Make Elections Great Again Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Steil, Bryan [R-WI-1]
- Committees
- Homeland Security Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Feb 2, 2026
Bottom line
The bill aims to enhance election security and integrity through a comprehensive set of stricter voting and registration requirements, potentially increasing administrative burdens on states and impacting voter access.
What it actually does
This bill significantly overhauls federal election administration by mandating photo identification for all voters, requiring documentary proof of U.S. citizenship for voter registration, and establishing stringent, frequent voter list maintenance procedures. It also prohibits universal vote by mail, limits who can handle mail-in ballots, requires paper ballots, and bans ranked-choice voting in federal elections. Additionally, it restricts federal agencies from engaging in voter registration activities and mandates information sharing between states and federal agencies regarding voter eligibility.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill is essential to restore public confidence in election outcomes by preventing voter fraud, ensuring that only eligible citizens cast ballots, and standardizing election administration practices across states. They contend that measures like photo ID and robust list maintenance are common-sense safeguards that protect the sanctity of the vote.
Opponents contend
Opponents contend that the bill's stringent requirements, particularly photo ID and citizenship proof, would disenfranchise millions of eligible voters, especially minorities, the elderly, students, and low-income individuals who may face barriers to obtaining the necessary documentation. They argue that these measures create unnecessary hurdles to voting and impose significant unfunded mandates on state and local election administrators.
This is a lengthy and detailed bill that requires significant time and careful reading to understand its numerous interlocking provisions and their potential impacts on election administration and voter access.
Sec. 101, Title III of HAVA
Mandatory Photo Identification for Voting
This provision requires all individuals to present a valid physical photo identification to vote in person in federal elections. For mail-in voting, individuals must submit a copy of a valid photo ID or the last four digits of their Social Security number along with an affidavit. Provisional ballots are available for those without ID, but require subsequent presentation of ID or a religious objection affidavit. The bill defines acceptable forms of photo identification and mandates public access to digital imaging devices for copying IDs.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that requiring photo identification is a fundamental measure to prevent voter impersonation and enhance the integrity of elections, ensuring that only eligible individuals cast ballots. They contend that most Americans already possess valid photo IDs, and provisions for provisional ballots and public access to copying devices mitigate potential access issues.
Critics contend
Critics argue that photo ID requirements disproportionately disenfranchise eligible voters, particularly low-income individuals, the elderly, students, and minority groups who may not have or be able to easily obtain the specified forms of identification. They contend that voter impersonation is exceedingly rare and that these laws create unnecessary barriers to democratic participation.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the goal of election security through identity verification against concerns about voter access and potential disenfranchisement. It aims to prevent fraud while providing mechanisms for those without immediate ID, but the effectiveness of these mitigating factors is debated.
Sec. 112, Title I, Subtitle B
Mandatory Documentary Proof of U.S. Citizenship for Voter Registration
This section mandates that all voter registration applications for federal elections must include documentary proof of U.S. citizenship, along with the last four digits of the applicant's Social Security number and proof of residence. States are required to enter into data matching agreements with motor vehicle authorities, the Social Security Administration, the Attorney General (for felony convictions), and the Department of Homeland Security (for citizenship/naturalization records) to verify eligibility. It also establishes a process for applicants without documentary proof to attest to citizenship under penalty of perjury, subject to an election official's determination and affidavit.
Sec. 113, Title I, Subtitle B
Frequent and Enhanced Voter List Maintenance
This provision mandates that states take affirmative steps to verify voter eligibility and remove ineligible voters from official lists at least once every 30 days. This includes using all available verification resources, such as the Department of Homeland Security's SAVE system, and coordinating with state records on felony status and deaths. Reasons for removal include registrant request, criminal conviction, mental incapacity, death, change of residence, noncitizen status, or duplicate registrations. It sets a deadline of 15 days before a general election for most removals and details procedures for addressing changes of residence.
Sec. 214, Title II, Subtitle B
Abolishing Universal Vote by Mail
This provision prohibits states from automatically sending mail-in ballots to all registered voters. Instead, states may only provide a mail-in ballot upon a specific request from the voter, submitted electronically or by postal mail using a standardized form. This request must be received by the appropriate state election official no later than 30 days before the date of the election. Exceptions are made for overseas and absent uniformed services voters.
Sec. 213, Title II, Subtitle B
Prohibition on Ranked Choice Voting in Federal Elections
This provision prohibits states from using ranked choice voting (RCV) or any similar voting system that allows voters to rank multiple candidates for the same office, vote for more than one candidate, or reallocates votes from one candidate to another, in general elections for Federal office.
Sec. 151, Title I, Subtitle E
Prohibition on Federal Agency Voter Registration Activities
This provision prohibits federal agencies from registering individuals to vote in federal elections, except as specifically authorized by law. It also bans federal agencies from soliciting or entering into agreements with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to conduct voter registration or voter mobilization activities on federal property or websites. An exception is made for voter registration activities related to absent uniformed services voters.
Amends the National Voter Registration Act to allow voter registration information to be used as evidence in criminal or immigration proceedings against an applicant who knowingly attempts to register to vote and makes a false declaration of eligibility.
Sec. 112(f)(1)(E), amending NVRA Sec. 5(c)(2)(D)(iii)
Why it matters:This is a significant change to privacy protections for voter registration data and introduces a new legal risk for applicants. While technically an amendment, its placement within a series of other conforming amendments could lead a casual reader to overlook its specific impact.
Case for: Proponents argue this amendment provides a necessary enforcement mechanism to deter and prosecute individuals who knowingly attempt to register or vote illegally, particularly non-citizens. They contend it strengthens the integrity of the voter registration process by adding consequences for false declarations.
Case against: Opponents argue that this provision could have a chilling effect on voter registration, particularly among immigrant communities, even for eligible citizens who might fear unintended legal repercussions or scrutiny. They contend it could deter eligible individuals from registering to vote due to concerns about data privacy and potential immigration proceedings.
Estimated impact: This provision could increase legal risks for individuals making false declarations and potentially reduce voter registration rates among certain populations due to fear of prosecution.
Establishes a private right of action for any person aggrieved by a violation of this subtitle, specifically including the act of an election official who registers an applicant to vote in a federal election who fails to present documentary proof of U.S. citizenship.
Sec. 116(b)(1), Title I, Subtitle B
Why it matters:While the section title indicates a private right of action, the specific targeting of election officials for registering individuals without citizenship proof is a new and potentially controversial liability. It's a technical detail within a legal enforcement section.
Case for: Proponents argue this provision holds election officials accountable for enforcing citizenship requirements, ensuring that the new mandates are rigorously followed. They believe it provides a necessary mechanism for citizens to challenge perceived failures in election integrity.
Case against: Opponents argue that this provision could expose election officials to frivolous lawsuits, create a chilling effect on their willingness to register voters, and increase the administrative burden and legal risk associated with their duties. They contend it could lead to overly cautious interpretations of eligibility rules, potentially disenfranchising eligible voters.
Estimated impact: This provision could increase legal challenges against election officials and potentially lead to more stringent enforcement of citizenship proof requirements, with possible impacts on voter registration access.
Requires states to take affirmative steps to verify voter eligibility and remove ineligible voters from official lists 'on an ongoing basis, but in no case less frequently than once every 30 days.'
Sec. 113(a)(1), Title I, Subtitle B
Why it matters:While the concept of list maintenance is expected, the mandated monthly frequency is a significant operational detail that imposes a much higher administrative burden than current practices in many states. It's a technical detail with major resource implications.
Case for: Proponents argue that monthly list maintenance ensures the most accurate and up-to-date voter rolls, quickly identifying and removing ineligible voters due to death, relocation, or other factors. They believe this proactive approach is vital for preventing fraud and maintaining election integrity.
Case against: Opponents argue that monthly list maintenance is an excessive administrative burden for state and local election offices, particularly smaller jurisdictions, and significantly increases the risk of erroneously removing eligible voters due to data lags or administrative errors. They contend that less frequent, but still robust, maintenance is sufficient and less prone to error.
Estimated impact: This provision would impose substantial new operational costs and labor requirements on state and local election offices, potentially leading to increased errors in voter roll management due to the high frequency of updates.