Sustaining Our Democracy Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Williams, Nikema [D-GA-5]
- Committees
- Committee on House Administration (primary)
- Last action
- Aug 5, 2025
Bottom line
This bill creates a new federal office and a significant, long-term funding stream to support state election administration, with federal guidelines and oversight on how those funds are used.
What it actually does
This bill establishes the "Democracy Advancement and Innovation Program" and the "Office of Democracy Advancement and Innovation" to provide federal funding to states for election administration, security, and voter access activities. It appropriates $2.5 billion annually for ten fiscal years (FY2026-2035) to a new Trust Fund to support these allocations, while also imposing specific prohibitions on how states can use these funds and establishing federal oversight and complaint procedures.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue the bill provides essential, consistent federal funding to states to modernize election infrastructure, enhance security, protect election officials, and expand voter access, particularly for underserved communities. They contend it addresses critical needs in election administration that states often struggle to fund adequately, ensuring fair and secure elections nationwide.
Opponents contend
Opponents are likely to argue that the bill represents an unwarranted federalization of election administration, traditionally a state responsibility. They may raise concerns about the creation of a new federal bureaucracy, the conditions placed on state funding, and the potential for federal interference in state election laws and practices.
The bill is 14 pages long and moderately complex, requiring a dedicated read of about 25-35 minutes to understand its mechanisms and implications. This is a reasonable time commitment for a bill of its scope.
Title I, Section 101
Establishment of Democracy Advancement and Innovation Program
This section establishes a new federal program to provide financial allocations to states for "democracy promotion activities." These activities include improving election efficiency and security (e.g., voting equipment upgrades, cybersecurity, expanding polling places), recruiting and protecting election officials, and increasing voting access for underserved communities, individuals with disabilities, and minority groups. States can retain and reserve funds for future use.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this program provides crucial, consistent funding that states need to run modern, secure, and accessible elections, addressing chronic underfunding and disparate resources across states.
Critics contend
Critics may argue that this program encroaches on states' traditional authority over election administration by setting federal priorities and conditions for funding.
Tradeoffs
Balances the need for federal support and standardization in election administration against concerns about state autonomy and potential federal overreach.
Title I, Section 101(d)
State Plan Submission and Approval; Political Subdivision Allocations
To receive funds, states must submit a plan detailing how they will use the allocation, how resources will address geographic and racial disparities, and how funds will be distributed to political subdivisions. The Director of the new Office, in consultation with the EAC, must approve this plan. If a state fails to submit an approved plan, its allocation is instead distributed directly to its political subdivisions (e.g., counties) based on population, with specific rules for plan submission and approval for those subdivisions.
Title I, Section 103
Prohibited Uses of Payments and State-Based Administrative Complaint Procedures
This section explicitly prohibits states from using federal funds for activities that diminish voter participation, such as intimidating voters, restricting non-partisan distribution of food/drinks at polls, removing election administrators without cause, defending against voter-suppression lawsuits, investigating fraud based on mere invocation of confidence, performing non-best-practice audits, removing voters from rolls based on unreliable evidence, preventing restoration of voting rights, or purchasing voting machines without voter-verifiable paper ballots. It also requires states to establish administrative complaint procedures for alleged violations, with federal review by the Director and potential Attorney General action.
Title I, Section 106
Establishment and Duties of the Office of Democracy Advancement and Innovation
This section establishes a new independent federal agency, the Office of Democracy Advancement and Innovation, headed by a Director appointed by the President with Senate consent for a 6-year term. The Office is responsible for administering the Program, overseeing the Trust Fund, and reporting to Congress. It also specifies coverage under the Inspector General Act and Hatch Act, and outlines the Director's authority to promulgate regulations and interim authority for the OMB Director during the transition.
Title II, Section 201
Establishment and Funding of the State Election Assistance and Innovation Trust Fund
This section establishes a new "State Election Assistance and Innovation Trust Fund" in the Treasury. It appropriates $2.5 billion annually to this Trust Fund for fiscal years 2026 through 2035, totaling $25 billion over ten years. Funds from this Trust Fund are to be used for payments and allocations under the Democracy Advancement and Innovation Program and to cover the activities of the Office. The Office may also accept gifts for deposit into the fund.
Prohibits the use of federal funds to purchase voting machines that do not require the use of individual voter-verifiable paper ballots marked through a non-tabulating ballot marking device or system.
Title I, Section 103(a)(2)(I)
Why it matters:While clearly stated, the specific technical requirement for voting machines might be overlooked as a significant policy mandate within a broader list of "don'ts." It's a specific technical requirement rather than a broad policy statement.
Case for: Proponents argue this provision ensures election integrity and auditability by mandating a paper trail for all votes, enhancing voter confidence and the ability to verify election results.
Case against: Opponents might argue this is an overly prescriptive federal mandate on state purchasing decisions, potentially forcing states to replace existing, functional equipment that does not meet this exact specification, incurring additional costs beyond the federal allocation.
Estimated impact: Could require significant capital investment by states to replace non-compliant voting equipment, even with federal funding.
Grants the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) interim authority to perform the functions of the new Office of Democracy Advancement and Innovation during a "transition period" until the first Director is appointed, with a hard limit of 24 months from enactment. OMB can also provide administrative services.
Title I, Section 106(h)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to ensure continuity of operations during the stand-up phase of a new agency, but it temporarily places significant power over election funding in an existing executive branch office.
Case for: Proponents argue this ensures the program can begin implementation without delay, even before a permanent Director is confirmed, preventing a lapse in federal support for elections.
Case against: Critics might express concern about placing such significant authority over election funding and policy, even temporarily, within the OMB, an executive branch agency often seen as highly political, potentially politicizing the initial rollout of the program.
Estimated impact: Determines who controls the initial setup and early decisions of a $2.5 billion annual program.