Right to Vote Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Ossoff, Jon [D-GA]
- Committees
- Rules and Administration Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 24, 2026
Bottom line
This bill seeks to codify and strengthen voting rights protections for federal elections by establishing new legal standards and judicial review processes to challenge restrictive voting measures.
What it actually does
This bill establishes a fundamental right to vote in elections for Federal office, prohibiting governmental actions that diminish or substantially impair this right. It sets forth specific legal standards and burdens of proof for judicial review of such actions, distinguishing between 'retrogression' (making it more difficult to vote) and 'substantial impairment' (making it substantially difficult to vote), and outlines the judicial process for challenging violations.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that the bill is essential to protect the fundamental right to vote against increasingly restrictive state laws, ensuring equitable access to the ballot box for all eligible citizens and providing clear legal recourse against measures that make voting more difficult. They contend it establishes a necessary federal baseline for voting rights.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that the bill federalizes election administration, infringing on states' constitutional authority to manage their own elections. They may also contend that the legal standards are overly broad or vague, potentially leading to excessive litigation and judicial overreach into election processes, and that existing laws are sufficient to protect voting rights.
The bill is short and relatively straightforward, making it accessible for a reader to evaluate its core provisions within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 2(a), (b), (c)
Establishes Fundamental Right to Vote and Prohibits Undue Burdens
This section declares that every citizen of legal voting age has a fundamental right to vote in federal elections. It then prohibits governments from diminishing the ability to vote ('retrogression') unless it's the least restrictive means to significantly further an important government interest. It also prohibits actions that 'substantially impair' the ability to vote unless they significantly further an important government interest, defining substantial impairment as a non-trivial difficulty.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision is crucial for safeguarding democratic participation by establishing a clear, enforceable federal standard for voting rights, preventing states from enacting laws that make it harder to vote without strong justification.
Critics contend
Opponents may argue that this provision oversteps federal authority into state election administration, creating vague and subjective legal tests that could lead to judicial activism and undermine states' ability to manage secure and efficient elections.
Tradeoffs
Balances the federal interest in protecting voting rights against states' traditional authority over election administration. It aims to prevent voter suppression while allowing for legitimate state interests in election integrity.
Section 3(a), (b), (c), (d)
Establishes Judicial Review and Legal Standards for Challenges
This section grants federal district courts jurisdiction over civil actions challenging violations of the Act, allowing for declaratory or injunctive relief. It sets specific burdens of proof for 'retrogression' cases (plaintiff shows diminishment, government shows necessity by clear and convincing evidence, plaintiff can show less-restrictive means) and 'substantial impairment' cases (plaintiff shows substantial impairment, government shows significant furtherance of interest by clear and convincing evidence). It also mandates expedited court disposition and amends 42 U.S.C. 1988(b) to allow attorney's fees.
Section 4
Defines Key Terms
This section defines key terms used throughout the Act. 'Covered entity' includes DC, Puerto Rico, and US territories/possessions. 'Election' and 'Federal office' adopt meanings from the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. 'Government' is broadly defined to include all levels and branches of federal, state, and local government, and officials acting under color of law. 'Vote' is defined comprehensively to include all actions necessary to make a vote effective, from registration to ballot counting.
Section 7(a), (b)
Specifies Effective Dates for Application of Standards
This section specifies when the new legal standards apply. The 'retrogression' standard (Section 2(b)) applies to any new voting law or action not in effect during the November 2024 general election but effective on or after September 1, 2026. The 'substantial impairment' standard (Section 2(c)) applies to any voting law or action in effect on or after September 1, 2026, regardless of when it was adopted.
Amends 42 U.S.C. 1988(b) to include the 'Right to Vote Act' among the statutes for which courts may award attorney's fees to the prevailing party in civil actions.
Section 3(d)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for amending existing code sections.
Case for: Supporters argue that allowing attorney's fees is crucial for ensuring access to justice, as it incentivizes civil rights attorneys to take on complex and costly voting rights cases, making it feasible for individuals and groups to challenge violations.
Case against: Opponents might argue that this provision could encourage frivolous lawsuits against state election officials, as the prospect of recovering fees might lower the bar for bringing challenges, potentially burdening states with litigation costs.
Estimated impact: This provision could significantly increase the number of voting rights lawsuits filed and the financial exposure for state and local governments defending their election laws.