Vote by Mail Tracking Act

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/7265
Last Updated: July 16, 2026

Sponsored by

Rep. Mfume, Kweisi [D-MD-7]

ID: M000687

Follow the money

The bill

Vote by Mail Tracking Act

HR. 7265, 119th Congress.

The sponsor

Rep. Mfume, Kweisi [D-MD-7]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$53,300 raised

20 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

55% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Justice" section, p. 596-598 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 43 - 1.

February 3, 2026

Introduced

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed House

🏛️

Senate Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, brought to you by the same geniuses who thought it was a good idea to put a barcode on a ballot envelope and call it "voter security." The Vote by Mail Tracking Act (HR 7265) is a perfect example of how politicians try to treat symptoms instead of diseases.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill's main purpose is to require mail-in ballots to use the Postal Service barcode service, allegedly to improve tracking and security. But let's not be naive – this is just a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. The real objective is to create a veneer of accountability while doing nothing to address the actual issues plaguing our electoral system.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends title 39, United States Code, by adding a new chapter (31) that requires mail-in ballots to include a Postal Service barcode. This barcode will supposedly enable tracking of individual ballots, because God forbid we actually use blockchain or any other secure technology. The bill also gives the Postmaster General the authority to promulgate regulations for ballot envelope design and machineable letters.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are involved in this farce: politicians looking for a soundbite, bureaucrats seeking more power, and special interest groups who want to "improve" the electoral process (read: manipulate it to their advantage). The actual stakeholders – voters – will be left with a false sense of security while the underlying issues remain unaddressed.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a classic case of treating a symptom instead of the disease. It's like putting a sticker on a tumor and calling it "cancer treatment." The real problems in our electoral system – voter suppression, gerrymandering, dark money – will continue to fester while politicians pretend to care about "voter security."

In reality, this bill is just a power grab by the Postal Service and a way for politicians to look busy. It's a prime example of how our legislative process has devolved into a game of smoke and mirrors, where the only winners are the special interests and the losers are the American people.

Diagnosis: Legislative Theater-itis – a chronic condition characterized by grandstanding, empty promises, and a complete disregard for actual problem-solving. Prognosis: Terminal stupidity, with a high risk of voter disillusionment and further erosion of trust in our electoral system.

Related Topics

Elections & Voting Rights
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Mfume, Kweisi [D-MD-7]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$53,300
16 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$0
Committees
$0
Individuals
$53,300

No PAC contributions found

No organization contributions found

No committee contributions found

1
TABORN, TYRONE D.
3 transactions
$11,300
2
JOHNSON, ROBERT
2 transactions
$6,600
3
SEIBEL, MICHAEL
2 transactions
$5,300
4
BRONFEIN, MICHAEL
1 transaction
$3,300
5
JOSEPH, MARK K.
1 transaction
$3,300
6
FISCHER, SOLOMON
1 transaction
$3,000
7
BEREANO, BRUCE C.
1 transaction
$2,500
8
GOY, ROMAN
1 transaction
$2,000
9
PORTER, NEIL C.
1 transaction
$2,000
10
BRAMBLE, DAVID
1 transaction
$2,000
11
WICKHAM, DEWAYNE
1 transaction
$2,000
12
AGRAWAL, SWATI
1 transaction
$2,000
13
WOLFSON, MORRIS
1 transaction
$2,000
14
PIENINCK, BRIAN
1 transaction
$2,000
15
TURNIPSEED, CARL
1 transaction
$2,000
16
BEREANO, BRUCE
1 transaction
$2,000

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 10 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Sessions, Pete [R-TX-17]

ID: S000250

Top Contributors

10

1
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS
OrganizationATMORE, AL
$5,000
May 16, 2024
2
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS
OrganizationATMORE, AL
$5,000
Sep 12, 2023
3
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS
OrganizationATMORE, AL
$3,300
Jun 17, 2024
4
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS
OrganizationATMORE, AL
$3,300
May 24, 2023
5
ALABAMA-COUSHATTA TRIBE
OrganizationLIVINGSTON, TX
$1,000
Sep 30, 2024
6
HOWARD, RONALD VANCE
BANKERS LIFE • MANAGEMENT
IndividualHUNTSVILLE, TX
$5,000
Mar 13, 2023
7
HOWARD, KAREN
ELEMENTS MASSAGE • MANAGEMENT
IndividualHUNTSVILLE, TX
$5,000
Mar 13, 2023
8
SINGH, PRITPAL
BETA SOFT SYSTEMS • MANAGEMENT
IndividualFREMONT, CA
$5,000
Jun 23, 2023
9
KAUR, MANJIT
SINGH SEMICONDUCTORS & SYSTEMS • MANAGEMENT
IndividualFREMONT, CA
$5,000
Jun 23, 2023
10
BEHRINGER, TODD
THE BEHRINGER GROUP, LLC • CONSTRUCTION
IndividualWOODWAY, TX
$3,400
Sep 1, 2023

Rep. Garcia, Robert [D-CA-42]

ID: G000598

Top Contributors

10

1
FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA
OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA
$3,300
May 25, 2023
2
FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA
OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA
$3,300
May 25, 2023
3
SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA
$2,500
Jun 28, 2024
4
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,650
Dec 22, 2023
5
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationBANNING, CA
$1,000
Dec 31, 2023
6
CHEROKEE NATION
OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK
$1,000
Jun 28, 2024
7
SYCUAN BAND OF THE KUMEYAAY NATION
OrganizationEL CAJON, CA
$1,000
Sep 27, 2024
8
MS BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS
OrganizationCHOCTAW, MS
$500
Dec 18, 2023
9
SALAS, RALPH
HARBOR BREEZE • PRESIDENT / CEO
IndividualRANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA
$6,600
Feb 20, 2024
10
ABDUL-WAHAB, ANDREW
SHANGRI-LA INDUSTRIES • CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
IndividualLONG BEACH, CA
$6,600
Jun 30, 2023

Rep. Fitzpatrick, Brian K. [R-PA-1]

ID: F000466

Top Contributors

10

1
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA
$1,500
Dec 31, 2024
2
STATA FAMILY OFFICE
Organization
$500
Apr 26, 2024
3
ASHER, ROBERT B.
IndividualGWYNEDD VALLEY, PA
$10,000
Oct 9, 2024
4
ASHER, ROBERT B.
ASHER CHOCOLATES • CHAIRMAN
IndividualGWYNEDD VALLEY, PA
$10,000
Sep 30, 2024
5
LEVY, EDWARD JR
EDW C LEVY CO • CHAIRMAN
IndividualBIRMINGHAM, MI
$6,600
Feb 26, 2024
6
CROTTY, THOMAS
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualSCOTTSDALE, AZ
$6,600
Feb 27, 2024
7
EVANS, ROGER
GREYLOCK PARTNERS • PARTNER EMERITUS
IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA
$6,600
Feb 27, 2024
8
LEACH, RONALD
NPX ONE • CHAIRMAN & CEO
IndividualGENEVA, IL
$6,600
Feb 28, 2024
9
MCCLAIN, MARK
SAILPOINT • CEO
IndividualAUSTIN, TX
$6,600
Mar 2, 2024
10
CROTTY, THOMAS
IndividualSCOTTSDALE, AZ
$6,600
Mar 8, 2024

Rep. Min, Dave [D-CA-47]

ID: M001241

Top Contributors

10

1
SYCUAN BANK OF KUMEYAAY NATION
OrganizationEL CAJON, CA
$3,300
Jun 30, 2023
2
SANTA ROSA RANCHERIA
OrganizationLEMOORE, CA
$3,300
Jun 11, 2024
3
SANTA ROSA RANCHERIA
OrganizationLEMOORE, CA
$3,300
Jun 11, 2024
4
YOCHA DEHE WINTUN NATION
OrganizationBROOKS, CA
$3,300
Sep 25, 2023
5
YOCHA DEHE WINTUN NATION
OrganizationBROOKS, CA
$3,300
Jul 11, 2024
6
BARONA BANK OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationLAKESIDE, CA
$2,500
Jun 30, 2023
7
VIEJAS BANK OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS
OrganizationALPINE, CA
$2,500
Jun 30, 2023
8
SYCUAN BANK OF KUMEYAAY NATION
OrganizationEL CAJON, CA
$2,000
Jun 30, 2023
9
SYCUAN BANK OF KUMEYAAY NATION
OrganizationEL CAJON, CA
$1,300
Jun 30, 2023
10
FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA
OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA
$1,000
Aug 5, 2024

Rep. Bacon, Don [R-NE-2]

ID: B001298

Top Contributors

10

1
ONEIDA NATION
OrganizationONEIDA, WI
$3,300
Mar 28, 2023
2
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationBANNING, CA
$3,300
Mar 28, 2023
3
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationBANNING, CA
$3,300
Mar 28, 2023
4
SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA
$3,300
Jun 27, 2023
5
ONEIDA NATION
OrganizationONEIDA, WI
$3,300
Jun 30, 2024
6
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA
$2,000
Jun 27, 2023
7
REPUBLICAN MAIN STREET PARTNERSHIP
OrganizationWASHINGTON, DC
$1,000
Jul 11, 2024
8
CARSON, RUSSELL S.
THE CARSON FAMILY CHARITABLE TRUST • PHILANTHROPY
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$6,600
Apr 24, 2024
9
FRANK, JIM
2FILLC • EXEC
IndividualWINNETKA, IL
$6,600
Apr 23, 2024
10
DANIELS, BRANDON
EXIGER • CEO
IndividualRICHMOND, VA
$6,600
Apr 21, 2024

Del. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large]

ID: N000147

Top Contributors

10

1
DONOHOE, BERT
THE DONOHOE COMPANIES INC. • EVP, REAL ESTATE
IndividualBETHESDA, MD
$3,300
May 2, 2024
2
OTONI, RAFAELA
HILTON CORPORATION • PRESIDENT & CEO
IndividualMC LEAN, VA
$3,300
May 3, 2024
3
REID, JACK
RAM CUSTOM SERVICES • PRESIDENT
IndividualCHESAPEAKE BEACH, MD
$3,300
May 6, 2024
4
LEWIS, JACQUELINE
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualWASHINGTON, DC
$3,300
Jul 10, 2023
5
LEWIS, JACQUELINE
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualWASHINGTON, DC
$3,300
Jul 10, 2023
6
BARRY, DAVID E. JR
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualBEALLSVILLE, MD
$2,500
May 12, 2024
7
POLASKI, MICHAEL
THE DONOHOE COMPANIES INC. • EXECUTIVE
IndividualBROADLANDS, VA
$2,500
May 13, 2024
8
GRUNLEY, KENNETH
GRUNLEY CONSTRUCTION • CEO
IndividualPOTOMAC, MD
$2,500
Jun 23, 2023
9
BRUCH, CHRIS
THE DONOHOE COMPANIES INC. • CEO
IndividualBETHESDA, MD
$2,300
Apr 30, 2024
10
EARNEST, JAMES M.
SELF-EMPLOYED • REAL ESTATE INVESTOR
IndividualBETHESDA, MD
$2,300
May 10, 2024

Rep. Ciscomani, Juan [R-AZ-6]

ID: C001133

Top Contributors

10

1
SALT RIVER PIMA MARICOPA INDIAN COMMUNITY
PACSCOTTSDALE, AZ
$1,000
Jun 14, 2024
2
CHEROKEE NATION
OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK
$3,300
Oct 31, 2024
3
EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS
OrganizationCHEROKEE, NC
$3,300
Nov 5, 2024
4
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS
OrganizationATMORE, AL
$3,300
Jun 30, 2024
5
DELTA AIRLINES
OrganizationATLANTA, GA
$2,500
Jul 30, 2024
6
THE CHICKASAW NATION
OrganizationADA, OK
$2,000
Oct 8, 2024
7
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS
OrganizationATMORE, AL
$1,834
Jun 30, 2024
8
MS BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS
OrganizationCHOCTAW, MS
$1,000
Nov 5, 2024
9
COLORADO RIVER INDIAN TRIBES
OrganizationPARKER, AZ
$1,000
Jun 30, 2023
10
THE CHICKASAW NATION
OrganizationADA, OK
$1,000
Jun 30, 2023

Rep. Lynch, Stephen F. [D-MA-8]

ID: L000562

Top Contributors

10

1
CRONIN, JON P.
CRONIN DEVELOPMENT • PRINCIPAL
IndividualBOSTON, MA
$3,300
Nov 27, 2023
2
CRONIN, NICOLE M.
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualBOSTON, MA
$3,300
Nov 27, 2023
3
KENNEDY, LEE M. JR.
LEE KENNEDY CO. INC • SELF EMPLOYED
IndividualDUXBURY, MA
$3,300
Oct 25, 2023
4
KEOHANE, KIARA L.
SELF • HOMEMAKER
IndividualWAKEFIELD, MA
$3,300
Nov 27, 2023
5
KEOHANE, PATRICK J.
SELF • PROPERTY MANAGER
IndividualWAKEFIELD, MA
$3,300
Nov 27, 2023
6
KINEAVY, MICHAEL J.
THE CRONIN GROUP • COO
IndividualBOSTON, MA
$3,300
Nov 27, 2023
7
MORIARTY, JOHN J III
JOHN MORIARTY & ASSOCIATES INC • CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
IndividualCONCORD, MA
$3,300
Dec 4, 2023
8
MORIARTY, JOHN J.
JOHN MORIARTY & ASSOCIATES • BUILDER
IndividualWINCHESTER, MA
$3,300
Dec 4, 2023
9
MORIARTY, JOHN J.
JOHN MORIARTY & ASSOCIATES • BUILDER
IndividualWINCHESTER, MA
$3,300
Dec 4, 2023
10
MURPHY, DENIS
REBEL RESTAURANT • SELF
IndividualBOSTON, MA
$3,300
Nov 27, 2023

Rep. Johnson, Henry C. "Hank" [D-GA-4]

ID: J000288

Top Contributors

10

1
JAVED, MUHAMMAD
RICELAND HEALTHCARE • CEO
IndividualBEAUMONT, TX
$3,300
Oct 9, 2024
2
BEY, N. JOHN
BEY & ASSOCIATES • ATTORNEY
IndividualATLANTA, GA
$3,300
Feb 29, 2024
3
BRYSON, JAN P.
BENCHMARK MANAGEMENT • FOUNDER
IndividualATLANTA, GA
$3,300
Feb 22, 2024
4
CRAWFORD, JESS
N/A • RETIRED
IndividualBROOKHAVEN, GA
$3,300
Feb 23, 2024
5
LEVETT, GREGORY B. SR
GREGORY B. LEVETT FUNERAL HOME • FUNERAL DIRECTOR
IndividualSCOTTDALE, GA
$3,300
Feb 19, 2024
6
AGGARWAL, SHIV
AMS • REAL EATATE
IndividualJOHNS CREEK, GA
$2,500
Feb 27, 2024
7
WALKER, CEDRIC
SOUL CIRCUS INC • CEO
IndividualFAYETTEVILLE, GA
$2,500
Feb 22, 2024
8
CHO, CHOONG SHIK
HOPEWELL ENTERPRISES • CEO
IndividualATLANTA, GA
$2,000
Nov 21, 2024
9
HOLLIS, JULIUS H.
SELF-EMPLOYED • BUSINESS OWNER
IndividualROSWELL, GA
$2,000
Feb 19, 2024
10
RUSSELL, MICHAEL
HJ RUSSELL & COMPANY • BUSINESS OWNER
IndividualATLANTA, GA
$2,000
Feb 19, 2024

Rep. Tonko, Paul [D-NY-20]

ID: T000469

Top Contributors

10

1
KHAN, FARAZ A.
SELF-EMPLOYED • REAL ESTATE
IndividualALBANY, NY
$3,300
Nov 3, 2024
2
GATES, WILLIAM H. III
BILL & MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION • CO-CHAIR
IndividualREDMOND, WA
$3,300
Oct 19, 2023
3
ARNOLD, LAURA
NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED
IndividualHOUSTON, TX
$3,300
May 8, 2024
4
ARPEY, MICHAEL W.
HUNTER POINT CAPITAL • PRESIDENT
IndividualSARATOGA SPRINGS, NY
$3,300
Mar 29, 2023
5
ARPEY, MICHAEL W.
HUNTER POINT CAPITAL • PRESIDENT
IndividualSARATOGA SPRINGS, NY
$3,300
Mar 29, 2023
6
ARPEY, STACIE
NOT EMPLOYED • HOMEMAKER
IndividualSARATOGA SPRINGS, NY
$3,300
Mar 29, 2023
7
ARPEY, STACIE
NOT EMPLOYED • HOMEMAKER
IndividualSARATOGA SPRINGS, NY
$3,300
Mar 29, 2023
8
BLOOD, DAVID W.
GENERATION INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT • INVESTMENT MANAGER
IndividualASPEN, CO
$3,300
Mar 8, 2023
9
BLOOD, DAVID W.
GENERATION INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT • INVESTMENT MANAGER
IndividualASPEN, CO
$3,300
Mar 8, 2023
10
DECHMAN, DAVID
SUMMIT ROCK ADVISORS • INVESTMENTS
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$3,300
Mar 6, 2023

Donor Network - Rep. Mfume, Kweisi [D-MD-7]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Loading...

Showing 44 nodes and 35 connections (42 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $107,500

Top Donors - Rep. Mfume, Kweisi [D-MD-7]

Showing top 16 donors by contribution amount

16 Individuals

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Department of Justice

Weak
Vector: 62%
Pages: 596-598AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on improving mail-in ballot tracking via USPS barcodes to enhance transparency and security, while the Project 2025 DOJ excerpt concerns jurisdictional limits on voter fraud prosecutions and absentee ballot curing. Both relate to mail-in ballot integrity, but the bill does not address DOJ authority or curing procedures, resulting only a tangential connection."

Key themes:mail-in votingballot securityelection integrityvoter fraud prevention

— 563 — Department of Justice Voter fraud includes unlawful practices concerning voter registration and ballot correction. When state legislatures are silent as to procedures for absentee ballot curing or provide specific rules governing that curing, neither counties nor courts may create a cure right where one does not exist, may not modify the law on curing, and certainly cannot engage in creating consent orders with the force of law that are inconsistent with the orders of other similarly situated counties. The DOJ has ceded substantial discretion concerning voter suppression to the Civil Rights Division. Since the Bush Administration, DOJ leadership has determined that using the Election Crimes Branch to prosecute fraudulent voter registration, including mail-in ballot fraud, was too politically costly.78 The Crim- inal Division’s Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses handbook advised that schemes that violated equal protection constituted “voter suppression” prosecut- able under 18 U.S. Code § 241 as part of the guidelines for which the department’s criminal prosecutors were trained.79 State-based investigations of election crimes are supposed to be referred to the Public Integrity Section for review. Historically, 18 U.S. Code § 241 (conspiracy against rights) was used as a basis for investigating state officials whose statements or orders violated the equal protection rights of voters or deliberately misinformed voters concerning the eligibility of their ballots. Nevertheless, the Department of Justice has formalized the Civil Rights Divi- sion’s (as opposed to the Criminal Division’s) jurisdiction over 18 U.S. Code § 241 investigations and prosecutions. The Criminal Division is no longer involved in consultation or review of 18 U.S. Code § 241 investigations.80 The Criminal Division has accordingly advised states that “[i]n the case of a crime of violence or intimida- tion,” they should “call 911 immediately and before contacting federal authorities” because “[s]tate and local police have primary jurisdiction over polling places,”81 despite clearly applicable federal law. This is a mistake. With respect to the 2020 presidential election, there were no DOJ investigations of the appropriateness or lawfulness of state election guidance. Consider the state of Pennsylvania. The Secretary of State sent guidance to the counties stating that: This revised guidance addresses the issuance, voting and examination of provisional ballots under the Election Code. Provisional ballots were originally mandated by section 302 of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA). Provisional ballot amendments included in Act 77 of 2019 went into effect for the 2020 Primary election. Provisional ballot amendments included in Act 12 of 2020 go into effect for the first time on November 3, 2020.82 HAVA, however, mandates provisional ballots only for eligible voters who were not on a state’s voter registration list.83 It does not apply to those who registered for mail-in voting but whose ballots were rejected due to some form of spoliation.

Department of Justice

Weak
Vector: 61%
Pages: 596-598AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on improving mail-in ballot tracking via USPS barcodes to enhance transparency and voter confidence, while the Project 2025 DOJ section concerns voter fraud prosecution, curing rights, and jurisdictional shifts within the Department of Justice. Both address mail-in ballot integrity but from different angles—technology vs. enforcement—resulting only tangential overlap."

Key themes:mail-in ballotselection integrityvoter confidencefraud preventionballot security

— 563 — Department of Justice Voter fraud includes unlawful practices concerning voter registration and ballot correction. When state legislatures are silent as to procedures for absentee ballot curing or provide specific rules governing that curing, neither counties nor courts may create a cure right where one does not exist, may not modify the law on curing, and certainly cannot engage in creating consent orders with the force of law that are inconsistent with the orders of other similarly situated counties. The DOJ has ceded substantial discretion concerning voter suppression to the Civil Rights Division. Since the Bush Administration, DOJ leadership has determined that using the Election Crimes Branch to prosecute fraudulent voter registration, including mail-in ballot fraud, was too politically costly.78 The Crim- inal Division’s Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses handbook advised that schemes that violated equal protection constituted “voter suppression” prosecut- able under 18 U.S. Code § 241 as part of the guidelines for which the department’s criminal prosecutors were trained.79 State-based investigations of election crimes are supposed to be referred to the Public Integrity Section for review. Historically, 18 U.S. Code § 241 (conspiracy against rights) was used as a basis for investigating state officials whose statements or orders violated the equal protection rights of voters or deliberately misinformed voters concerning the eligibility of their ballots. Nevertheless, the Department of Justice has formalized the Civil Rights Divi- sion’s (as opposed to the Criminal Division’s) jurisdiction over 18 U.S. Code § 241 investigations and prosecutions. The Criminal Division is no longer involved in consultation or review of 18 U.S. Code § 241 investigations.80 The Criminal Division has accordingly advised states that “[i]n the case of a crime of violence or intimida- tion,” they should “call 911 immediately and before contacting federal authorities” because “[s]tate and local police have primary jurisdiction over polling places,”81 despite clearly applicable federal law. This is a mistake. With respect to the 2020 presidential election, there were no DOJ investigations of the appropriateness or lawfulness of state election guidance. Consider the state of Pennsylvania. The Secretary of State sent guidance to the counties stating that: This revised guidance addresses the issuance, voting and examination of provisional ballots under the Election Code. Provisional ballots were originally mandated by section 302 of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA). Provisional ballot amendments included in Act 77 of 2019 went into effect for the 2020 Primary election. Provisional ballot amendments included in Act 12 of 2020 go into effect for the first time on November 3, 2020.82 HAVA, however, mandates provisional ballots only for eligible voters who were not on a state’s voter registration list.83 It does not apply to those who registered for mail-in voting but whose ballots were rejected due to some form of spoliation. — 564 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Pennsylvania Act 12 (amended in 2020) does not authorize curing by providing provisional ballots for mail-in voters whose ballots were rejected. Act 12 requires, as part of the mail-in application process, an affidavit that: [The elector] shall not be eligible to vote at a polling place on election day unless the elector brings the elector’s mail-in ballot to the elector’s polling place, remits the ballot and the envelope containing the declaration of the elector to the judge of elections to be spoiled and signs a statement subject to the penalties under 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904 (relating to unsworn falsification to authorities) to the same effect.84 The law in Pennsylvania clearly states that no county may affirmatively provide provisional ballots: The mail-in voter must vote in person and sign a new affidavit. In the 2020 election, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recognized that “the Election Code contains no requirement that voters whose ballots are deemed inadequately verified be apprised of this fact. Thus, unlike in-person voters, mail-in or absentee voters are not provided any opportunity to cure perceived defects in a timely man- ner.”85 Given the Pennsylvania Secretary of State’s use of guidance to circumvent state law, the Pennsylvania Secretary of State should have been (and still should be) investigated and prosecuted for potential violations of 18 U.S. Code § 241. Investigations and prosecutions under 18 U.S. Code § 241 are currently within the jurisdictional oversight of the Civil Rights Division, not the Criminal Division.86 Only by moving authority for 18 U.S. Code § 241 investigations and prosecutions back to the Criminal Division will the rule of law be appropriately enforced. Rejecting Third-Party Requests for Politically Motivated Investigations or Prosecutions. The DOJ should reject demands from third-party groups that ask it to threaten politically motivated investigation or prosecution of those engag- ing in lawful and, in many cases, constitutionally protected activity. By acceding to such demands, the department risks diminishing its credibility with the American public. This risk is exacerbated by the fact that communications between govern- ment officials and third-party groups are generally unprotected by privilege and subject to disclosure, whether via subpoena to the third-party group or via request made pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. These communications can even be made public voluntarily by the third-party group. A recent example illustrates the risks posed by such activity. On October 4, 2021, Attorney General Merrick Garland issued a memorandum to the Director of the FBI, the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, and the Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, calling on the FBI to work with each U.S. Attorney to “con- vene meetings with federal, state, local, Tribal, and territorial leaders” to discuss strategies for addressing “threats against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff.”87 Subsequent reporting and investigation revealed that the

Department of Justice

Weak
Vector: 61%
Pages: 596-598AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 DOJ section concern mail-in voting integrity, but the bill focuses on technical tracking via USPS barcodes while the policy emphasizes legal enforcement, curing procedures, and DOJ jurisdictional shifts, resulting only tangential overlap."

Key themes:mail-in votingelection integrity

— 564 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Pennsylvania Act 12 (amended in 2020) does not authorize curing by providing provisional ballots for mail-in voters whose ballots were rejected. Act 12 requires, as part of the mail-in application process, an affidavit that: [The elector] shall not be eligible to vote at a polling place on election day unless the elector brings the elector’s mail-in ballot to the elector’s polling place, remits the ballot and the envelope containing the declaration of the elector to the judge of elections to be spoiled and signs a statement subject to the penalties under 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904 (relating to unsworn falsification to authorities) to the same effect.84 The law in Pennsylvania clearly states that no county may affirmatively provide provisional ballots: The mail-in voter must vote in person and sign a new affidavit. In the 2020 election, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recognized that “the Election Code contains no requirement that voters whose ballots are deemed inadequately verified be apprised of this fact. Thus, unlike in-person voters, mail-in or absentee voters are not provided any opportunity to cure perceived defects in a timely man- ner.”85 Given the Pennsylvania Secretary of State’s use of guidance to circumvent state law, the Pennsylvania Secretary of State should have been (and still should be) investigated and prosecuted for potential violations of 18 U.S. Code § 241. Investigations and prosecutions under 18 U.S. Code § 241 are currently within the jurisdictional oversight of the Civil Rights Division, not the Criminal Division.86 Only by moving authority for 18 U.S. Code § 241 investigations and prosecutions back to the Criminal Division will the rule of law be appropriately enforced. Rejecting Third-Party Requests for Politically Motivated Investigations or Prosecutions. The DOJ should reject demands from third-party groups that ask it to threaten politically motivated investigation or prosecution of those engag- ing in lawful and, in many cases, constitutionally protected activity. By acceding to such demands, the department risks diminishing its credibility with the American public. This risk is exacerbated by the fact that communications between govern- ment officials and third-party groups are generally unprotected by privilege and subject to disclosure, whether via subpoena to the third-party group or via request made pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. These communications can even be made public voluntarily by the third-party group. A recent example illustrates the risks posed by such activity. On October 4, 2021, Attorney General Merrick Garland issued a memorandum to the Director of the FBI, the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, and the Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, calling on the FBI to work with each U.S. Attorney to “con- vene meetings with federal, state, local, Tribal, and territorial leaders” to discuss strategies for addressing “threats against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff.”87 Subsequent reporting and investigation revealed that the — 565 — Department of Justice memorandum was prompted by a September 29, 2021, letter sent by the National School Boards Association (NSBA) to President Biden demanding a federal law enforcement response to perceived threats to school board members and pub- lic-school employees. The NSBA letter made outlandish demands in response to protests that were then occurring at school board meetings in response to COVID policies and revela- tions about the use of critical race theory–infused curricula in classrooms. Among the letter’s demands was a call for a federal investigation into parents’ actions (“hei- nous actions” that “could be the equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism and hate crimes”) under a variety of federal laws including the “Gun-Free Zones Act, the PATRIOT Act in regards to domestic terrorism, the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes and Prevention Act, the Violent Interference with Federally Protected Rights statute, and the Conspiracy Against Rights statute” and “an Executive Order to enforce all applicable federal laws for the protection of students and public school district personnel, and any related measure.”88 Both the Attorney General’s memorandum and the NSBA letter drew swift public condemnation, including from 14 sitting state Attorneys General.89 A sub- sequent internal investigation commissioned by the NSBA revealed that officials at the White House had been in discussions with NSBA officials about the contents of the letter weeks before it was issued. The investigation also revealed that White House officials indicated they planned to raise the contents of the draft letter with DOJ officials a full week before the NSBA’s letter was issued.90 This cooperation by a third-party group, the White House, and the DOJ to craft and coordinate a response to an ill-advised and politically motivated letter under- mines the department’s credibility as an impartial law enforcement agency. In the words of the 14 state Attorneys General who wrote to oppose the department’s memorandum, “potential collusion between the White House, the Department, and the NSBA in the actual creation of the September 29 letter—as a pretext for threats against parents—raises serious concerns.”91 The DOJ should carefully scrutinize all requests for law enforcement assis- tance and reject requests by third parties to engage in political grandstanding that ignores the department’s traditional jurisdictional limits and that would trample politically controversial but constitutionally protected activity. Ensuring Proper Distribution of DOJ Grant Funds. DOJ grants are an underutilized asset in most conservative Administrations. When used properly, they can be highly effective in implementing the President’s priorities. The Office of Justice Programs (OJP) is comprised of six components and is responsible for most DOJ grants to local law enforcement, juvenile justice, and victims of crime as well as for criminal justice research and statistics. The opportunity to support a President’s agenda may be greater through OJP grant funding than it is through any of the federal government’s other grant-making components.

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.

Full Policy Text

Related Bills