Reports March 23, 2021

For the People Act (H.R.1/S.1) State Impact

American voters should not have to fight their way to the polls every year. H.R. 1/S. 1 establishes a secure foundation that protects the freedom to vote, which everyone should be able to agree on.
Issue Areas
Introduction

This report provides analysis on how H.R.1 & S.1 would affect voting in Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

Arizona

Updated March 23, 2021

If enacted in its current form, the For the People Act (H.R.1/S.1) would make changes to federal elections in Arizona that would strengthen the freedom to vote and make it more difficult to enact voter suppression laws in the future. Several of the requirements of H.R.1/S.1—including those relating to universal mail-in or absentee voting and independent redistricting commissions— already exist in some form in Arizona. Other requirements, such as those relating to same day registration, would more fundamentally change Arizona’s procedures for conducting federal elections.

Read Arizona’s analysis here.

Florida

Updated May 6, 2021

If enacted in its current form, the For the People Act (H.R.1/S.1) would make changes to federal elections in Florida that would strengthen the freedom to vote and make it more difficult to enact voter suppression laws in the future. Several of the requirements of H.R.1/S.1—including those relating to online voter registration—already exist in some form in Florida. Other requirements, such as those relating to automatic voter registration, restoration of civil rights for people with felony convictions, and early voting, would more fundamentally change Florida’s procedures for conducting federal elections.

Read Florida’s analysis here.

Georgia

Updated May 6, 2021

If enacted in its current form, the For the People Act (H.R.1/S.1) would make several changes to federal elections in Georgia which would strengthen the freedom to vote and make it more difficult to enact voter suppression laws in the future. Several of the requirements of H.R. 1—including those relating to universal mail-in voting and early voting—already exist in some form in Georgia, although there are pending legislative proposals in the state that would alter current practice. Other requirements, such as those relating to voter registration and partisan gerrymandering, would more fundamentally change Georgia’s procedures for conducting federal elections.

Read Georgia’s analysis here.

Kentucky

Updated May 6, 2021

If enacted in its current form, the For the People Act (H.R.1/S.1) would make changes to federal elections in Kentucky that would strengthen the freedom to vote and make it more difficult to enact voter suppression laws in the future. The requirements of H.R.1/S.1—including those relating to universal mail-in voting, early voting, automatic voter registration, and gerrymandering—would fundamentally change Kentucky’s procedures for conducting federal elections.

Read Kentucky’s analysis here.

Maine

Updated May 6, 2021

If enacted in its current form, the For the People Act (H.R.1/S.1) would make changes to federal elections in Maine that would strengthen the freedom to vote and make it more difficult to enact voter suppression laws in the future. Many of the requirements of H.R.1/S.1—including those relating to automatic voter registration, no-excuse absentee voting, early voting, reenfranchising people with criminal records and ranked-choice voting—already exist in some form in Maine. Other requirements, such as those relating to online voter registration, would more substantially alter Maine’s procedures for conducting federal elections.

Read Maine’s analysis here.

Michigan

Updated March 23, 2021

If enacted in its current form, the For the People Act (H.R.1/S.1) would make changes to federal elections in Michigan that would strengthen the freedom to vote and make it more difficult to enact voter suppression laws in the future. Many of the requirements of H.R.1/S.1—including those relating to voter registration, voting by mail, re-enfranchising persons with criminal records, and access for voters with disabilities—already exist in some form in Michigan. Other requirements, such as those relating to early voting, would more fundamentally change Michigan’s procedures for conducting federal elections.

Read Michigan’s analysis here.

Minnesota

Updated March 23, 2021

If enacted in its current form, the For the People Act (H.R.1/S.1) would make changes to federal elections in Minnesota that would strengthen the freedom to vote and make it more difficult to enact voter suppression laws in the future. Several of the requirements of H.R.1/S.1— including those relating to registration, and felon enfranchisement—already exist in some form in Minnesota. However, Minnesota is exempt from several provisions in H.R.1/S.1 because the state is exempt from the National Voter Registration Act of 1993.1 Other requirements, such as those relating to early voting, would more fundamentally change Minnesota’s procedures for conducting federal elections.

Read Minnesota’s analysis here.

Nevada

Updated March 23, 2021

If enacted in its current form, the For the People Act (H.R.1/S.1) would make changes to federal elections in Nevada that would strengthen the freedom to vote and make it more difficult to enact voter suppression laws in the future. Several of the requirements of H.R.1/S.1—including those relating to universal absentee voting and automatic voter registration—already exist in some form in Nevada. Other requirements, such as those relating to gerrymandering, would more fundamentally change Nevada’s procedures for conducting federal elections.

Read Nevada’s analysis here.

North Carolina

Updated May 6, 2021

If enacted in its current form, the For the People Act (H.R.1/S.1) would make changes to federal elections in North Carolina that would strengthen the freedom to vote and make it more difficult to enact voter suppression laws in the future. The legislation would also increase certainty for all voters about election procedures after a decade of litigation in response to partisan gerrymandering and voter-suppression legislation. Several of the requirements of H.R.1/S.1—including those relating to online voter registration—already exist in some form in North Carolina. Other requirements, such as those relating to automatic voter registration, voter ID, and early voting, would more fundamentally change North Carolina’s procedures for conducting federal elections.

Read North Carolina’s analysis here.

Oregon

Updated on May 6, 2021

If enacted in its current form, the For the People Act (H.R.1/S.1) would make changes to federal elections in Oregon that would strengthen the freedom to vote and make it more difficult to enact voter suppression laws in the future. Unlike many states, Oregon conducts its elections by mail, and many of the requirements of H.R.1/S.1—including those relating to automatic voter registration, voting by mail, and enfranchisement of people who have previously been incarcerated—already exist in some form in the state. Other requirements, such as those relating to same-day voter registration and an independent redistricting commission, would more substantially change Oregon’s procedures for conducting federal elections.

Read Oregon’s analysis here.

Pennsylvania

Updated March 23, 2021

If enacted in its current form, the For the People Act (H.R.1/S.1) would make changes to federal elections in Pennsylvania that would strengthen the freedom to vote and make it more difficult to enact voter suppression laws in the future. Several of the requirements of H.R.1/S.1— including those relating to universal mail-in voting, online registration, and felon enfranchisement—already exist in some form in Pennsylvania. Other requirements, such as those relating to early voting, would more fundamentally change Pennsylvania’s procedures for conducting federal elections.

Read Pennsylvania’s analysis here.

Texas

Updated March 23, 2021

If enacted in its current form, the For the People Act (H.R.1/S.1) would make changes to federal elections in Texas that would strengthen the freedom to vote and make it more difficult to enact voter suppression laws in the future. The requirements of H.R.1/S.1—including those relating to universal mail-in voting, automatic voter registration, and gerrymandering—would more fundamentally change Texas’s procedures for conducting federal elections.

Read Texas’ analysis here.

Utah

Updated May 6, 2021

If enacted in its current form, the For the People Act (H.R.1/S.1) would only modestly change federal elections in Utah. Utah represents a state where many of the goals of H.R.1/S.1 are already a reality. Most Utah voters already vote early or by mail, which Utah’s laws encourage by design. In addition, Utah already has an independent redistricting commission, though the legislature maintains the ultimate power to draw districts.

Read Utah’s analysis here.

West Virginia

Updated May 6, 2021

If enacted in its current form, the For the People Act (H.R. 1/S.1) would make several changes to federal elections in West Virginia that would strengthen the freedom to vote and bar the state from enacting voter suppression laws in the future. Many of H.R. 1/S.1’s requirements, such as those pertaining to automatic voter registration, already exist in some form in West Virginia. Other requirements, such as those relating to mail-in voting, would more fundamentally change West Virginia’s procedures for conducting federal elections.

Read West Virginia’s analysis here.

Wisconsin

Updated March 23, 2021

If enacted in its current form, the For the People Act (H.R.1/S.1) would make changes to federal elections in Wisconsin that would strengthen the freedom to vote and make it more difficult to enact voter suppression laws in the future. Several of the requirements of H.R. 1— including those relating to universal mail-in voting and online registration—already exist in some form in Wisconsin. Other requirements, such as those relating to early voting and partisan gerrymandering, would more fundamentally change Wisconsin’s procedures for conducting federal elections. However, key provisions in the bill are effectuated through amendments to the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), which leaves Wisconsin and five other states exempt from several of the bill’s new protections.

Read Wisconsin’s analysis here.