Veterans Accessibility Advisory Committee Act of 2025

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/s/1383
Last Updated: August 19, 2026

Sponsored by

Sen. Scott, Rick [R-FL]

ID: S001217

Follow the money

The bill

Veterans Accessibility Advisory Committee Act of 2025

S. 1383, 119th Congress — read as touching Private Prisons & Immigration Detention.

The sponsor

Sen. Scott, Rick [R-FL]

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

The money

$706,261 raised

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

The alignment

85% 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

Considered by Senate (Message from the House considered). (consideration: CR S1647)

March 25, 2026

Introduced

Committee Review

Floor Action

Passed Senate

House Review

📍 Current Status

Next: Both chambers must agree on the same version of the bill.

🎉

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, courtesy of our esteemed Congress. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act (SAVE America Act) claims to ensure that only U.S. citizens are registered to vote in federal elections. How noble. In reality, it's a thinly veiled attempt to disenfranchise certain groups of voters under the guise of "voter integrity."

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 by introducing new requirements for documentary proof of U.S. citizenship. Applicants must provide one of several forms of identification, including a REAL ID-compliant driver's license, passport, or birth certificate. The bill also modifies the voter registration process when applying for a motor vehicle driver's license and requires states to verify an applicant's citizenship.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are affected: voters, particularly those from marginalized communities who may not have access to the required identification documents. States will also be impacted, as they'll need to implement new verification processes and bear the costs associated with them. Oh, and let's not forget the politicians who get to grandstand about "voter integrity" while further restricting voting rights.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a classic case of "solution in search of a problem." Voter impersonation is already an extremely rare occurrence, but our intrepid lawmakers are determined to "fix" it anyway. The real impact will be felt by eligible voters who face barriers to registration and voting due to the new requirements. This will disproportionately affect low-income individuals, people of color, and those with limited access to identification documents.

In short, this bill is a masterclass in legislative obfuscation, designed to restrict voting rights under the guise of "integrity." It's a cynical ploy to disenfranchise certain groups and maintain the status quo of voter suppression. Bravo, Congress. You've managed to create another piece of legislation that's as useful as a placebo.

Diagnosis: This bill suffers from a severe case of "Voter Suppression Syndrome" (VSS), characterized by symptoms such as:

* Restrictive voting requirements * Disproportionate impact on marginalized communities * Grandstanding about "voter integrity" * Ignoring the actual problem (i.e., voter impersonation is already rare)

Treatment: A healthy dose of skepticism, a strong critical thinking regimen, and a commitment to protecting voting rights. Unfortunately, these remedies are in short supply among our lawmakers.

Related Topics

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

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Scott, Rick [R-FL]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$706,261
10 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$6,600
Committees
$0
Individuals
$699,661

No PAC contributions found

1
SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA
2 transactions
$6,600

No committee contributions found

1
SCOTT, RICK SENATOR
8 transactions
$391,586
2
SCOTT, RICK SEN
3 transactions
$141,938
3
SCOTT, RICK
3 transactions
$96,237
4
CARDONA, ALEJANDRO
1 transaction
$19,900
5
LOOS, JOAN T. MRS.
1 transaction
$10,000
6
GHAFFARIAN, KAM MR.
1 transaction
$10,000
7
GIBBS, JAMES M. MR.
1 transaction
$10,000
8
WENGER, EDWARD
1 transaction
$10,000
9
POHANKA, GEOFFREY
1 transaction
$10,000

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 8 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Sen. Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [D-NY]

ID: G000555

Top Contributors

25

1
ONEIDA INDIAN NATION
OrganizationONEIDA, NY
$3,300
Mar 29, 2023
2
ONEIDA INDIAN NATION
OrganizationONEIDA, NY
$3,300
Mar 29, 2023
3
THE CHICKASAW NATION
OrganizationADA, OK
$3,000
Mar 15, 2024
4
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$600
Jun 22, 2023
5
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$400
Jun 22, 2023
6
STRICKLER, DANIEL B. JR.
BEECHTREE CAPITAL PARTNERS INC. • INVESTMENTS
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$6,200
Mar 24, 2023
7
ROSENWALD, E. JOHN JR.
JP MORGAN • VICE CHAIRMAN
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$5,800
Oct 16, 2023
8
ROSENWALD, E. JOHN JR.
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$5,800
Nov 3, 2023
9
VENNERBERG, VAUGHN II
XTO ENERGY INC • PRESIDENT
IndividualDALLAS, TX
$5,800
Mar 14, 2023
10
VENNERBERG, VAUGHN II
IndividualDALLAS, TX
$5,800
Mar 27, 2023

Sen. Moran, Jerry [R-KS]

ID: M000934

Top Contributors

20

1
BORCK, LEON H.
INNOVATIVE LIVESTOCK SERVICES • EXECUTIVE
IndividualMANHATTAN, KS
$6,600
Mar 11, 2024
2
MANDELBLATT, DANIELLE
DMM PROPRIETA MANAGEMENT • MANAGER
IndividualASPEN, CO
$6,600
Sep 26, 2024
3
MANDELBLATT, ERIC
SOROBAN CAPITAL PARTNERS LP • MANAGING PARTNER
IndividualASPEN, CO
$6,600
Sep 26, 2024
4
CATZ, SAFRA
ORACLE CORPORATION • CEO
IndividualWASHINGTON, DC
$5,000
May 5, 2023
5
MISSION INDIANS, MORONGO BAND OF
INDIAN TRIBE • INDIAN TRIBE
IndividualBANNING, CA
$5,000
Aug 13, 2024
6
WILLIS, THOMAS M
CONESTOGA ENERGY PARTNERS • CEO
IndividualLIBERAL, KS
$5,000
Aug 26, 2024
7
WEILERT, STANLEY R
S&B MOTELS, INC. • HOTELIER
IndividualWICHITA, KS
$3,500
Jun 26, 2023
8
BORCK, JACKIE
KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY • DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY RELATIONS
IndividualMANHATTAN, KS
$3,300
Mar 11, 2024
9
BORCK, JACKIE
KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY • DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY RELATIONS
IndividualMANHATTAN, KS
$3,300
Mar 11, 2024
10
THOMAS, ROBERT
SENIOR STAR • CO-OWNER
IndividualTULSA, OK
$3,300
Feb 22, 2024

Sen. Blumenthal, Richard [D-CT]

ID: B001277

Top Contributors

20

1
OLSON, LYNDON
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualWACO, TX
$3,300
Dec 20, 2024
2
ALIX, JAY
ALIX PARTNERS • FOUNDER
IndividualBIRMINGHAM, MI
$3,300
Oct 2, 2023
3
KIM, CHRISTINE M.
BBB LLC • ATTORNEY
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$3,300
Oct 31, 2023
4
ALIX, JAY
ALIX PARTNERS • FOUNDER
IndividualBIRMINGHAM, MI
$3,300
Apr 15, 2024
5
ROURE, RITA
PAGNY - LINCOLN HOSPITAL • PHYSICIAN
IndividualGREENWICH, CT
$3,300
Apr 10, 2024
6
ROURE, RITA
PAGNY - LINCOLN HOSPITAL • PHYSICIAN
IndividualGREENWICH, CT
$3,300
Apr 10, 2024
7
CHAVEZ, TOM
KRUX INC. • CEO
IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA
$3,300
Jul 13, 2024
8
CHAVEZ, TOM
KRUX INC. • CEO
IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA
$3,300
Jul 13, 2024
9
JONES, JERRY C.
LIVERAMP INC. • EXECUTIVE
IndividualLITTLE ROCK, AR
$3,300
Sep 19, 2024
10
NESSEL, ARIEL
NESSEL DEVELOPMENT • OWNER
IndividualROSS, CA
$3,300
Jul 12, 2024

Sen. Warnock, Raphael G. [D-GA]

ID: W000790

Top Contributors

26

1
JME GROUP
OrganizationSTONE MOUNTAIN, GA
$2,900
Jun 30, 2023
2
JME GROUP
OrganizationSTONE MOUNTAIN, GA
$2,900
Jul 18, 2024
3
PORTFOLIO ONE
OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA
$1,250
Mar 17, 2023
4
MCKENNEY HOUSE LLC
OrganizationFORT WASHINGTON, MD
$1,000
Jun 30, 2023
5
WATKINS WATKINS & WATKINS LLC
OrganizationCARROLLTON, GA
$1,000
Feb 17, 2023
6
SCR CONSULTING LLC
OrganizationATLANTA, GA
$500
Feb 17, 2023
7
GIBSON, DAVID H.
IndividualDALLAS, TX
$26,750
Mar 31, 2023
8
ROBBINS, BONNIE
IndividualSEATTLE, WA
$12,118
Mar 31, 2023
9
ROBBINS, BONNIE
IndividualSEATTLE, WA
$12,118
Jul 18, 2024
10
KERR, WILLIAM G.
IndividualOKLAHOMA CITY, OK
$9,625
Mar 31, 2023

Sen. Moody, Ashley [R-FL]

ID: M001244

Top Contributors

0

No contribution data available

Sen. King, Angus S., Jr. [I-ME]

ID: K000383

Top Contributors

24

1
2120 SEA ISLAND LLC
OrganizationRIVER FOREST, IL
$3,300
Oct 26, 2023
2
THE CHICKASAW NATION
OrganizationADA, OK
$3,300
May 22, 2024
3
THE CHICKASAW NATION
OrganizationADA, OK
$2,000
Mar 29, 2024
4
THE CHICKASAW NATION
OrganizationADA, OK
$1,300
May 22, 2024
5
SMITH, BRAD
MICROSOFT CORPORATION • ATTORNEY
IndividualBELLEVUE, WA
$6,600
Feb 13, 2024
6
SMITH, BRAD
IndividualBELLEVUE, WA
$6,600
Feb 20, 2024
7
DOWNEY, NANCY A.
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$5,000
Sep 4, 2024
8
DOWNEY, NANCY A.
NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$5,000
Aug 31, 2024
9
OTTEN, LESLIE B.
AMERICAN SKIING COMPANY • OWNER
IndividualBETHEL, ME
$5,000
Oct 4, 2024
10
BEKENSTEIN, ANITA
NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED
IndividualWAYLAND, MA
$3,300
Oct 24, 2024

Sen. Hassan, Margaret Wood [D-NH]

ID: H001076

Top Contributors

20

1
WOODS, ANDREW L.
LIBERTY PARTNERS GROUP • ATTORNEY
IndividualFORT MYERS, FL
$4,300
Jun 29, 2023
2
WOODS, ANDREW L.
IndividualFORT MYERS, FL
$3,900
Jul 12, 2023
3
BEKENSTEIN, ANITA
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualWAYLAND, MA
$3,300
Oct 4, 2023
4
BEKENSTEIN, JOSH
NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED
IndividualWAYLAND, MA
$3,300
Oct 4, 2023
5
HUNTER, DANIEL
SELF-EMPLOYED • PLAYWRIGHT & TEACHER
IndividualCAMBRIDGE, MA
$3,300
Dec 6, 2023
6
KLARMAN, SETH
THE BAUPOST GROUP • CEO
IndividualBOSTON, MA
$3,300
Dec 18, 2023
7
SCHWARTZ, GABRIEL
DAVIDSON KEMPNER • INVESTMENT MANAGER
IndividualBROOKLYN, NY
$3,300
Oct 16, 2023
8
SWINDELL, C. DAVID
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualBOSTON, MA
$3,300
Oct 10, 2023
9
KORN, WILLIAM T.
NSRA • RADIOLOGIST
IndividualWABAN, MA
$3,300
Mar 29, 2023
10
KORN, WILLIAM T.
NSRA • RADIOLOGIST
IndividualWABAN, MA
$3,300
Mar 29, 2023

Sen. Warnock, Raphael G. [D-GA]

ID: W000790

Top Contributors

26

1
JME GROUP
OrganizationSTONE MOUNTAIN, GA
$2,900
Jun 30, 2023
2
JME GROUP
OrganizationSTONE MOUNTAIN, GA
$2,900
Jul 18, 2024
3
PORTFOLIO ONE
OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA
$1,250
Mar 17, 2023
4
MCKENNEY HOUSE LLC
OrganizationFORT WASHINGTON, MD
$1,000
Jun 30, 2023
5
WATKINS WATKINS & WATKINS LLC
OrganizationCARROLLTON, GA
$1,000
Feb 17, 2023
6
SCR CONSULTING LLC
OrganizationATLANTA, GA
$500
Feb 17, 2023
7
GIBSON, DAVID H.
IndividualDALLAS, TX
$26,750
Mar 31, 2023
8
ROBBINS, BONNIE
IndividualSEATTLE, WA
$12,118
Mar 31, 2023
9
ROBBINS, BONNIE
IndividualSEATTLE, WA
$12,118
Jul 18, 2024
10
KERR, WILLIAM G.
IndividualOKLAHOMA CITY, OK
$9,625
Mar 31, 2023

Donor Network - Sen. Scott, Rick [R-FL]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

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

Loading...

Showing 20 nodes and 44 connections

Total contributions: $44

Top Donors - Sen. Scott, Rick [R-FL]

Showing top 10 donors by contribution amount

1 Org9 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 1 helped, 2 harmed.

  • Section 8(j)(5)(D) implies that the Secretary of Homeland Security shall conduct an investigation to determine whether to initiate removal proceedings under section 239 of the Immigration and Nationality Act if it is determined that an alien is unlawfully registered to vote in elections for Federal office, which could lead to increased deportations and negatively impact private prisons

  • Section 303A(b) requires the appropriate State or local government official to ensure public access to a digital imaging device at State and local government buildings, including police stations, which could increase the workload and resources for law enforcement

  • −Big Tech Platformsconfidence 0.60

    Section 303A(d)(2) requires online voter registration systems to notify individuals of photo identification requirements before completing the online registration process, which could increase the regulatory burden on big tech platforms that provide such services

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Sen. Scott, Rick [R-FL])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.

Industries this bill HELPS

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

Strong
Vector: 65%
Pages: 596-598AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill aligns with Project 2025's focus on preventing voter fraud by strengthening citizenship verification in voter registration, which supports the DOJ's role in addressing unlawful voter registration practices. Both emphasize ensuring only eligible citizens participate in elections through stricter procedural safeguards."

Key themes:voter fraud preventioncitizenship verificationvoter registration integrityelection securityDOJ oversight of election crimes

— 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 Homeland Security

Strong
Vector: 60%
Pages: 171-173AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill aligns with Project 2025's emphasis on immigration enforcement and information sharing by requiring citizenship verification for voter registration and enabling access to voter and DMV databases, supporting broader immigration control objectives."

Key themes:citizenship verificationvoter registration securityinformation sharingDMV database accessimmigration enforcement

— 138 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise and localities, that would include certification that all components of that government, and not just the applicant agency, are registered with and use E-Verify. l If the applicant is a state or locality, commitment by that state or locality to total information-sharing in the context of both federal law enforcement and immigration enforcement. This would include access to department of motor vehicles and voter registration databases. Non-Use of Discretionary Guest Worker Visa Authorities. To stop facili- tating the availability of cheap foreign labor in order to support American workers (particularly poor and middle-class American workers) and follow congressional intent, the Secretary should explicitly cease using at least two discretionary author- ities as part of his or her broader effort to support American workers. l The Secretary should make it clear that he or she will not use the Secretary’s existing discretionary authority to increase the number of H-2B (seasonal non-agricultural) visas above the statutorily set cap. l The Secretary should not issue any regulations in support of the “H-2 eligible” country list, the effect of which would prevent favoring certain foreign nationals seeking an H-2 guest worker visa based simply on their nationality. Restoration of Honesty and Transparency. The Secretary should use his or her inherent authority as leader of the department to follow up with congressional and other partners to disclose information and provide the transparency that has been obstructed during the Biden Administration. The Secretary should proceed from the assumption that congressional inquiries and public information requests were unfulfilled and then seek to fulfill them. Replacement of the Entire Homeland Security Advisory Committee. The Secretary should plan to quickly remove all current members of the Homeland Security Advisory Committee and replace them as quickly as is feasible. U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION (CBP) If all immigration agencies are not merged, including USCIS and ORR, then an appropriate third alternative would be to consolidate ICE and CBP to form a combined Border Security and Immigration Agency (BSIA). This would inte- grate critical interdiction, enforcement, and investigative resources, enhancing coordination and refocusing collective efforts on the vast and complex cross-bor- der threats impacting our nation’s health, safety, and national security. It would

Department of Justice

Moderate
Vector: 64%
Pages: 596-598AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 DOJ section aim to protect election integrity by preventing ineligible voting, though the bill focuses on registration proof-of-citizenship requirements while the DOJ section emphasizes prosecutorial jurisdiction over voter fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 241."

Key themes:voter fraud preventionelection integritycitizenship verificationDOJ jurisdictionvoter eligibility

— 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

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