HR-7265-119
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 43 - 1.
Sponsored by Kweisi Mfume (D-MD)
What it does
The Vote by Mail Tracking Act would require a tracking system for mail-in ballots, allowing voters to monitor the status of their ballots through the mailing and counting process. The bill would likely establish minimum federal standards for states or election jurisdictions to provide ballot tracking notifications to voters. The specific technical requirements and funding mechanisms are not detailed in the available bill text.
Who benefits
Voters who cast ballots by mail — particularly elderly voters, voters with disabilities, military and overseas voters (UOCAVA voters), and rural voters who rely on mail voting — would benefit from greater visibility into whether their ballot was received and counted. Election administrators who currently lack a uniform tracking standard may benefit from clearer federal guidance. Voters in states that do not currently offer tracking would gain new access to this capability.
Who is hurt
State and local election officials in jurisdictions that lack existing tracking infrastructure would face new compliance costs and administrative burdens to build or upgrade systems. Smaller counties with limited budgets may find implementation particularly costly. States that have already invested in their own tracking systems may face costs to align with new federal standards. Taxpayers could bear the cost of any federal or state spending required to implement the system.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that ballot tracking gives voters confidence that their vote was received and counted, reducing uncertainty and potential disenfranchisement. Without tracking, a voter whose ballot is lost in the mail has no way to know it never arrived, and may lose their vote entirely. A uniform federal standard would ensure that all mail voters — regardless of which state they live in — have access to the same basic transparency tools. Supporters also contend that tracking systems reduce the volume of provisional ballots and post-election disputes by resolving delivery questions in real time, making elections more efficient and trustworthy for everyone.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that election administration is traditionally a state and local function, and that imposing federal tracking mandates intrudes on authority the Tenth Amendment reserves to the states. Jurisdictions that have already built effective systems tailored to local needs may be forced to overhaul working infrastructure to meet one-size-fits-all federal requirements. Critics also contend that the costs of building and maintaining tracking systems — particularly in rural or under-resourced counties — could divert funds from other election security priorities. Some opponents further argue that the bill's scope is unclear from available text, raising concerns about broad agency rulemaking authority in the post-Loper Bright environment where courts no longer defer to agency interpretations.
Constitutional context
Congress's authority to regulate federal elections derives from Article I, Section 4 (the Elections Clause), which grants Congress power to override state rules for congressional elections. For presidential elections, authority flows from Article II. The Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause may also support federal standards for election infrastructure. The Tenth Amendment creates tension by reserving non-enumerated powers to the states, and election administration has historically been a state function. Post-Loper Bright (2024), any agency rules implementing this bill would be subject to independent judicial review rather than deference, meaning vague delegations of rulemaking authority face greater legal risk. West Virginia v. EPA (2022) further requires that Congress clearly authorize any major regulatory action agencies take under the bill.
Checks and balances
The bill would shift authority toward the federal legislative branch by establishing minimum national standards for a function — ballot tracking — historically managed by state and local governments. If the bill delegates rulemaking to a federal agency (e.g., the Election Assistance Commission or another body), the executive branch would gain implementation authority. Post-Loper Bright, however, courts would independently review any agency rules, limiting executive discretion. State governments would lose some autonomy over mail ballot administration to the extent they must comply with federal standards.
Historical precedent
The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) established federal minimum standards for election administration, including provisional ballots and voting system requirements, and is the closest historical precedent for federal mandates on state election procedures. The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) also established federal requirements for absentee ballot handling for military and overseas voters.