This Act establishes the fundamental right to vote in federal elections and prohibits governments from imposing undue burdens or substantial impairments on that right through a rigorous judicial review process.
Summer Lee
Representative
PA-12
The Right to Vote Act establishes the fundamental right of every citizen to vote in federal elections and prohibits governments from imposing undue burdens on this right. It sets strict standards for when a government action that diminishes or substantially impairs voting can be upheld, requiring it to be the least restrictive means of furthering an important governmental interest. The Act also authorizes private citizens to bring civil actions in federal court to challenge violations, with expedited proceedings and provisions for awarding attorney's fees.
Right to Vote Act Sets Strict High-Bar Standards to Prevent Federal Election Barriers Starting in 2026
The Right to Vote Act aims to turn the abstract concept of voting into a concrete, legally protected fundamental right for every adult citizen. At its core, the bill creates a high legal wall that governments must climb before they can change any rules that make it harder for you to cast a ballot in a federal election. It defines 'voting' broadly—covering everything from the moment you register to the moment your ballot is officially counted—and establishes that any government action that makes this process more difficult must be the 'least restrictive' way to achieve a specific, important goal. This isn't just a policy statement; it’s a toolkit for voters to take the government to court if they feel their access to the booth is being squeezed.
The 'Least Restrictive' Litmus Test
Under Section 2, the bill introduces a strict standard for any new election rules. Think of it like a city deciding to close a popular polling place. Under this Act, if that closure makes it harder for you to vote (a concept called 'retrogression'), the government can't just say it's saving money. They would have to prove by 'clear and convincing evidence'—a very high legal hurdle—that the closure is necessary for a specific reason and that there is no other way to achieve that goal that burdens you less. For example, if a state tried to cut early voting hours, a retail worker who relies on those evening shifts could challenge the law. The state would then have to prove that those specific cuts were the only way to, say, ensure election security, rather than just a convenient budget trim.
Your Day in Court (on the Fast Track)
Section 3 of the bill gives you the power to sue any government entity—from your local county board to federal agencies—in federal court. Recognizing that election cycles move fast, the bill mandates 'expedited proceedings,' meaning judges have to move these cases to the front of the line. It also allows the person suing to choose the venue, whether that’s where they live or in D.C. Perhaps most importantly for the average person, if you win your case, the court can award you attorney’s fees. This is a game-changer for regular citizens or small community groups who usually can't afford to go up against a state’s legal team for years on end.
Implementation and the 2024 Benchmark
The bill uses the November 2024 general election as its baseline. According to Section 7, any rule or procedure that wasn't in place during the 2024 election but is scheduled for elections after September 1, 2026, will be subject to the 'retrogression' test. This means if your state passes a law in 2025 that adds new hurdles to mail-in ballots that weren't there in 2024, those new hurdles are immediately vulnerable to a legal challenge. While the bill uses some broad language—like what exactly counts as an 'important, particularized government interest'—it clearly shifts the burden of proof from the voter to the government, requiring officials to justify every new hoop they ask you to jump through.