Time Off to Vote Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Williams, Nikema [D-GA-5]
- Committees
- Education and Workforce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Aug 5, 2025
Bottom line
The 'Time Off to Vote Act' establishes a federal requirement for employers with 25 or more employees to provide paid time off for voting in federal elections, aiming to enhance voter access and participation.
What it actually does
This bill mandates that employers provide a minimum of two consecutive hours of paid leave to employees on the day of any Federal election, or during early voting periods if applicable under State law, for the purpose of voting or performing other voting-related activities. It prohibits employers from interfering with this right or retaliating against employees for exercising it, and grants the Secretary of Labor investigative and enforcement authority, including the ability to assess civil penalties for violations.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this bill is a crucial step towards strengthening American democracy by removing a significant barrier to voting for millions of workers, particularly those in hourly wage jobs or with inflexible schedules who might otherwise be forced to choose between earning a paycheck and exercising their civic duty. They contend it ensures equitable access to the ballot box, leading to broader and more representative participation in federal elections.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that this federal mandate imposes an undue financial and operational burden on businesses, especially small to medium-sized employers, by requiring paid time off that could disrupt daily operations and increase labor costs. They may also contend that existing state laws or early voting options already provide sufficient access, making a federal mandate unnecessary and an example of federal overreach into employer-employee relations.
The bill is concise and clearly written, making it highly accessible for a reader to quickly grasp its core provisions and implications.
Section 2(a)
Mandatory Paid Leave for Federal Elections
This provision requires all employers, upon an employee's request, to provide at least two consecutive hours of paid leave. This leave must be granted on the day of any Federal election, or during periods when polls or sites for voting-related activities are open, specifically for the purpose of voting, returning a mail-in ballot in person, or engaging in other voting-related activities.
Supporters argue
Supporters contend that this provision directly addresses a key barrier to voter participation, ensuring that no worker has to choose between their job and their right to vote. They argue it promotes civic engagement and makes elections more accessible to all segments of the workforce.
Critics contend
Critics argue that mandating paid leave for voting imposes an unnecessary financial burden on businesses, especially those with tight margins or high staffing needs. They suggest it could lead to operational disruptions and increased costs that are ultimately passed on to consumers or result in reduced employee benefits elsewhere.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the goal of increasing voter access and civic participation against the potential economic impact and operational challenges for employers, particularly regarding labor costs and scheduling flexibility.
Section 2(b)
Employer Discretion in Scheduling Leave
This section grants employers the right to specify the exact two-hour period an employee may take leave. It explicitly allows employers to require employees to take this leave during early voting periods, if available under State law, instead of on the primary election day. It also clarifies that lunch breaks or other break periods cannot be counted towards the two-hour paid leave but can be taken consecutively.
Section 2(d)
Prohibition Against Interference and Retaliation
This section makes it unlawful for any employer to interfere with, restrain, or deny an employee's right to take leave under this Act. It also explicitly prohibits employers from discharging or discriminating against any individual for opposing unlawful practices, filing charges, instituting proceedings, or providing information or testimony related to the leave provisions.
Section 2(f)
Enforcement and Civil Penalties
This provision establishes that any employer violating the Act may be subject to a civil penalty not exceeding $10,000 per violation. These penalties are assessed by and paid to the Secretary of Labor and can be recovered in a civil action. The Secretary is directed to consider factors such as the employer's business size, the gravity of the violation, the employer's good faith, and their history of previous violations when assessing penalties.
Section 2(g)
Definition of 'Employer' and Scope of Applicability
This section defines 'employer' as any person engaged in commerce or in any industry or activity affecting commerce who employs 25 or more employees during a calendar year. It also includes any person acting indirectly in the interest of an employer and any successor in interest. The terms 'commerce' and 'industry or activity affecting commerce' are given the same meaning as in the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993.
The bill defines 'employer' as any entity employing '25 or more employees during a calendar year.' This threshold determines which businesses are subject to the paid leave mandate.
Section 2(g)(2)
Why it matters:Defining applicability thresholds in a definitions section is standard legislative practice for clarity and conciseness, rather than embedding it directly in the operative language of the mandate.
Case for: Supporters argue that this threshold is a pragmatic compromise, ensuring that the smallest businesses, which often have fewer resources and tighter operational constraints, are not unduly burdened by the mandate, while still covering a substantial portion of the workforce.
Case against: Critics might argue that even a 25-employee threshold is too low, impacting many small and medium-sized businesses that still face significant financial and operational challenges. They may contend that it creates an uneven playing field or that the threshold should be higher to truly protect small businesses.
Estimated impact: Exempts businesses with fewer than 25 employees from the paid leave requirement, significantly reducing the number of affected employers compared to a universal mandate.
The bill grants the Secretary of Labor investigative authority 'in the same manner and under the same terms and conditions as the investigative authority provided under section 106 of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (29 U.S.C. 2616)'.
Section 2(e)
Why it matters:Using cross-references to established legal frameworks is common legislative drafting to avoid redundancy and ensure consistency with existing enforcement practices, rather than an attempt to obscure the provision.
Case for: Proponents argue that leveraging the established investigative framework of the FMLA provides a clear, proven, and efficient mechanism for the Department of Labor to enforce the new paid leave mandate. This avoids creating entirely new bureaucratic processes and ensures consistency with other labor protections.
Case against: Critics might argue that relying on cross-references makes the bill less transparent for the average reader or employer, who would need to consult external statutes to fully understand their obligations and the government's powers. They might also raise concerns if they believe the FMLA's enforcement mechanisms are overly broad or burdensome.
Estimated impact: Establishes the Department of Labor as the primary enforcement agency, utilizing its existing infrastructure and expertise for labor law compliance.