Accessible Voting Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Scanlon, Mary Gay [D-PA-5]
- Committees
- Committee on House Administration (primary)
- Last action
- Oct 1, 2026
Bottom line
The Accessible Voting Act of 2026 aims to comprehensively improve and standardize voting access nationwide for vulnerable populations through new federal oversight, substantial financial assistance to states, and explicit mandates for accessible election processes and information.
What it actually does
This bill significantly amends the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to enhance voting accessibility for individuals with disabilities, older individuals, Native Americans, Alaska Natives, and those with limited English proficiency. It establishes a new Office of Accessibility within the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), creates a National Resource Center and a national voter accessibility website, and mandates comprehensive accessibility requirements for states, including accessible election websites, single state accessibility offices, transparency rules for voting changes, and no-excuse absentee voting. The bill also expands and reauthorizes federal grants for accessibility improvements and provides protections for individuals under guardianship.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill is a crucial step to fulfill America's promise of ensuring the right to vote for all citizens, directly addressing persistent barriers faced by individuals with disabilities, older individuals, Native Americans, Alaska Natives, and those with limited English proficiency. They contend that the bill's provisions, including federal resources and oversight, are necessary to overcome deficiencies in architectural and voting booth access, reduce long wait times, and provide accessible absentee voting options, thereby increasing voter participation and ensuring privacy and independence for all voters.
Opponents contend
The bill text does not explicitly state opposition arguments. However, similar legislation expanding federal mandates in election administration often faces criticism regarding federal overreach into state-controlled election processes, concerns about the cost of implementation for states, and potential security vulnerabilities associated with expanded electronic voting procedures, even when internet voting is explicitly prohibited.
The bill is moderately long but its structure with clear titles and sections makes it manageable for an informed reader to understand its core provisions within a reasonable timeframe.
Title I, Sec. 101 (HAVA Sec. 223)
Establishment of EAC Office of Accessibility
This provision establishes a new Election Assistance Commission (EAC) Office of Accessibility. This office is tasked with advocating for voters with access needs, ensuring states meet Department of Justice accessibility standards, evaluating state proposals, administering payments, and operating a National Resource Center and a national voter accessibility website. It also collects data on voting challenges and recommends policies to improve accessibility.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that a dedicated federal office is essential to provide consistent, centralized advocacy and oversight for voting accessibility, ensuring that the needs of vulnerable populations are systematically addressed across all states and federal agencies.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that establishing a new federal office could lead to unnecessary bureaucracy and potential overreach into state election administration, which is traditionally managed at the state level.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the need for robust federal oversight to ensure uniform accessibility standards with concerns about potential federal intrusion into state election processes.
Title I, Sec. 103 (HAVA Sec. 225)
Establishment of National Voter Accessibility Website
This provision mandates the EAC Office of Accessibility to create and maintain a public national voter accessibility website. The website will provide clear, understandable voting information for each state, including links to state accessible election websites, voting timelines, state-specific voting laws, voter identification requirements, polling place accessibility, available assistance, and complaint procedures. It will also host a database of voter complaints and their outcomes, with federal law violations referred to the Department of Justice.
Title II, Sec. 201 (HAVA Sec. 304)
State Accessible Election Websites Requirement
This provision requires each state to establish and maintain election websites that are fully accessible, meeting WCAG 2.0 Level AA standards. These websites must provide guidance and training for local election officials and poll workers on accessibility, as well as comprehensive voting information for the public, including polling place accessibility, registration details, and voter rights. States must partner with outside technical organizations for development and training, and form a committee (including disability and older individual advocates) to develop a state plan. They must also partner with specific advocacy organizations to monitor and verify website accessibility.
Title II, Sec. 204 (HAVA Sec. 307)
No-Excuse Absentee Voting and Electronic Procedures
This provision mandates that all states permit no-excuse absentee voting for federal elections. It requires states to accept voter registration applications up to 21 days before an election and absentee ballot applications up to 7 days before. States must establish procedures for sending and receiving voter registration and absentee ballot applications electronically, allowing voters to designate their preferred transmission method (mail or electronic). It also allows for permanent absentee voter status, sets deadlines for ballot transmission, and requires accessible electronic communication and secure marking of blank absentee ballots via assistive technology. The bill explicitly prohibits casting ballots over the internet.
Title II, Sec. 205 (HAVA Sec. 308)
Protections for In-Person Voting and Drop Box Accessibility
This provision requires all polling places within a state to be accessible according to ADA standards and mandates that voter drop boxes also be accessible for individuals with disabilities, limited English proficiency, and homeless individuals. States must consider procedures to address long wait times at polling places, such as providing alternative options to cast a ballot (e.g., outside the polling place or from a vehicle) or expedited voting lines. It also encourages states to consider 'mobile polling sites' for long-term care facilities to assist residents in voting privately and independently. Additionally, the section renames and updates the 'Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act' to align with modern terminology and HAVA definitions.
Title II, Sec. 206 (HAVA Sec. 309)
Protections for Individuals Subject to Guardianship
This provision prohibits states from determining that an individual lacks the capacity to vote solely because they are subject to guardianship. Instead, a court of competent jurisdiction must issue a specific order, based on clear and convincing evidence, finding that the individual cannot communicate (with or without accommodations) a desire to participate in the voting process. This sets a higher legal standard for disenfranchising individuals under guardianship.
Title II, Sec. 207 (HAVA Sec. 297)
Payments to States for Accessibility Implementation
This provision authorizes the Director of the EAC Office of Accessibility to make payments to eligible states to help them implement the new accessibility requirements (HAVA sections 304 through 309). Funds are allocated based on voting age population, with a minimum payment of $1,000,000 per state. At least 10% of these funds must be distributed to local governments for accessible election websites. States must submit applications detailing their plans and partnerships. The bill authorizes $100,000,000 for fiscal years 2027-2028, 2029-2030, and 2031-2032, with funds available without fiscal year limitation.
Title III, Sec. 301 (HAVA Sec. 261)
Expansion and Reauthorization of Grant Program
This provision expands the purposes of an existing grant program (HAVA Part 6) to assure voting access for individuals with disabilities and older individuals. The expanded purposes now explicitly include making absentee voting and voting in one's residence accessible through assistive technologies, making all polling places (including paths of travel, entrances, exits, and voting areas) accessible, and providing universally designed solutions. The program is reauthorized for 'such sums as may be necessary' for fiscal year 2027 and each succeeding fiscal year. It also adds a mechanism for unobligated funds to be returned to the EAC after 4 years and reallocated to compliant states.
Title III, Sec. 302
Study and Report on Accessible Voting Options
This provision directs the EAC, in coordination with the Access Board and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), to make grants to at least three eligible entities. These grants are for studying, testing, and developing accessible and secure remote voting systems and devices, including non-electronic options, to enhance voting and verification for individuals with disabilities. The goal is to assist in marking voter-verified paper ballots and transmitting information back to voters. All technology developed must be non-proprietary and publicly available. Activities must be completed by January 1, 2028, with $30,000,000 authorized for this purpose.
Title III, Sec. 304 (HAVA Sec. 292(a))
Removal of Limitation on P&A System Litigation Funds
This provision amends the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to remove a previous limitation on the use of funds by Protection and Advocacy (P&A) systems. Previously, P&A systems were restricted in using federal funds for litigation related to election-related disability access. This amendment removes that restriction, allowing P&A systems to use their funds for such litigation.
This amendment expands the enforcement authority of the Attorney General under HAVA. Previously, the Attorney General could bring civil actions to enforce specific sections (301, 302, 303, and 304). This amendment changes it to 'subtitle A of title III,' meaning the Attorney General can now enforce all the new state requirements established in this bill (e.g., accessible websites, single state office, transparency, no-excuse absentee, in-person protections, guardianship protections).
Title II, Sec. 208(b) (HAVA Sec. 401)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for ensuring new mandates are enforceable under existing legal frameworks, rather than an attempt to obscure the provision.
Case for: Proponents argue that expanding the Attorney General's enforcement power is necessary to ensure compliance with the new, comprehensive accessibility mandates, providing a strong federal backstop to protect voting rights.
Case against: Critics might argue that this significantly increases federal intervention in state election administration, potentially leading to more litigation and federal oversight in areas traditionally managed by states.
Estimated impact: Significantly expands federal enforcement authority over state election laws related to accessibility.
This provision allows states to use methods like assigning unique identifiers to absentee ballots to track their delivery and return, ensuring the integrity of the ballot. However, it explicitly limits this by requiring states to adopt procedures to ensure the identity of the individual remains secret, thereby protecting the right to a private ballot.
Title II, Sec. 204(c)(4) (HAVA Sec. 307(c)(4))
Why it matters:This is a technical detail balancing election integrity with voter privacy, a common legislative challenge that requires precise language.
Case for: Proponents argue that allowing ballot tracking with unique identifiers enhances election security and transparency, helping to prevent fraud and ensure that returned ballots are legitimate, while the privacy safeguard protects voters.
Case against: Some privacy advocates might express concern that any form of ballot tracking, even with anonymity procedures, could potentially compromise voter privacy or lead to voter intimidation if not implemented with extreme care.
Estimated impact: Establishes a framework for ballot tracking that aims to balance election integrity with voter privacy, affecting all voters using absentee ballots.
This provision renames the 'Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act' to the 'Voting Accessibility for Individuals with Disabilities and Older Individuals Act.' It also includes conforming amendments throughout the original act to update terminology from 'handicapped and elderly individuals' to 'individuals with disabilities and older individuals.'
Title II, Sec. 205(b)(3)
Why it matters:This is a standard legislative practice to update outdated terminology to reflect current, respectful language, rather than an attempt to obscure the change.
Case for: Proponents argue that updating the language is essential for respecting and accurately representing the communities the act serves, aligning federal law with modern terminology and promoting inclusivity.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against updating terminology to be more inclusive and respectful.
Estimated impact: Updates federal law to use modern, respectful terminology for individuals with disabilities and older individuals.