S-1-117
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 123.
Sponsored by Jeff Merkley (D-OR)
What it does
This bill would make sweeping changes to how federal elections are run. It would require states to offer automatic voter registration, same-day registration, expanded early voting, and vote-by-mail options, while limiting the removal of voters from registration rolls. It would require states to create independent commissions to draw congressional district maps, strengthen cybersecurity protections for election systems, expand campaign finance disclosure requirements, create a public financing option for certain federal candidates, and impose new ethics rules on all three branches of government — including a Supreme Court code of conduct and mandatory tax return disclosure for presidential candidates and officeholders.
Who benefits
Voters who currently lack access to early voting, mail-in ballots, or automatic registration — including lower-income workers, people without transportation, and those with inflexible work schedules. Voters in states with aggressive voter roll purge practices. Communities in states where congressional districts are currently drawn by partisan legislatures. Small-dollar political donors who would gain a matching public financing option. Journalists, watchdog organizations, and the general public who would gain access to more campaign finance and ethics disclosures. Candidates who do not have access to large donor networks and would benefit from public financing. Citizens in states with limited election cybersecurity infrastructure.
Who is hurt
State governments and legislatures that would lose authority over their own election administration procedures and redistricting processes. Political parties and incumbents who benefit from existing district maps drawn by partisan legislatures. Large political donors and outside spending groups whose previously undisclosed contributions would become public. Candidates who rely on large-donor fundraising models that may be disadvantaged relative to publicly financed opponents. Federal employees, White House staff, Members of Congress, and Supreme Court Justices who would face new restrictions and disclosure obligations. Taxpayers who would fund the new public campaign financing system.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the bill would remove barriers that prevent millions of eligible Americans from exercising their constitutional right to vote. They contend that automatic and same-day registration would modernize outdated systems that cause eligible voters to be turned away through no fault of their own. They argue that independent redistricting commissions would end the practice of politicians choosing their own voters, producing fairer maps that better reflect the will of the electorate. On campaign finance, supporters contend that expanded disclosure requirements would give the public essential information about who is funding political campaigns, and that a public financing option would allow candidates without wealthy donor networks to compete on a more level playing field. They further argue that new ethics requirements — including a Supreme Court code of conduct and tax return disclosure — would restore public trust in government institutions by holding officials to clear, enforceable standards of conduct.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill would unconstitutionally strip states of their authority to administer their own elections, an area the Constitution explicitly reserves to the states under the Elections Clause and the Tenth Amendment. They contend that mandating specific voting procedures — such as same-day registration and no-excuse mail voting — overrides legitimate state policy choices and could undermine election integrity measures that states have enacted. They argue that requiring independent redistricting commissions removes a function the Constitution assigns to state legislatures, potentially conflicting with the Elections Clause. On campaign finance, opponents contend that compelling disclosure of donor identities can chill constitutionally protected political speech and association, and that using public funds to finance political campaigns forces taxpayers to subsidize speech they may oppose. They further argue that imposing a code of conduct on the Supreme Court and mandating tax return disclosures for the President raises serious separation of powers concerns about Congress dictating terms to a co-equal branch of government.
Constitutional context
The Elections Clause (Art. I, Sec. 4) grants Congress authority to regulate the "time, place, and manner" of federal elections, but states retain primary administration authority. The Tenth Amendment limits federal commandeering of state governments (New York v. United States, Printz v. United States). The First Amendment governs campaign finance disclosure and spending rules (Buckley v. Valeo, Citizens United v. FEC, NIFLA v. Becerra). The Spending Clause and separation of powers are implicated by the public financing system and ethics mandates on the judiciary. Post-Loper Bright, any agency rules implementing this bill would face independent judicial scrutiny. The major questions doctrine (West Virginia v. EPA) could apply to broad agency authority granted under the bill's cybersecurity and election security provisions.
Checks and balances
Congress would gain significant authority over election administration, currently managed by states, shifting power from state legislatures to federally mandated independent commissions. The legislative branch would also gain new oversight tools over the executive branch (tax return disclosure, ethics rules) and the judiciary (Supreme Court code of conduct). The executive branch would gain new cybersecurity and intelligence-sharing responsibilities. Overall, the bill centralizes election and ethics authority at the federal level, reducing state legislative discretion.
Historical precedent
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 established federal oversight of state election practices. The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (Motor Voter Act) required states to offer voter registration at DMVs and other agencies. The Help America Vote Act of 2002 set federal standards for election administration after the 2000 election. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (McCain-Feingold) expanded campaign finance disclosure and spending rules.