Election Security Partnership Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Blackburn, Marsha [R-TN]
- Committees
- Rules and Administration Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 2, 2026
Bottom line
The bill offers additional federal election security funding to states that share voter registration data with DHS for non-citizen identification through the SAVE system.
What it actually does
This bill appropriates an additional $20,000,000 to the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) for election security grants. These funds are specifically for states that agree to regularly provide their complete voter registration lists to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for comparison against the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) system. The purpose of this comparison is to identify non-citizens registered to vote in federal elections.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this bill enhances election integrity by providing states with resources to identify and remove non-citizens from voter rolls, thereby preventing illegal voting in federal elections. They contend that leveraging the SAVE system, an existing federal tool, is an efficient and effective way to ensure only eligible citizens participate in the democratic process, bolstering public confidence in election outcomes.
Opponents contend
Opponents might contend that this bill could lead to voter suppression by creating a system prone to errors that could disenfranchise eligible citizens. They may argue that the SAVE system, designed for benefit eligibility, is not suitable for verifying voter citizenship and could result in false positives, placing an undue burden on states and potentially eligible voters to prove their citizenship. Critics may also raise concerns about federal overreach into state-managed voter registration databases and potential privacy implications.
The bill is very short and clear, making it highly accessible for a reader to understand its core provisions and implications within the time given.
Section 2(a)
Additional Election Security Funding
This section appropriates an additional $20,000,000 to the Election Assistance Commission (EAC). These funds are designated for states to improve election administration, enhance election technology, and make general election security improvements. This funding is explicitly stated to be in addition to any amounts already appropriated under the existing 2026 election security grant program.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that this additional funding is crucial for states to continuously upgrade their election infrastructure and security measures, protecting the integrity of the voting process against evolving threats.
Critics contend
Opponents might argue that while election security funding is generally supported, tying it to specific data-sharing requirements could create an uneven playing field among states or incentivize participation in programs with potential downsides.
Tradeoffs
The provision aims to enhance election security but links the additional funding to a specific data-sharing condition, which could be seen as a tradeoff between general security improvements and targeted data verification efforts.
Section 2(b) and 2(c)(1)
Eligibility Requirements for Additional Funding
To be eligible for this new funding, a state must have already received a payment under the 2026 election security grant program. Crucially, the state must also enter into a written agreement with the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide, at least quarterly, its complete official list of registered federal voters. This list will be compared against the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) system to identify individuals who are not U.S. citizens.
States must provide the 'complete, official list of individuals registered as eligible voters for Federal office' to the Secretary of Homeland Security 'not less than quarterly after September 30, 2026' for comparison through the SAVE system.
Section 2(c)(1)(B)
Why it matters:This level of detail is standard for defining operational requirements in legislation, but the specific frequency and scope of data sharing carry significant administrative and privacy implications that might not be immediately apparent.
Case for: Supporters argue that frequent and comprehensive data sharing is necessary to maintain accurate voter rolls and promptly identify and address instances of non-citizen registration, ensuring the integrity of federal elections.
Case against: Critics might argue that quarterly sharing of complete voter lists is an onerous administrative burden for states and could increase the risk of data breaches or misuse. They may also contend that such frequent updates are unnecessary given the relatively low incidence of non-citizen voting.
Estimated impact: This provision mandates a significant, ongoing data exchange between participating states and the Department of Homeland Security, impacting state election offices' operational procedures and data management.