HR-4563-118
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 825.
Sponsored by Bryan Steil (R-WI)
What it does
The ACE Act would make changes to federal election administration, campaign finance, and election security rules. It would reduce federal election funding to states that allow noncitizens to vote or ballot harvesting, require states to give congressional observers full access to federal election procedures, prohibit federal agencies from using their funds or property to conduct voter registration or mobilization activities through outside organizations, and establish new election rules for Washington, D.C. It would also repeal limits on coordinated spending between political parties and candidates, ban foreign nationals from contributing to state and local ballot initiative campaigns, and create a panel to recommend procedures for filling presidential election vacancies.
Who benefits
Political parties, which would gain the ability to spend unlimited coordinated funds with their candidates. Congressional election observers, who would receive guaranteed access to federal election administration procedures. States that already prohibit noncitizen voting and ballot harvesting, which would face no funding reductions. Voters in states where these practices are already banned, who would see no change. Candidates in federal elections, who would be shielded from federally funded campaign support for opponents. Residents of states with stricter election laws, whose practices would align with the bill's requirements.
Who is hurt
States and localities that currently allow noncitizen voting or ballot harvesting, which would lose federal election assistance funding. Nongovernmental organizations that currently partner with federal agencies on voter registration drives, which would lose access to agency platforms and funding. Noncitizen residents in jurisdictions that permit them to vote in local elections, who could lose that ability if their jurisdiction changes policy to avoid funding cuts. Voters in areas that rely on ballot harvesting for ballot collection, particularly elderly, disabled, or rural voters who may depend on third-party ballot collection. Foreign nationals who currently contribute to state and local ballot initiative campaigns, who would be prohibited from doing so.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the ACE Act would strengthen public confidence in elections by ensuring that only U.S. citizens participate in federal elections and that election processes are transparent and observable. They contend that prohibiting federal agencies from conducting voter registration through outside groups prevents the executive branch from using taxpayer resources to influence electoral outcomes in ways not authorized by Congress. Supporters also argue that repealing coordinated party expenditure limits restores free speech rights affirmed in cases like Buckley v. Valeo by allowing parties to more freely support their candidates. They say the ban on foreign nationals contributing to ballot initiatives closes a genuine gap in federal campaign finance law, and that funding conditions on states are a legitimate use of Congress's spending power to promote uniform, citizen-only election participation nationwide.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the ACE Act would use federal funding as a coercive tool to override legitimate state and local decisions about election administration, undermining the federalism principles that have historically governed U.S. elections. They contend that prohibiting federal agencies from supporting voter registration activities would reduce overall voter participation, disproportionately affecting lower-income and minority communities that benefit most from agency-based outreach. Opponents also argue that repealing coordinated party expenditure limits would allow wealthy donors to funnel far greater sums into campaigns through party committees, amplifying the influence of large contributors. They say that conditions tied to ballot harvesting bans could eliminate a lawful practice that many disabled, elderly, and rural voters rely on to cast their ballots, and that the bill's D.C.-specific provisions represent Congress overriding the self-governance of District residents who have no voting representation in Congress.
Constitutional context
The Elections Clause (Art. I, Sec. 4) grants Congress authority to regulate the time, place, and manner of federal elections, providing the primary basis for most provisions. The Spending Clause (Art. I, Sec. 8) permits Congress to attach conditions to federal funds, though South Dakota v. Dole (1987) requires conditions to be related to the federal interest and not unduly coercive. The First Amendment governs campaign finance provisions; Buckley v. Valeo (1976) and subsequent cases establish that spending limits implicate free speech. The District Clause (Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 17) gives Congress plenary authority over Washington, D.C. The anti-commandeering doctrine (Murphy v. NCAA, 2018) limits Congress's ability to directly compel states to administer federal law, though funding conditions are generally permissible. Post-Loper Bright (2024), courts independently review agency interpretations of statutes like the Federal Election Campaign Act.
Checks and balances
Congress would gain authority by restricting executive branch agencies from conducting voter registration activities, limiting how the executive uses discretionary funds in the electoral space. Congress would also expand its oversight role through mandatory observer access to federal election administration. The Election Assistance Commission would be restructured, shifting some administrative authority. Political parties — private entities outside the three branches — would gain expanded financial influence over federal campaigns through the repeal of coordinated expenditure limits. State governments would face reduced discretion over certain election administration choices under threat of losing federal funding.
Historical precedent
The National Voter Registration Act (1993) similarly set federal conditions on state election administration. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (2002) addressed coordinated party expenditures and foreign national contribution limits. Help America Vote Act (2002) established the EAC and federal election funding conditions.