Last month’s party-line vote in the Senate to not enact new elections reform legislation was unsurprising. The legislation had been drawn up by congressional Democrats, and was presented to the GOP as a take-it-or-leave it proposition. Republicans saw little to like in the sprawling 700-page bill that combined both the John Lewis Voting Rights Act and a revised version of H.R. 1, the For the People Act.

Soon after the Senate’s action, a cross-partisan coalition of groups released a framework for federal elections reform. (Disclosure: I contributed input on the report.) The effort was coordinated by the Bipartisan Policy Center’s (BPC) Matthew Weil. He directs BPC’s Elections Project, and previously worked for the US Election Commission and staffed the AEI-Brookings Election Reform project.

Why should
Congress do something rather than leave it to the states?

Most
states have made tremendous strides to improve voting access while also making
the administration of voting more professional and secure. But some states have
progressed more rapidly than others.

Moreover,
the increasing complexity of elections — including the real physical and cyber
security concerns as well as more nationwide attention to the process — requires
a more coordinated response.

Congress
should provide more resources for elections, in the range of $400 million per
year — a small price to pay for democracy. And setting incentive-based
standards could bring all states to a baseline level of voting opportunity and
election integrity.

Are the parties
as far apart on federal elections reform as they appear?

The
parties have been content to recycle stale partisan talking points for much of
the past decade. The good news is that old perceptions about the weaknesses of
the voting process in the US are not based on current reality. The bad news is
that both parties have been willing to rile up their bases with these old
arguments.

The
fact remains that the various policies in our proposed framework have been
adopted by Republican- and Democratic-led state legislatures. For instance,
there are Democrat-run states with voter ID; there are Republican-led states
with robust mail voting options and drop boxes. If the concern over
congressional action is that it amounts to a federal takeover of elections, our
proposal is voluntary. If the concern is that Congress should be clear about
minimum standards, this provides best practices that will improve the voting
experience for many Americans. Our hope is that the parties can find some key
policy priorities in our offering that are doable with a little compromise.

If made into a
law, what would this framework do?

The
whole structure of our proposal is to incentivize baseline good election
administration in the areas of voter registration, casting a ballot, counting
ballots, and security. It should be easy for eligible Americans to register to
vote, and states must keep voter rolls more accurate. Voting opportunities
should be plentiful but not at the expense of keeping the process secure. If
states met the minimum expectations, they would be able rely on consistent
federal funding to support democracy in their state.

How would
states’ progress towards these standards be monitored?

The
best monitoring would come from a reimagined US Election Assistance Commission.
The EAC was created 20 years ago and has made progress in recent years,
especially in the area of voluntary standards states use for voting equipment.
States are required to submit plans to the EAC to spend so-called “HAVA (Help
America Vote Act) Grants,” and states could be required to attest and document
their continued adherence to the standards Congress puts into law as a
condition of yearly appropriations.

Thank you, Matt.

The post Is there a path forward for Congress on elections reform? A Q&A with Matthew Weil appeared first on American Enterprise Institute – AEI.