1,[2] is a bill in the United States Congress[3] intended to expand voting rights, change campaign finance laws to reduce the influence of money in politics, ban partisan gerrymandering, and create new ethics rules for federal officeholders.

[19] The bill would instruct the Election Assistance Commission to adopt recommendations for states on the prevention of interference with voter registration.

[19] The bill prohibits any person from communicating "materially false" claims meant to prevent others from voting 60 days before an election[22] and compels the attorney general to correct such misinformation.

[19] To ensure UOCAVA compliance, the bill would "require all states ... to send uniformed service and overseas voters' ballots at least 45 days before a federal election (provided a request was received at least 45 days before the election); require states to use and pay for express delivery and return of ballots if they fail to send ballots to uniformed and overseas voters by that deadline; [and] extend the guarantee of state residency for voting purposes to all spouses and dependents of absent servicemembers (current law extends the guarantee of residency only to servicemembers themselves).

"[19] The bill would create a cause of action allowing the attorney general or a private party to sue if a state violates these provisions, and would require states to send reports to Congress documenting "the availability of absentee balloting for servicemembers and overseas voters, how many ballots were transmitted, and how many were returned.

The bill would require the commissions to draw congressional district lines on a five-part criterion: "(1) population equality, (2) compliance with the Voting Rights Act, (3) compliance with additional racial requirements (no retrogression in, or dilution of, minorities' electoral influence, including in coalition with other voters), (4) respect for political subdivisions and communities of interest, and (5) no undue advantage for any party.

The complaint is that this has resulted in an impotent and gridlocked FEC, with important reforms left unaddressed, such as the updating of campaign finance law for the digital age[32] and effective regulation of political donations.

[35] The proposed bill would give the FEC five commissioners instead of six, reducing the likelihood of tie votes, and require that no more than two can be members of the same political party.

It would set up a "Blue Ribbon Advisory Panel" consisting of an odd number of individuals selected by the president from retired federal judges, former law enforcement officials, or people with experience in election law, except anyone who holds any public office at the time of selection, but the president would not be required to choose from among those recommended by the panel.

[52] Common arguments in support of the bill are that it would limit gerrymandering by mandating districts be drawn by independent redistricting commissions;[53][54] that it would make voting easier by expanding mail-in voting, requiring at least 15 consecutive days of early voting, and making Election Day a federal holiday;[55] that it would prevent forms of voter suppression like voter-roll purges;[56][57] that it would reduce the influence of dark money in politics;[58][59] that it would re-enfranchise felons who have served their sentences;[60][61] and that it would reduce the influence of "big money" in politics by setting up a donation-matching fund for small-dollar donations.

[65] In a June 2021 open letter, more than 100 university professors and scholars urged suspension of the filibuster to pass the Act, writing, "our entire democracy is now at risk" due to Republican efforts at "radical changes to core electoral procedures in response to unproven and intentionally destructive allegations of a stolen election" (the big lie).

[73] The editors of National Review, a conservative magazine, similarly oppose the bill, calling it a "radical assault on American democracy, federalism, and free speech".

[75] Common criticisms of the bill include allegations that it would undermine election security by, among other things, mandating no-excuse mail-in voting and automatic voter registration, restricting voter ID laws and voter caging, and prohibiting laws against ballot collection;[76][69] that it would subvert states' rights to set election laws by mandating independent redistricting commissions, preventing states from disenfranchising felons, and setting minimum time periods states must offer early voting;[77][78][79][80] that its financial disclosure regulations restrict free speech rights;[81][82][75] and that small-dollar donation matching is wasteful spending.

[84] In 2019, then-Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell issued a statement criticizing the bill as a "one-sided power grab" by the Democratic Party and said it would not pass the Republican-controlled Senate.

[12] The White House issued a statement arguing that the bill would "micromanage" elections that are run largely by states and would establish a "costly and unnecessary program to finance political campaigns".

[87] In March 2021, after the bill passed the House, the conservative organization American Action Network launched an ad campaign against it.

1 that we strongly support and have long championed" but arguing that other provisions would "unconstitutionally infringe the freedoms of speech and association" of citizens and public interest groups.

[93] The ACLU specifically opposed the DISCLOSE Act provisions (which, among other things, would require organizations that engage in campaign-related disbursements to disclose the names and addresses of donors who give $10,000 or more) and the expanded Stand By Every Ad Act provisions (which would broaden existing disclosure requirements).

[92] The group said, "Following the Trump administration's relentless attacks on our democratic system of government, a serious legislative effort to restore and strengthen our republic is needed now more than ever, and we strongly support many of the voting rights provisions in H.R.

[92] Some former ACLU officials signed a joint letter from constitutional scholars that advocated for passage of the bill as "most significant pro-democracy legislation since the Voting Rights Act of 1965" and wrote, "We do not view First Amendment concerns over the precise scope of disclosure requirements affecting large donors to tax-exempt organizations operating on the margins of electoral politics as outweighing the need for expeditious enactment of the clearly desirable aspects of H.R.

Among their claims are that each state, not the federal government, has the power to oversee and regulate elections under the Constitution, and that provisions of the bill would violate the First Amendment as well as previous Supreme Court rulings such as McPherson v. Blacker and Bush v.

1 were enacted, the Supreme Court would likely strike down its key elements (independent redistricting provisions, automatic voter registration, public campaign financing, disclosure requirements) "on the basis of implausible constitutional analysis" of the Elections Clause and the First, Tenth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

[38] Senate Republicans uniformly opposed the bill; they could block it through a filibuster, a procedural hurdle requiring a supermajority of 60 votes to advance legislation.

[108] In early June 2021, Manchin came out against the For the People Act,[109] but later that month proposed a list of changes that, if adopted, would allow him to support the legislation.

[110] The compromise proposal, the Freedom to Vote Act (S. 2747), was formally introduced by Manchin, Amy Klobuchar, and other Democratic senators on September 14, 2021.

[114][111] A Brennan Center for Justice research report said that the narrowed bill "contains the vast majority of the most critical provisions that were in the For the People Act, although it does also reflect some important concessions that were needed to achieve unity among Senate Democrats.