Election Assistance Commission to publish comprehensive RCV implementation guidance and assist states in transitioning to ranked ballot systems. Any state or local official who willfully prevents a jurisdiction from complying with a federal RCV mandate is subject to criminal penalties; any voter denied a conforming ballot has a private right of action for injunctive relief and damages, with mandatory attorney's fees for prevailing plaintiffs.

Ranked choice voting has been adopted in Maine and Alaska for federal elections and in numerous cities and states for local elections, with high rates of voter satisfaction and reduced negative campaigning. Plurality voting in multi-candidate races frequently produces winners opposed by a majority of voters.

Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico Must Be Admitted as Full States of the Union, With Full Congressional Representation, Electoral College Votes, and Equal Federal Funding Rights

Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico must be admitted as full states with complete congressional representation, Electoral College votes, and equal federal funding. Over 4 million U.S. citizens currently live under taxation without representation.

Congress must: (1) admit Washington, D.C. as the 51st state of the United States — granting its approximately 700,000 residents full congressional representation through 2 U.S. Senators and at least 1 U.S. Representative, proportional Electoral College votes, and full equal standing under all federal laws; (2) admit Puerto Rico as the 52nd state — implementing the results of Puerto Rico's referenda in which statehood has received majority support, granting its approximately 3.2 million U.S. citizens full congressional representation, Electoral College votes, and immediate eligibility for all federal programs on equal terms with other states, including full Medicaid, SSI, and other safety net programs currently restricted for Puerto Rico; (3) immediately repeal the Jones Act (Merchant Marine Act of 1920) as applied to Puerto Rico — ending the requirement that all goods shipped to Puerto Rico travel on U.S.-flagged vessels, which artificially inflates the cost of living for Puerto Rican residents; (4) establish a Puerto Rico Debt Restructuring Fund — $30 billion — to address the public debt crisis and rebuild infrastructure, with oversight by an elected Puerto Rican body rather than the current PROMESA Oversight Board; (5) repeal the Insular Cases — the Supreme Court decisions that treated residents of U.S. territories as constitutionally inferior — through congressional action declaring all U.S. territories entitled to the full protections of the U.S. Constitution. Any resident of Washington, D.C. or Puerto Rico who is denied equal access to a federal program or benefit available to residents of states solely on the basis of their territory's current non-state status has a private right of action for injunctive relief and damages, with mandatory attorney's fees for prevailing plaintiffs; any federal official who willfully enforces such a denial after enactment of statehood legislation is subject to criminal penalties.

Washington, D.C. has approximately 700,000 residents — more than Wyoming or Vermont — who pay federal taxes but have no voting representation in Congress. Puerto Rico's residents have been U.S. citizens since 1917 but remain excluded from full democratic participation and equal federal program eligibility.

Every Corporation, Trade Association, 501(c)(4), Super PAC, and Political Committee Must Disclose Every Donor Who Contributed More Than $10,000 to Any Political Spending — Within 24 Hours of Any Expenditure Over $10,000 — With Criminal Penalties for Shell Company Evasion

Every corporation, trade association, 501(c)(4), Super PAC, and political committee must disclose every donor who contributed more than $10,000, within 24 hours of spending over $10,000, with criminal penalties for using shell companies to hide donors. Voters deserve to know who is funding political messages.

Congress must enact the DISCLOSE Act — requiring: (1) every corporation, LLC, partnership, trade association, labor union, 501(c)(4), 501(c)(6), super PAC, and any other organization that makes more than $10,000 in political expenditures (including independent expenditures, electioneering communications, and issue ads run within 90 days of an election) to: (a) disclose to the FEC, within 24 hours, the identity and amount of every donor who contributed $10,000 or more to the organization — with disclosures published in a real-time searchable online database; (b) file a "Stand By Your Ad" statement identifying the top five donors by name in all political communications; (2) close the dark money pass-through loophole — requiring any organization that receives funds from another organization and uses those funds for political spending to trace and disclose the original source donor; (3) prohibit foreign-influenced political spending — banning any expenditure by any corporation where a foreign national owns 1% or more of voting shares or holds any board seat, or by any corporation with more than 20% foreign ownership in any tier of its corporate structure; (4) require the FEC to establish a real-time electronic filing system with all political spending data searchable by donor name, recipient, and date within 24 hours of filing; (5) criminal penalties — fines up to $10 million and imprisonment up to 10 years — for any person who structures donations through shell organizations to avoid disclosure; and (6) a private right of action for any citizen to file an FEC enforcement complaint and, if the FEC fails to act within 90 days, to bring suit directly in federal court to compel disclosure.

The Citizens United v. FEC decision (2010) opened the door to unlimited corporate and union spending in elections. Dark money groups spent an estimated $1 billion in the 2020 election cycle without disclosing their donors.

Congress Must Establish a Federal Small-Dollar Matching Program That Matches Every $1 Donated by a Constituent With $6 in Federal Funds — And Provide Every Registered Voter a $50 Democracy Voucher to Donate to Any Qualifying Federal Candidate

Congress must create a federal small-dollar matching program that matches every $1 donated by a constituent with $6 in federal funds, and give every registered voter a $50 democracy voucher to donate to qualifying candidates. This amplifies grassroots voices and reduces dependence on wealthy donors.

Congress must: (1) establish the Federal Small-Dollar Matching Program — providing a 6-to-1 federal match for all contributions from $1 to $200 from constituents to any qualifying federal candidate — with candidates qualifying by: (a) rejecting all PAC and lobbyist contributions; (b) rejecting any individual contribution above $200; (c) raising at least 500 qualifying small-dollar contributions from constituents in their district totaling at least $50,000; (2) establish the Democracy Voucher Program — providing every registered voter a $50 democracy voucher (issued via their voter registration card or digital account) redeemable as a donation to any qualifying federal candidate — funded by a 0.5% surtax on lobbying expenditures; (3) fund the matching program through: (a) a financial transaction tax of 0.1% on all stock, bond, and derivative trades; (b) closing the carried interest loophole; with a total program budget of $10 billion per 2-year election cycle; (4) require all campaigns using public matching funds to: (a) participate in a minimum of 3 publicly broadcast debates; (b) spend at least 50% of matched funds on direct constituent outreach; (c) comply with a ban on "revolving door" employment — prohibiting campaign staff from becoming registered lobbyists for 5 years after the campaign; (5) criminal penalties for any candidate who fraudulently qualifies for or misuses matching funds; and (6) allow the FEC to conduct real-time audits of all qualifying campaigns with authority to seek immediate injunctive relief for fraud.

New York City's small-dollar matching program has been credited with dramatically increasing the diversity of both donors and candidates. Small donors — those giving $200 or less — make up approximately 22% of federal campaign contributions but represent the vast majority of individual donors.

Congress Must Pass and Send to the States a Constitutional Amendment Establishing That the Rights Guaranteed by the Constitution Are Rights of Natural Persons Only — Not Corporations — and That Congress and the States Have Full Authority to Regulate the Raising and Spending of Money in Elections

Congress must pass and send to states a constitutional amendment establishing that constitutional rights belong to natural persons only, not corporations, and that Congress and states have full authority to regulate money in elections. This overturns Citizens United and restores democratic control over campaign finance.

Congress must: (1) pass the following Constitutional Amendment and send it to the states for ratification: "Section 1. The rights protected by this Constitution are the rights of natural persons only. Artificial entities established by law — including corporations, limited liability companies, and other entities — have only those rights expressly granted by law and are subject to regulation by Congress and the States to serve the public interest. Section 2. Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit Congress or any State from enacting laws that regulate the raising and spending of money to influence elections, including through limits on contributions and expenditures by any person, entity, or association. Section 3. Congress and the States shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation."; (2) in the interim, enact a Federal Elections Integrity Act — establishing that: (a) any federal court applying Citizens United or McCutcheon v. FEC must treat those decisions as narrowly as possible and apply strict scrutiny only to laws that directly ban speech, not laws that regulate the time, place, and manner of campaign spending; (b) all campaign finance regulations shall be presumptively valid and subject to rational basis review unless they directly criminalize a natural person's speech; (3) require all federal candidates to disclose their position on the constitutional amendment as part of FEC filing requirements; (4) fund a $50 million public education campaign on the amendment's purpose and content through the FEC.

The Citizens United decision has been opposed in polling by majorities of both Republican and Democratic voters. At least 22 states have passed resolutions calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.

Congress Must Restore and Strengthen the Voting Rights Act — Re-Establishing Preclearance for All States With a History of Voting Discrimination and Creating New Nationwide Standards Prohibiting Voter Purges, Polling Place Closures, and Discriminatory ID Requirements

Congress must restore and strengthen the Voting Rights Act by re-establishing preclearance for all states with a history of voting discrimination and creating nationwide standards prohibiting voter purges, polling place closures, and discriminatory ID requirements. This rebuilds protections gutted by the Supreme Court.

Congress must enact the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act — requiring: (1) restore federal preclearance — requiring any state or locality to obtain DOJ or court approval before implementing any voting rule change if: (a) the jurisdiction has had 3 or more voting rights violations in the past 25 years; (b) the jurisdiction has a history of voting rights violations prior to the Shelby County v. Holder decision; (c) the proposed change affects voting procedures in a county or district where minority voter participation is below the national average; (2) establish nationwide voting standards — prohibiting all states from: (a) purging any registered voter from the rolls without providing written notice and a 4-year waiting period after the last election in which the voter did not participate; (b) closing any polling place in a jurisdiction covered by preclearance without DOJ approval and documented evidence that the closure will not increase average travel time for minority voters; (c) requiring any photo ID that is not available free of charge and by mail from the state government within 10 business days of request; (d) restricting early voting to fewer than 15 days including two weekends before Election Day; (3) federal enforcement — requiring the DOJ Civil Rights Division to review and challenge any voting rule change that has a discriminatory effect or purpose, regardless of geographic scope; (4) private right of action — any affected voter or civil rights organization may bring suit in federal court challenging any voting rule that violates this Act, with preliminary injunction available pending trial; (5) criminal penalties — imprisonment up to 5 years — for any election official who knowingly implements a discriminatory voting rule after receiving a DOJ challenge notice.

The Supreme Court's Shelby County v. Holder decision (2013) gutted the VRA's preclearance formula, leading to the closure of more than 1,600 polling places in previously covered jurisdictions within 5 years. States with the longest histories of voting discrimination implemented new restrictive voting laws within hours of the Shelby County decision.

Congress Must Require All Special Districts — Including Water, Fire, Transit, Hospital, Mosquito Control, and All Other Purpose-Specific Tax-Levying Districts — to Hold Regular Public Elections, Publish Annual Financial Disclosures, and Be Subject to Federal Anti-Corruption Oversight

Congress must require all special districts that levy taxes or fees to hold regular public elections, publish annual financial disclosures, and be subject to federal anti-corruption oversight. Approximately 38,000 special districts nationwide currently operate with little accountability.

Congress must: (1) enact the Special District Accountability Act — establishing that any special district or purpose-specific government entity that: (a) has authority to levy taxes, issue bonds, or charge assessments on property owners or residents; (b) has a governing board — must comply with federal transparency standards including: (i) annual audited financial statements published in a publicly searchable federal database within 90 days of fiscal year end; (ii) all board meetings open to the public with advance notice and public comment; (iii) all contracts above $25,000 published in a public database; (iv) all board member compensation and conflicts of interest disclosed annually; (2) require all special districts with annual revenue above $1 million to hold contested elections for all governing board seats on regular cycles aligned with general elections — prohibiting appointment-only boards above this threshold; (3) require all special districts to publish an annual plain-language "What We Do and What You Pay" report delivered to all residents and property owners within the district; (4) establish a Federal Special District Oversight Office within the Census Bureau — maintaining a comprehensive national registry of all special districts including their taxing authority, geographic boundaries, board composition, and financial data; (5) condition all federal infrastructure and grant funding on state compliance with these transparency requirements; (6) criminal penalties — fines up to $1 million and imprisonment up to 10 years — for any special district official who misappropriates public funds or falsifies financial disclosures; and (7) a private right of action for any resident or property owner in a special district who is denied access to financial records or board meetings in violation of this Act.

The United States has approximately 38,000 special purpose districts — more than all other forms of local government combined — many of which levy taxes and issue bonds with little to no public oversight or democratic accountability. Special districts collectively spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually, yet most Americans cannot name a single special district they pay taxes to.

Congress Must Create Incentives and a Federal Process for States to Consolidate, Merge, or Eliminate Redundant and Unaccountable Special Districts — Especially Those Serving Fewer Than 5,000 Residents — and Prohibit the Creation of New Special Districts as a Tool to Evade Municipal Accountability

Congress must create incentives for states to consolidate or eliminate redundant and unaccountable special districts, especially those serving fewer than 5,000 residents, and prohibit creating new special districts to evade municipal accountability. Many districts were created to exclude communities and avoid oversight.

Congress must: (1) establish a Federal Special District Rationalization Fund — providing $5 billion over 10 years in incentive grants to states that: (a) consolidate special districts serving fewer than 5,000 residents into general-purpose local governments; (b) eliminate any special district that has not held a competitive public election in 10 years; (c) merge overlapping special districts serving the same geographic area with redundant functions; (2) require any state seeking to incorporate a new special district to: (a) demonstrate that the function cannot be performed by an existing general-purpose government; (b) obtain approval from a supermajority of affected property owners via a public referendum; (c) establish term limits of no more than 3 consecutive terms for all board seats; (3) prohibit any special district from being created as a vehicle to: (a) provide exclusive services to a private development or gated community while levying taxes on surrounding properties; (b) exempt a specific class of properties from otherwise applicable local taxation; (c) circumvent state-mandated spending caps or debt limits; (4) require state legislatures to publish an annual Special District Audit reporting on the number, cost, redundancy, and accountability rating of all districts in the state; (5) criminal penalties — fines up to $5 million and imprisonment up to 15 years — for any person who creates a fraudulent special district to misappropriate public funds; and (6) a private right of action for any taxpayer who demonstrates that a special district was created to unlawfully circumvent local democratic accountability.

Many special districts were originally created as racial exclusion tools — providing high-quality services exclusively to white neighborhoods while avoiding integration of general-purpose governments. Private developers have used special district structures ("community development districts") to shift the cost of private infrastructure onto future homebuyers and taxpayers.

Congress Must Establish Federal Standards for Community Development Districts and Mandatory Homeowners Association Governance — Prohibiting HOAs and CDDs From Exercising Quasi-Governmental Powers Over Residents Without Constitutional Due Process Protections and Democratic Accountability

Congress must establish federal standards for community development districts and mandatory homeowners associations, prohibiting HOAs and CDDs from exercising quasi-governmental powers without constitutional due process protections and democratic accountability. About 74 million Americans live under HOA governance with limited rights.

Congress must: (1) enact the Homeowner and Resident Due Process Act — establishing that any homeowners association or community development district that: (a) has authority to levy mandatory assessments or fines; (b) has authority to place liens on or foreclose on residential property; (c) governs a community of more than 50 units — must provide all residents with: (i) full constitutional due process before any fine, lien, or foreclosure — including written notice, right to a neutral hearing officer, and right to appeal; (ii) written notice of all rules at the time of sale and annually thereafter; (iii) an annual independent financial audit published to all members; (iv) democratic election of all board seats with no proxy or developer control after 90% buildout; (2) prohibit any HOA or CDD from: (a) placing a lien or initiating foreclosure proceedings for fines totaling less than $5,000 or unpaid assessments under $2,500; (b) enforcing rules that discriminate based on race, national origin, religion, disability, or familial status; (c) restricting the display of political signs, flags, religious symbols, or other constitutionally protected expression beyond reasonable time-place-manner restrictions; (d) using automated license plate readers, facial recognition, or other surveillance technologies without resident consent; (3) cap all HOA management company fees at 10% of annual assessment revenue; (4) criminal penalties — fines up to $500,000 and imprisonment up to 5 years — for any HOA board member who steals association funds or initiates a foreclosure in bad faith; and (5) a private right of action for any homeowner subjected to an unlawful fine, lien, or foreclosure with recovery of all damages plus punitive damages plus attorney's fees.

HOAs govern approximately 74 million Americans — about 22% of the U.S. population — and can legally foreclose on homes over minor unpaid dues or aesthetic violations in most states. Some HOAs have foreclosed on homes for debts as small as $3.24 in unpaid dues, without adequate due process protections.

Congress Must Enact Automatic Voter Registration for All Eligible Citizens at All Federal Agencies — Including the SSA, DMV, and VA — and Establish Same-Day Voter Registration at All Federal Elections

Congress must enact automatic voter registration at all federal agencies including the Social Security Administration, Department of Motor Vehicles, and Veterans Affairs, and establish same-day registration at all federal elections. This removes bureaucratic barriers and ensures eligible citizens are registered.

Congress must: (1) enact the Automatic Voter Registration Act — requiring all federal agencies that interact with eligible citizens, including the Social Security Administration, all state DMVs receiving federal funding, the VA, federal courts, federal prisons (upon release), and all ACA and Medicaid enrollment systems, to automatically register eligible citizens to vote using information already on file — unless the individual opts out; (2) require automatic registration data to be transmitted to state voter rolls within 10 business days and verified without requiring duplicate documentation from the registrant; (3) establish same-day voter registration at all federal elections — requiring all states to allow any eligible citizen to register and cast a regular (not provisional) ballot at any polling place on Election Day; (4) establish automatic address update — updating a voter's registration to reflect their current address whenever they update their address with any federal agency; (5) require all states receiving federal election funding to maintain voter rolls using only documented evidence of ineligibility — prohibiting purges based on non-voting, unverified third-party lists, or interstate comparison systems with documented error rates above 1%; (6) criminal penalties — fines up to $5 million and imprisonment up to 10 years — for any election official who knowingly purges eligible voters from rolls; and (7) a private right of action for any eligible citizen who was denied registration or had their registration improperly purged.

States with automatic voter registration have seen significant increases in registration rates and voter participation. Approximately 50 million eligible Americans are not registered to vote.

Congress Must Establish Federal Minimum Standards for Polling Place Access, Early Voting, Mail Voting, and Voter ID — Prohibiting Any State Requirement That Functions as a Poll Tax or Systematically Disenfranchises Low-Income or Minority Voters

Congress must establish federal minimum standards for polling place access, early voting, mail voting, and voter ID, prohibiting any requirement that functions as a poll tax or systematically disenfranchises low-income or minority voters. Minimum federal standards prevent states from creating discriminatory barriers.

Congress must: (1) establish federal minimum polling access standards — requiring all states to: (a) provide at least 15 days of early in-person voting including two weekends; (b) allow no-excuse absentee/mail voting for all voters; (c) maintain at least one polling place per 5,000 registered voters — prohibiting polling place closures that result in wait times exceeding 30 minutes; (d) keep all polling places open for at least 12 consecutive hours on Election Day; (2) establish federal voter ID standards — if a state requires ID, it must: (a) accept a broad range of documentation including utility bills, paystubs, and student IDs; (b) provide a free state ID to any voter who lacks qualifying ID within 5 business days of request; (c) allow any voter without ID to cast a provisional ballot confirmed by signature match; (3) prohibit any state from: (a) reducing the number of polling places in any county that has a history of racial voting discrimination; (b) closing polling places within 60 days of an election without a court order; (c) imposing any fee, fine, or cost on any voter as a condition of voting or obtaining a voter ID; (4) restore the Section 5 Voting Rights Act preclearance requirement for states with documented histories of voter suppression; (5) criminal penalties — fines up to $10 million and imprisonment up to 20 years — for any official who knowingly closes polling places or removes equipment to suppress votes; and (6) a private right of action for any voter who was disenfranchised by an unlawful voting restriction.

Studies have documented that polling place closures disproportionately affect Black and Latino voters. Strict voter ID laws have been found to reduce turnout among low-income, elderly, and minority voters who are less likely to possess qualifying ID.

Congress Must Designate Election Day a Federal Holiday, Require All Employers to Provide at Least 4 Hours of Paid Voting Leave for All Federal Elections, and Prohibit Any Employer From Penalizing an Employee for Taking Time to Vote

Congress must designate Election Day a federal holiday, require all employers to provide at least 4 hours of paid voting leave for all federal elections, and prohibit penalizing employees for taking time to vote. Holding elections on a working Tuesday suppresses turnout among working people.

Congress must: (1) designate the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November — and any day on which a federal primary election is held — as a federal public holiday; (2) require all employers with 5 or more employees to provide every employee with at least 4 hours of paid leave to vote in any federal election — including primaries and runoffs; (3) require that paid voting leave be available to all employees including part-time, temporary, and gig workers; (4) prohibit any employer from: (a) penalizing, disciplining, or terminating any employee for taking voting leave; (b) requiring employees to provide their ballots or disclose how they voted as a condition of receiving voting leave; (c) scheduling mandatory shifts on Election Day without providing alternative voting leave; (5) require all employers to post a notice of employee voting rights in all workplaces and in all employment offer letters; (6) establish DOL enforcement authority with civil penalties of up to $10,000 per violation; (7) criminal penalties — fines up to $500,000 and imprisonment up to 3 years — for any employer who knowingly penalizes an employee for voting; and (8) a private right of action for any employee whose voting rights were violated by an employer.

The United States is one of the few major democracies that holds elections on a working Tuesday, contributing to lower voter participation among working people. Exit polls consistently show that "too busy / couldn't get time off work" is among the most common reasons cited by non-voters for not voting.