HR1, "For the People Act of 2021"

HR1, also known as the "For the People Act of 2021," was a federal election law and government ethics bill before the 117th United States Congress. It cleared the United States House of Representatives on March 3, 2021. It did not receive a vote in the Senate and did not become law.

HIGHLIGHTS

Summary: According to the Congressional Research Service, HR1 "expands voter registration (e.g., automatic and same-day registration) and voting access (e.g., vote-by-mail and early voting). It also limits removing voters from voter rolls. ... Further, the bill addresses campaign finance, including by expanding the prohibition on campaign spending by foreign nationals, requiring additional disclosure of campaign-related fundraising and spending, requiring additional disclaimers regarding certain political advertising, and establishing an alternative campaign funding system for certain federal offices."

The United States House of Representatives approved HR1 on March 3, 2021, by a vote of 220-210, with all but one present Democrat voting in favor and all present Republicans voting against it. The Senate companion bill, S1, was introduced in that chamber on March 17. On June 22, the Senate voted 50-50 to allow debate on the bill, shy of the 60 votes needed to proceed.

This article provides the following information about HR1:

• Procedural history and status: HR1's procedural history in the Congress, including a discussion of proposals to end the filibuster in order to facilitate the bill's passage.
• Summary prepared by the Congressional Research Service: The full text of the summary prepared by the Congressional Research Service.
• Major provisions by title: An overview of the bill's major provisions, broken down by each of the bill's 10 titles.
• Support and opposition: A selection of arguments being made for and against HR1, including links to opinion pieces in other outlets.

Procedural history and status

Introduced in the United States House of Representatives on January 4, 2021, 222 Democrats ultimately signed on as co-sponsors. No Republicans co-sponsored the bill. HR1 was brought up for debate on March 2, 2021. On March 3, 2021, the House voted 220-210 to adopt HR1, with all but one present Democrat (Rep. Bennie Thompson, Miss.) voting in favor and all present Republicans voting against it. The bill was received in the United States Senate on March 11, 2021.

On March 17, 2021, Sen. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D) and Sens. Jeff Merkley (D) and Amy Klobuchar (D) introduced S1, the companion bill to HR1, in the Senate. On May 11, 2021, the Senate Rules Committee reached a deadlock in its consideration of the bill, with the committee's nine Republicans voting against and nine Democrats voting in favor. According to The New York Times, the deadlocked committee vote "does not prevent Democrats from moving forward" with the legislation.

On June 6, 2021, in an editorial published in the Charleston Gazette-Mail, Sen. Joe Manchin]] (D-W.Va.) announced that he would not vote in favor of HR1/S1. Manchin said, "I believe that partisan voting legislation will destroy the already weakening binds of our democracy, and for that reason, I will vote against the For the People Act. Furthermore, I will not vote to weaken or eliminate the filibuster." According to the Associated Press, Manchin's decision left "no plausible path forward for [the] legislation."

On June 22, 2021 the Senate voted 50-50 to allow debate on the bill, shy of the 60 votes needed to proceed. Schumer suggested he intended to bring the bill up for debate again later in the summer: "Democrats are going to keep going all summer, all fall, as long as it takes. This concerns the very core of our democracy. So we will not let it go. We will not let it die. This voter suppression cannot stand. And we are going to work tirelessly to see that it does not stand."

Proposals to end or reform the filibuster to facilitate passage

The term "filibuster" describes any effort to block Senate action on a bill by speaking at length, introducing multiple procedural motions, or engaging in other obstructive tactics. Under the Senate's principle of unlimited debate, a filibuster can, in theory, extend debate on an issue indefinitely. To prevent this, and to end a filibuster, Senate rules allow for the invocation of cloture, which closes debate on an issue and forces a vote. It takes 60 votes in the Senate to invoke cloture.

Some Democrats proposed eliminating or reforming the filibuster in order to pass HR1 other legislation. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said, "I support discussing any proposal that ends the misuse of the filibuster as a weapon of mass obstruction. If the Senate retains the filibuster, we must change the rules so that a senator who wants to bring our government to a standstill endures — at least — some discomfort in the process. We need new rules that actually promote debate." However, Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) both expressed resistance to this idea. Manchin said, "Everybody’s talking, there’s so many different ideas out there. They’re all talking. And that’s it, there’s nothing wrong with it, that’s healthy when you want to talk about everything. But the bottom line is, you can’t get rid of the shoulder. … You cannot get rid of the filibuster unless your intention is to destroy the Senate."

Summary prepared by the Congressional Research Service

The summary below was prepared by the Congressional Research Service and is presented in its entirety.

“

This bill addresses voter access, election integrity and security, campaign finance, and ethics for the three branches of government. Specifically, the bill expands voter registration (e.g., automatic and same-day registration) and voting access (e.g., vote-by-mail and early voting). It also limits removing voters from voter rolls. The bill requires states to establish independent redistricting commissions to carry out congressional redistricting. Additionally, the bill sets forth provisions related to election security, including sharing intelligence information with state election officials, supporting states in securing their election systems, developing a national strategy to protect U.S. democratic institutions, establishing in the legislative branch the National Commission to Protect United States Democratic Institutions, and other provisions to improve the cybersecurity of election systems. Further, the bill addresses campaign finance, including by expanding the prohibition on campaign spending by foreign nationals, requiring additional disclosure of campaign-related fundraising and spending, requiring additional disclaimers regarding certain political advertising, and establishing an alternative campaign funding system for certain federal offices. The bill addresses ethics in all three branches of government, including by requiring a code of conduct for Supreme Court Justices, prohibiting Members of the House from serving on the board of a for-profit entity, and establishing additional conflict-of-interest and ethics provisions for federal employees and the White House. The bill requires the President, the Vice President, and certain candidates for those offices to disclose 10 years of tax returns.

”

Major provisions by title

HR1 comprises 10 titles, each focusing on a different aspect of election policy and government ethics. A summary of major provisions by title is presented below. Note that provisions apply specifically to federal elections, candidates, and officials.

Title I — Election Access

Title I would establish the following voter registration process requirements:

• Each state must provide for online voter registration. Each state must also allow voters to update their registration records online.
• Each state must establish a process whereby eligible voters are automatically registered to vote when interacting with certain stage agencies, such as departments of motor vehicles, social service providers, etc.
• East state must allow a voter to update the address on his or her registration record at the polls on Election Day.
• Each state would have to allow for same-day voter registration.
• A state would be barred from removing a voter's name from the registration rolls without first obtaining either the voter's full name, birth date, and the last four digits of the voter's Social Security number or documentation proving that the voter is no longer a state resident.

Title I would also establish the following early and absentee/mail-in voting requirements:

• Each state would have to allow for at least two weeks of in-person early voting before Election Day.
• Each state would be required to allow any eligible voter to vote by mail. Each state would have to make absentee/mail-in ballot applications available online or by phone (as well as by mail).
• The legislation would prohibit states from requiring individuals voting by mail to provide any identification apart from a signature.
• Each state would be required to accept any valid absentee/mail-in ballot postmarked on or before Election Day and received within 10 days after Election Day.
• Each state would have to allow a voter to designate someone else to return his or her ballot, provided that the person returning the ball is not being compensated for doing so.

Title II — Election Integrity

Title II would enact "findings in support" of amending the Voting Rights Act of 1965, promoting Native American voting rights, granting statehood to the District of Columbia, and establishing voting rights for Americans living int he U.S. territories. It would not enact binding policies on these matters.

Title II would enact the following changes to the congressional redistricting process:

• It would require that all states utilize non-politician redistricting commissions, comprising even numbers of Democratic, Republican, and unaffiliated members.
• It would prohibit the enactment of maps that "unduly favor or disfavor" one political party over another.
• It would establish uniform rules for drafting maps, applicable to each state.

Title III — Election Security

Title III would create public-sector grant programs for various election security and election infrastructure projects, including updates to voting systems and risk-limiting audits. It would also establish private-sector grants for firms involved in researching and developing tools for improving election security. It also would direct the president and executive branch agencies to "issue a national strategy to protect against cyber attacks, influence operations, disinformation campaigns, and other activities that could undermine the security and integrity of United States democratic institutions."

Title IV — Campaign Finance Transparency

Title IV would establish the following requirements:

• Political committees would be required to notify the Federal Bureau of Investigations and the Federal Election Commission of contacts with any representatives from foreign governments, political parties, or other entities.
• Any corporation, union, or nonprofit entity spending $10,000 or more during an election cycle would be required to disclose the following in publicly available reports:
  • All donors contributing $10,000 or more in an election cycle, unless the donor specified that his or her contributions are not to be used for political purposes.
  • All campaign-related expenditures exceeding $1,000.
  • All individuals with a substantial ownership or control interest in the organization.
• It would require groups making political advertisements to disclose their top donors and chief officials in disclaimers on those advertisements.
• It would allow the Internal Revenue Service to require nonprofits engaging in political activities to disclose their donors as a condition for tax-exempt status.
• It would extend existing rules for political advertisements to paid internet and digital communications that mention a candidate in the run-up to an election.

Title V — Campaign Finance Empowerment

Title V would establish a voluntary public financing system for congressional elections, under which private donations to congressional campaigns of up to $200 would be matched by public funds using a 6-1 ratio (that is, a private $100 donation to a candidate would trigger $600 in matching funds). Matching funds would be sourced from surcharges on criminal and civil penalties and settlements from corporations, corporate offices, and, in some instances, individual violators of the tax code. Title V would make similar changes to the existing public financing system for presidential primary candidates. It would also allow non-incumbent candidates for federal office to use campaign funds for childcare and other expenses.

Title VI — Campaign Finance Oversight

Title VI would make the following changes to the federal campaign finance oversight structure:

• It would reduce the number of Federal Election Commission members from six to five, with no more than two members longing to the same political party.
• It would require that candidates dispose of unused funds no later than six years after the last election in which they ran. After paying campaign debts, candidates could dispose of funds by returning donations to contributors or giving them to a political party committee or charitable organization.

Title VII — Ethical Standards

Title VII would establish the following:

• It would require the Judicial Conference of the United States to produce a new code of ethics for the entire federal judiciary system, including the Supreme Court.
• It would require presidential appointees to recuse themselves from matters to which either the president or the president's spouse is a party.

Title VIII — Ethics Reforms for the President, Vice President, and Federal Officers and Employees

Title VIII would establish the following provisions for executive branch officials and employees:

• It would require that executive branch officials and employees recuse themselves from matters in which former employers or clients had a financial interest.
• It would bar executive branch officials and employees from awarding government contracts to their former employers for two years. It would also bar officials and employees from joining industries they oversaw for two years after leaving government service.
• It would require that the president and vice-president limit personal holdings to assets that do not pose a potential conflict of interest (or use a blind trust). It would also bar the president, vice-president, and cabinet members from entering into contracts with the United States government.

Title IX — Congressional Ethics Reform

Title IX would establish the following provisions for members of Congress:

• It would bar members of the House from serving on the boards of for-profit companies.
• It would bar members of Congress and their staff from advancing legislation "the principal purpose of which is to further only his or her pecuniary interest," or that of immediate family.

Title X — Presidential and Vice Presidential Tax Transparency

Title X would require that sitting presidents, vice-presidents, and major-party candidates for those offices disclose their income tax returns for the past 10 years to the public.

Support and opposition

The following is a selection of statements in support of, and in opposition to, various provisions of HR1.

Support

Upon HR1's introduction in the U.S. House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D), House Administration Chair Zoe Lofgren (D), and Democracy Reform Task Force Chair John Sarbanes (D) said the following in a joint statement:

“

Our democracy is in a state of deep disrepair. During the 2020 election, Americans had to overcome rampant voter suppression, gerrymandering and a torrent of special interest dark money just to exercise their right to vote. Across the country, people of all political persuasions – including Democrats, Independents and Republicans – are profoundly frustrated with the chaos, corruption and inaction that plague much of our politics. ... H.R. 1 will protect the right to vote, ensure the integrity of our elections, hold elected officials accountable and end the era of big, dark, special-interest money in our politics.

”

Sen. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D) said the following about HR1's companion bill in the Senate (S1):

“

As Senate Majority Leader, one of the first things that I did was designate the For The People Act as S.1, the first legislative bill from the Senate Democrats. In doing so, Senate Democrats made clear we are committed to standing up to the voter suppression efforts that are threatening the core tenets of our democracy, to ending dark money in politics, and to ensuring public officials work for those they represent and not the special interests. As this legislation moves through the Senate, every member of this body will have an opportunity to stand up and say if they support a government by the people and for the people.

”

The Brennan Center for Justice argued that HR1's campaign finance provisions were necessary "to curb dark money, counter foreign interference in U.S. elections, and make it harder to sidestep campaign contribution limits."

“

Dark money is an especially troubling phenomenon. The lack of donor disclosure deprives voters of critical information about who is trying to influence them and what those spenders want from the government. It is donor disclosure, as the Citizens United court itself pointed out, that allows voters to determine whether elected leaders "are in the pocket of so-called 'moneyed interests.'"

”

Opposition

Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R) said the following in opposition to HR1:

“

[Democrats] want to force all 50 states to allow the absurd practice of ballot harvesting, where paid operatives can show up at polling places carrying a thick stack of filled-out ballots with other people’s names on them. They want to forbid states from implementing voter I.D. or doing simple things like checking their voter rolls against change-of-address submissions. They want to mandate no-excuse, mail-in balloting as a permanent norm, post-pandemic. This sweeping federal takeover would be exactly the wrong response to the distressing lack of faith in our elections that we’ve recently seen from both political sides.

”

In a floor speech, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R) said the following:

“

First, H.R. 1 sends public dollars to fund political campaigns — not to open schools or distribute vaccines, but to create a slush fund so that politicians can run for reelection. ... Second, H.R. 1 weakens the security of our elections by making it harder to protect against voter fraud. ... Third, H.R. 1 rewrites election laws and imposes one-size-fits-all partisan rules from Washington. ... Fourth, H.R. 1 politicizes the FEC by turning it from an evenly divided commission into a partisan one and also by creating a speech czar.

”

The Heritage Foundation argued that HR1's campaign finance provisions would "impose onerous legal and administrative compliance burdens and costs on candidates, citizens, civil groups, unions, corporations, and nonprofit organizations."

“

Many of these provisions violate the First Amendment, protect incumbents, and reduce the accountability of politicians to the public; its onerous disclosure requirements for nonprofit organizations would subject their members and donors to intimidation and harassment—the modern equivalent of the type of disclosure requirements the U.S. Supreme Court in NAACP v. Alabama (1958) held violated associational rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.

”

Additional reading

The following list is a sample of articles including various perspectives on HR1.

• Cato Institute, "Is H.R. 1 a 'Voting Rights Bill'?" March 5, 2021
• National Review, "Pelosi’s H.R. 1 Is an Authoritarian Outrage," March 4, 2021
• The Atlantic, "Democrats’ Only Chance to Stop the GOP Assault on Voting Rights," March 3, 2021
• The Washington Post, "Opinion: H.R. 1 could restore our democracy. As it’s written now, it could hurt it, too." March 3, 2021
• The Heritage Foundation, "The Facts About H.R. 1: The 'For the People Act of 2021,'" February 21, 2021
• Brennan Center for Justice, "Congress Must Pass the 'For the People Act,'" January 29, 2021
• Americans for Tax Reform, "Five Reasons to Oppose H.R. 1, Democrats’ Attempt to Consolidate Power," January 22, 2021
• League of Women Voters, "LWVUS Supports the Return of H.R. 1 in the 117th Congress," January 5, 2021

Full text

The full text of HR1, current as of March 3, 2021, is presented below:

Recent news

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms HR 1. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

HR1, "For the People Act of 2021" - Google News

See also

These articles summarize existing state-specific policies on issues addressed in HR1:

• Online voter registration
• Automatic voter registration
• Same-day voter registration
• Redistricting commissions

External links

• Congress.gov, "H.R.1 - For the People Act of 2021"

Footnotes

Ballotpedia

About

Overview • What people are saying • Support Ballotpedia • Contact • Contribute • Job opportunities

---

Executive: Leslie Graves, Founder and CEO • Gwen Beattie, Chief Operating Officer

Communications: Alison Graves, Director of Communications • Carley Allensworth • Abigail Campbell • Frank Festa • Sarah Groat • Nathaniel Harwood • Dillon Redmond • Erica Shumaker
External Relations: Geoff Pallay, Director of External Relations • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy • Ashley Fleming • Thomas Mardik • Hannah Nelson
Operations: Meghann Olshefski, Director of Operations • Amanda Herbert • Mandy Morris • Caroline Presnell • Kelly Rindfleisch
Tech: Matt Latourelle, Director of Technology Operations • Ryan Burch • Kirsten Corrao • Beth Dellea • Travis Eden • Tate Kamish • Margaret Kearney • Eric Lotto • Joseph Sanchez • Mary Susmitha

Contributors: Scott Rasmussen

---

Editorial Content

Josh Altic, Director of Content • Daniel Anderson, Associate Director of Elections & Data • Cory Eucalitto, Associate Director of Features • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor of Ballot Measures • Mandy McConnell, Managing Editor of News • Doug Kronaizl, Managing Editor of Local Expansion • Abbey Smith, Managing Editor of Elections • Janie Valentine, Managing Editor of Law • Joel Williams. Managing Editor of Events • Andrew Bahl • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Joseph Brusgard • Emma Burlingame • Kelly Coyle • Jon Dunn • Thomas Ellis • Nicole Fisher • Joseph Greaney • Thomas Grobben • Brianna Hosea • Molly Kehoe • Tyler King • Glorie Martinez • Norm Leahy, Senior Editor • Nathan Maxwell • Jimmy McAllister • Brandon McCauley • Ellie Mikus • Ellen Morrissey • Mackenzie Murphy • Kaley Platek • Samantha Post • Adam Powell • Annelise Reinwald • Ethan Rice • Spencer Richardson • Victoria Rose • Briana Ryan • Myj Saintyl • Maddy Salucka • Emma Soukup • Alexis Thacker • Mina Vogel • Samuel Wonacott • Trenton Woodcox