State and Local Election Security Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Sen. Padilla, Alex [D-CA]
- Committees
- Rules and Administration Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 22, 2026
Bottom line
The bill aims to provide consistent and substantial federal funding to states and local governments to enhance election security and administration, while also bolstering critical cybersecurity information sharing infrastructure.
What it actually does
This bill authorizes $10 billion over three fiscal years (2026-2028) for election security grants to states and local governments, to be administered by the Election Assistance Commission (EAC). It also authorizes an additional $150 million over the same period for the Election Infrastructure Information Sharing and Analysis Center (EI-ISAC) and expands the definition of 'State' under the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to include additional U.S. territories.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that consistent federal funding is crucial for states and local election officials to modernize infrastructure, improve efficiency, and defend against evolving security threats, thereby ensuring voter confidence. They highlight the need for reliable resources given past funding inconsistencies and the increasing sophistication of election interference attempts.
Opponents contend
Potential opponents might argue that election administration is primarily a state and local responsibility, and significant federal funding could lead to federal overreach or unnecessary spending. Concerns could also be raised about the efficiency of grant distribution or the potential for funds to be used for purposes not directly related to core election security.
The bill is relatively short and clearly structured, allowing for a quick and comprehensive understanding of its core provisions within the time typically allotted for legislative review.
Section 1
Short Title: 'State and Local Election Security Act of 2026'
This section establishes the official short name for the Act, making it easier to reference and identify in legislative discourse and public discussion. It provides a concise title for the comprehensive set of provisions contained within the bill.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that a clear and descriptive short title is essential for legislative clarity and public understanding of the bill's primary focus.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against the naming of legislation, as it is a standard procedural element.
Section 2
Congressional Findings on Election Security and Funding Needs
This section expresses Congress's belief that U.S. elections are safe and secure due to the efforts of state and local election officials, and that these officials require consistent federal funding. It also includes a statement criticizing the 'Trump Administration' for actions that allegedly undermined federal election security efforts and funding for the Election Infrastructure Information Sharing and Analysis Center (EI-ISAC).
Section 3, new Title X, Section 1001
Establishment of Election Security Grant Program
This provision directs the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) to establish a program to make annual payments to states that agree to comply with certain requirements. These payments are intended for activities to improve the administration of federal elections, including modernizing election infrastructure, improving efficiency, and preventing, preparing for, and responding to election security threats.
Section 3, new Title X, Section 1001(b)-(c)
Permitted and Prohibited Uses of Grant Funds
This section specifies that grant funds must be used for improving federal election administration, modernizing infrastructure, and addressing security threats. It explicitly prohibits using funds for litigation costs or judgments. States are also required to certify that their proposed uses of funds are consistent with existing election laws, including the Help America Vote Act's Title III requirements.
Section 3, new Title X, Section 1001(d)
Formula for Annual Grant Payment Amounts
This section outlines a two-part formula for determining the amount of annual payment each state receives. It includes a minimum payment amount (one-half of 1 percent of the total appropriation for the several States and the District of Columbia, and one-tenth of 1 percent for other States) and an additional amount proportional to the state's share of the total voting-age population.
Section 3, new Title X, Section 1002
Requirements for State Distribution to Localities and Reporting
This section mandates that states must provide at least 50% of their received grant funds to units of local government responsible for federal election administration. A special rule allows the EAC to adjust this percentage if a state certifies that its government is primarily responsible for election duties. Additionally, states must submit reports after each federal election detailing the use of funds and how they improved election administration.
Section 3, new Title X, Section 1003
Funding Authorization for Election Security Grants
This section authorizes specific appropriations for the grant program: $5 billion for fiscal year 2026, and $2.5 billion for each of fiscal years 2027 and 2028, totaling $10 billion over three years. It stipulates that funds, once paid to a state, remain available without fiscal year limitation, but any unobligated portion must be returned to the Treasury after 5 years, with a possible 3-year extension granted by the Commission.
Section 4
Expansion of 'State' Definition for HAVA to Include Additional Territories
This section amends the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) to expand the definition of 'State' to include the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and any other territory authorized to elect a Delegate or Resident Commissioner to Congress. This change makes these territories eligible for HAVA programs, including the new election security grants.
Section 5
Grants for Election Information Sharing
This section authorizes $50 million for each of fiscal years 2026, 2027, and 2028 (totaling $150 million) to the Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). These funds are specifically for making grants to the Center for Internet Security to carry out the Elections Infrastructure Information Sharing and Analysis Center (EI-ISAC).
This subsection mandates that any portion of a payment made to a state that remains unobligated on the date that is 5 years after the payment was disbursed must be returned to the Treasury. It also allows the Commission to extend this date by up to 3 additional years upon request by a state.
Section 3, new Title X, Section 1003(c)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for ensuring fiscal accountability and preventing indefinite retention of federal funds by recipients.
Case for: Proponents argue this provision ensures fiscal responsibility by preventing states from holding onto federal funds indefinitely, encouraging timely and efficient use of resources for their intended purpose.
Case against: Some states might find the 5-year (or 8-year with extension) limit restrictive for very large, complex, or long-term infrastructure projects that require extensive planning and phased implementation, potentially forcing premature obligation or return of funds.
Estimated impact: Ensures that up to $10 billion in authorized funds are either spent or returned within a defined timeframe, impacting federal budget reconciliation and state financial planning.
This special rule allows the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) to determine a different percentage for the distribution of funds to local governments, instead of the default 50%, if a state certifies that its state government is primarily responsible for federal election administration. The EAC's determination would be based on the ratio of duties and costs borne by local governments compared to all such duties and costs.
Section 3, new Title X, Section 1002(a)(2)(B)
Why it matters:This is a practical legislative mechanism to provide flexibility and adapt the general rule to the diverse administrative structures of states, which vary significantly in how election responsibilities are divided between state and local entities.
Case for: Proponents argue this flexibility is crucial for states where the state government bears a larger share of election administration costs and duties, ensuring funds are allocated efficiently according to actual responsibilities rather than a rigid formula.
Case against: Critics might argue that this exception could be used by states to retain a larger portion of funds at the state level, potentially reducing the direct financial support available to local election administrators who are often on the front lines of election operations.
Estimated impact: Could significantly alter the distribution of potentially billions of dollars between state and local governments in certain states, depending on EAC's determinations.