Title VI: Fund Electoral Reform

TITLE VI of The MAD Act

VOTER CHOICE AND ELECTION MODERNIZATION

SEC. 6001. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) SHORT TITLE.- This title may be cited as the “Electoral Reform Act”.

(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.-

The table of contents of this title is as follows:

Sec. 6001. Short Title; Table of Contents.

Sec. 6002. Findings and Purpose.

Sec. 6003. Qualified Alternative Voting Methods Defined.

Sec. 6004. Conforming Amendments to Federal Election Law.

Sec. 6005. Constitutional Authority; Voluntary Participation; Severability of Funding.

Sec. 6006. Establishment of Grant Program.

Sec. 6007. Eligibility and Application.

Sec. 6008. Grant Tiers.

Sec. 6009. Matching Requirement.

Sec. 6010. Qualified Alternative Voting Methods.

Sec. 6011. Permitted Uses of Funds.

Sec. 6012. Reporting and Evaluation.

Sec. 6013. Demonstration Projects.

Sec. 6014. Prohibition on Use of Funds to Discourage Adoption.

Sec. 6015. Maintenance of Effort.

Sec. 6016. Repayment for Early Discontinuation.

Sec. 6017. Rule of Construction Regarding State Authority.

Sec. 6018. Sense of Congress Regarding State Bans on Alternative Voting Methods.

Sec. 6019. Grant Eligibility Not Affected by State Bans.

Sec. 6020. Severability.

Sec. 6021. Effective Dates.

SEC. 6002. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

(a) FINDINGS.- Congress finds the following:

(1) The method by which votes are cast and tabulated in elections for Federal office profoundly affects the quality of democratic representation, the range of candidates who therefore seek office, and the degree to which election outcomes reflect the true preferences of the electorate.

(2) Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution empowers Congress to provide financial assistance to States to promote the general welfare, including the improvement of administrations of elections, and Article I, Section 4 authorizes Congress to regulate the time, place, and manner of elections for Senators and Representatives.

(3) Plurality voting systems can produce the kind of outcomes in which elected officials may assume office without the support of a majority of voters, they incentivize negative campaigning, they can suppress candidacy by qualified individuals, and they create a “spoiler effect” that punishes voters for expressing sincere preferences.

(4) Alternative voting methods, including ranked-choice voting (RCV) and STAR voting, instead reduce or eliminate the “spoiler effect,” incentivize coalition-building, reduce negative campaigning, and increase the likelihood that winning candidates have demonstrated broad support.

(5) As of the date of enactment of this title, alternative voting methods are in use in more than 50 jurisdictions across the United States, and are already serving approximately 17,000,000 voters, including statewide use of ranked-choice voting (RCV) in the states of Alaska and Maine.

(6) Federal courts have uniformly upheld the constitutionality of alternative voting methods which expand voter expression, including in Dudum v. Arntz, 640 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 2011), and Baber v. Dunlap, 376 F. Supp. 3d 125 (D. Me. 2018).

(7) Ranked-choice voting offers the following advantages as an alternative to plurality voting:

(A) An extensive real-world track record spanning more than a century of use internationally, including continuous use in Australia since 1918, and in Ireland for presidential elections, with growing adoption across the United States,

(B) Proven comprehension by voters, with surveys consistently showing that 90% or more of voters in jurisdictions using ranked-choice voting report that they understand the method,

(C) Increased candidate diversity, including increases in women and minority candidates, according to empirical evidence,

(D) Encouraging voters to express fuller preferences, since additional voter preferences do not harm the chances of the voter’s first choice,

(E) A well-developed ecosystem of advocacy organizations, model legislation, voter education materials, and election administration expertise that can facilitate adoption by new jurisdictions.

(8) STAR voting (Score Then Automatic Runoff) has been documented to demonstrate the following advantages when compared to plurality voting:

(A) The highest Voter Satisfaction Efficiency of any single-winner voting method tested, scoring between 91% and 98% in Voter Satisfaction Efficiency simulations first published by Quinn in 2017 and subsequently refined and published in peer-reviewed research in Constitutional Political Economy (Wolk, Quinn, and Ogren, 2023), outperforming both ranked-choice voting and plurality voting on that metric,

(B) A more expressive ballot that captures both the voter’s preference order among candidates and the voter’s degree of support for each candidate, providing more information to the tabulation process than a ranked ballot alone,

(C) Greater resistance to strategic voting, with peer-reviewed simulations that showed that insincere voting under STAR is approximately equally likely to help or harm the strategic voter (a ratio of approximately 1 to 1), compared to a ratio of approximately 3 to 1 under ranked-choice voting, meaning voters have stronger incentives to vote honestly under STAR.

(D) Immunity to the “center-squeeze” effect, in which a broadly supported compromise candidate is eliminated early under sequential-elimination methods because such a candidate lacks sufficient first-choice support despite being preferred by a majority of voters over every other candidate.

(E) Significantly lower implementation costs, because STAR voting does not require centralized tabulation, does not require the purchase of new tabulation hardware, and can be administered using existing precinct-level tallying procedures with only a software upgrade, in contrast to ranked-choice voting, which requires centralized aggregation of complete ballot data before tabulation can proceed.

(F) A more simple and faster tabulation, requiring only two phases (a scoring phase and an automatic runoff) regardless of the number of candidates, in contrast to ranked-choice voting, which may require as many elimination rounds as there are candidates.

(9) Both ranked-choice voting and STAR voting represent substantial improvements over plurality voting on every major metric studied by political scientists, including voter satisfaction, resistance to the spoiler effect, and the accuracy with which election outcomes reflect voter preferences. The differences between ranked-choice voting and STAR voting, while meaningful, are significantly smaller than the differences between either method and plurality voting.

(10) Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem (1951) demonstrates that no ranked-order voting system can simultaneously satisfy all desirable fairness criteria, and the Gibbard-Satterthwaite Theorem demonstrates that all deterministic voting systems with three or more candidates are susceptible to some degree of strategic manipulation. These foundational results confirm that the selection of a voting method necessarily involves tradeoffs, and that ongoing evaluation and evidence-based refinement are essential to identifying the method that best serves voters in each jurisdiction.

(11) The transition to alternative voting methods requires an investment in voting equipment, tabulation software, ballot design, poll worker training, and voter education, which does present a financial burden on State and local election administrators. However, the magnitude of this burden varies significantly by method. Peer-reviewed cost analyses and real-world implementation data indicate that methods not requiring centralized tabulation or new hardware, such as STAR voting, can be implemented at a fraction of the cost of methods requiring centralized tabulation, such as ranked-choice voting.

(12) The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-252) established a successful model of Federal-State partnership in election modernization through formula-based grants administered by the Election Assistance Commission, which may be reused.

(13) A framework that permits States to select among qualified alternative voting methods, provides equal financial support regardless of method chosen, and encourages ongoing evaluation and evidence-based improvement, is in the best interests of voters, respects the diversity of State conditions, and advances the democratic process.

(b) PURPOSE.- The purposes of this title are -

(1) to encourage and facilitate the voluntary adoption of qualified alternative voting methods by States for elections at all levels of government, including elections for Federal office;

(2) to provide financial assistance to States implementing alternative voting methods for elections at all levels of government;

(3) to ensure that voters can express their full range of preferences among candidates without fear of wasting their vote or causing the election of a less-preferred candidate; and

(4) to encourage ongoing, evidence-based evaluation and improvement of voting methods so that the systems used in American elections continuously evolve to better serve voters.

SEC. 6003. QUALIFIED ALTERNATIVE VOTING METHODS DEFINED.

(a) IN GENERAL.- Title III of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (52 U.S.C. 21081 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new subtitle:

“Subtitle C - Alternative Voting Method Standards

“SEC. 321. QUALIFIED ALTERNATIVE VOTING METHODS FOR ELECTIONS FOR FEDERAL OFFICE.

“(a) VOLUNTARY ADOPTION. -

“(1) IN GENERAL. - Any State may, by enactment of State legislation or by action of the chief election official of the State as authorized under State law, designate a qualified alternative voting method defined in subsection (b) for use in elections for Federal office within the State. A State may designate different methods for primary elections and general elections, provided that each method designated is a qualified alternative voting method.

“(2) NOTIFICATION.- A State that designates a qualified alternative voting method under paragraph (1) shall notify the Election Assistance Commission in writing not later than 12 months before the first election for Federal office that is to be conducted under such method.

“(3) CHANGE OF METHOD.- A State that has designated a qualified alternative voting method may change its designation at any time by providing written notice to the Commission not later than 12 months before the first election that is to be conducted under the new method.

“(4) APPLICABILITY.- A State that designates a qualified alternative voting method under paragraph (1) shall apply such method to -

“(A) general elections for the office of Senator;

“(B) general elections for the office of Representative in Congress, including Delegates and the Resident Commissioner; and

“(C) any primary election, caucus, convention, or other process used by the State to nominate or select candidates for the offices described in subparagraphs (A) and (B), except that a State may, at its discretion, use a nonpartisan primary method, including a top-four or top-five nonpartisan primary, in combination with any qualified alternative voting method for the general election.

“(5) EXCEPTION FOR UNCONTESTED ELECTIONS.- A State that has designated a qualified alternative voting method is not required to use such method in an election in which there are fewer than 3 qualified candidates on the ballot.

“(b) QUALIFIED ALTERNATIVE VOTING METHODS DEFINED.- For purposes of this section, the following are qualified alternative voting methods:

“(1) RANKED-CHOICE VOTING.- A method of casting and tabulating votes in which -

“(A) voters rank candidates in order of preference;

“(B) tabulation proceeds in sequential rounds as follows -

“(i) in the first round, each ballot is counted as a vote for the candidate ranked first by the voter;

“(ii) after each round, if no candidate has received a majority of the votes counted in that round for candidates continuing in the election, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated;

“(iii) each ballot cast for an eliminated candidate is transferred to the next-highest-ranked continuing candidate on that ballot, if any; and

“(iv) the process described in clauses (ii) and (iii) continues until a candidate receives a majority of the votes counted in that round for continuing candidates, at which point that candidate is declared the winner; and

“(C) voters are not required to rank all candidates and a ballot shall not be considered invalid, spoiled, or otherwise defective solely because the voter did not rank every candidate.

“(2) STAR VOTING.- A method of casting and tabulating votes, also known as Score Then Automatic Runoff, in which -

“(A) voters score each candidate on a scale of 0 to 5, where 0 indicates no support and 5 indicates maximum support, and voters may give any number of candidates the same score;

“(B) tabulation proceeds in two phases as follows -

“(i) in the scoring phase, the scores assigned by all voters to each candidate are summed, and the 2 candidates with the highest total scores advance to the automatic runoff; and

“(ii) in the automatic runoff phase, each ballot is counted as a vote for whichever of the 2 advancing candidates the voter scored higher, and the candidate preferred on a greater number of ballots is declared the winner; and

“(C) if a voter has given both advancing candidates the same score, that ballot is not counted as a preference for either candidate in the automatic runoff phase, but shall not be considered invalid, spoiled, or otherwise defective.

“(3) CLOSED LIST.- No method other than ranked-choice voting as defined in paragraph (1) and STAR voting as defined in paragraph (2) shall be a qualified alternative voting method for purposes of this section. Any expansion of the methods authorized under this subsection shall require an Act of Congress.

“(4) TIE-BREAKING.- The Election Assistance Commission shall, by regulation, establish uniform procedures for resolving ties that may arise under each qualified alternative voting method, including -

“(A) in the case of ranked-choice voting, ties between candidates for elimination in any round of tabulation; and

“(B) in the case of STAR voting, ties among candidates for advancement to the automatic runoff in the scoring phase and ties between the two finalists in the automatic runoff phase. Such regulations shall be adopted not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this section, shall prioritize transparency and reproducibility, and shall be consistent with the tabulation principles defined in paragraphs (1) and (2). Pending the adoption of such regulations, ties shall be resolved in accordance with the applicable State law governing tie-breaking in elections for Federal office.

“(c) BALLOT DESIGN REQUIREMENTS.-

“(1) INSTRUCTIONS.- Each ballot used in an election subject to this section shall include clear, concise instructions explaining the qualified alternative voting method in use, including -

“(A) in the case of ranked-choice voting, that the voter may rank candidates in order of preference and is not required to rank all candidates; and

“(B) in the case of STAR voting, that the voter may score each candidate from 0 to 5, that giving a candidate a score of 0 or leaving a candidate unscored are equivalent, that the voter may give multiple candidates the same score, and that the two highest-scoring candidates will advance to an automatic runoff decided by voter preference.

“(2) BALLOT CAPACITY.-

“(A) RANKED-CHOICE VOTING.- A ballot for a ranked-choice voting election shall permit the voter to rank at least the lesser of all qualified candidates appearing on the ballot or 10 candidates; and

“(B) STAR VOTING.- A ballot for a STAR voting election shall permit the voter to assign a score of 0 through 5 to each qualified candidate appearing on the ballot.

“(3) ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALTERNATIVE VOTING METHODS.- In addition to the requirements of section 301(a)(3), which apply to all voting systems used in elections subject to this section, each State shall ensure that -

“(A) in the case of ranked-choice voting, nonvisual ballot interfaces (including audio ballots and tactile devices) present ranking options in a manner that allows voters with disabilities to assign, review, and modify rankings with the same degree of independence and privacy afforded to other voters;

“(B) in the case of STAR voting, nonvisual ballot interfaces present the scoring scale for each candidate in a manner that allows voters with disabilities to assign, review, and modify scores with the same degree of independence and privacy afforded to other voters; and

“(C) voter education materials required under paragraph (1) are produced in accessible formats, including large print, audio, and electronic formats compatible with screen readers.

“(d) TABULATION AND REPORTING.-

“(1) CAST VOTE RECORDS.- Each State shall publish complete, anonymized cast vote records for all elections subject to this section not later than 48 hours after the final canvass, in a standardized, machine-readable format prescribed by the Election Assistance Commission.

“(2) DETAILED RESULTS.- Each State shall publish -

“(A) in the case of ranked-choice voting, the results of each round of tabulation, including the total votes for each candidate in each round and the number of exhausted ballots; and

“(B) in the case of STAR voting, the total score for each candidate in the scoring phase, the identity of the two candidates advancing to the automatic runoff, and the preference totals and equal-preference ballot count in the runoff phase.

“(3) CENTRALIZED TABULATION.- A State may conduct tabulation under this section at a centralized location after all ballots, including provisional and absentee ballots, have been received and verified.

“(e) CERTIFICATION OF VOTING SYSTEMS.-

“(1) GUIDELINES.- Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this section, the Election Assistance Commission shall adopt a supplement to the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (as most recently adopted under section 311) that establishes standards specific to the testing and certification of voting systems capable of administering each qualified alternative voting method defined in subsection (b). Such supplement shall include standards for auditability, accuracy, and the ability to produce cast vote records and tabulation reports required under subsection (d).

“(2) RELATIONSHIP TO EXISTING GUIDELINES.- The supplemental standards adopted under this subsection shall be in addition to, and not in lieu of, the requirements of the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines adopted under section 311. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to exempt any voting system used in an election subject to this section from compliance with the most recently adopted version of such guidelines.

“(f) INTERACTION WITH STATE LAW.-

“(1) VOLUNTARY ADOPTION.- Nothing in this section shall be construed to require any State to adopt a qualified alternative voting method for any election. The decision to adopt such a method is solely within the discretion of each State.

“(2) PRESERVATION OF STATE AUTHORITY.- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the authority of a State to determine the manner of conducting elections for State or local office.

“(3) STATE CHOICE PRESERVED.- Nothing in this section shall be construed to prefer one qualified alternative voting method over another. The selection among qualified alternative voting methods is solely within the discretion of each State.”

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.- The table of contents of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 is amended by adding at the end of the items relating to title III the following:

“Subtitle C - Alternative Voting Method Standards

“Sec. 321. Qualified alternative voting methods for elections for Federal office.”

SEC. 6004. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS TO FEDERAL ELECTION LAW.

(a) AMENDMENT TO VOTING SYSTEM STANDARDS.- Section 301(a) of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (52 U.S.C. 21081(a)) is amended -

(1) in paragraph (1), by adding at the end the following:

“(D) EXCEPTION FOR ALTERNATIVE VOTING METHODS.- Subparagraphs (A)(iii) and (B) shall not apply with respect to an election conducted under a qualified alternative voting method as defined in section 321(b). In such an election, the voting system shall instead -

“(i) in the case of ranked-choice voting, notify the voter if the voter has assigned the same ranking to more than one candidate at a single ranking level, inform the voter that such duplicate ranking will be treated as an overvote for that ranking level only, and provide the voter with the opportunity to correct the error before the ballot is cast;

“(ii) in the case of STAR voting, not treat the assignment of the same score to multiple candidates as an error, but notify the voter if the voter has assigned a score outside the permitted range of 0 through 5 and provide the opportunity to correct the error before the ballot is cast; and

“(iii) notwithstanding clauses (i) and (ii), a State or jurisdiction that uses a paper ballot voting system, a punch card voting system, or a central count voting system (including mail-in absentee ballots and mail-in ballots) may meet the requirements of this subparagraph by - (I) establishing a voter education program specific to that voting system that notifies each voter, in the case of ranked-choice voting, of the effect of assigning the same ranking to more than one candidate at a single ranking level, and, in the case of STAR voting, of the permitted range of scores; and (II) providing the voter with instructions on how to correct the ballot before it is cast and counted, including instructions on how to correct the error through the issuance of a replacement ballot if the voter is otherwise unable to change the ballot or correct the error.”;

(2) in paragraph (1), by adding at the end the following:

“(E) ALTERNATIVE VOTING METHOD CAPABILITY.- In any State that has designated a qualified alternative voting method under section 321(a), the voting system shall be capable of administering each such method, including the ability to -

“(i) in the case of ranked-choice voting, present candidates in a format that permits voters to indicate a ranking of candidates in order of preference and record each voter’s complete ranking;

“(ii) in the case of STAR voting, present candidates in a format that permits voters to assign a score of 0 through 5 to each candidate and record each voter’s complete set of scores; and

“(iii) for all methods, export cast vote records in a standardized, machine-readable format as prescribed by the Commission.”;

(3) in paragraph (2), by adding at the end the following:

“(C) ALTERNATIVE VOTING METHOD ERROR TREATMENT.-

“(i) RANKED-CHOICE VOTING.- In the case of a ranked-choice voting election, the system shall treat any ranking level at which the voter has ranked more than one candidate as an overvote for that ranking level only, without invalidating the voter’s rankings at other levels, and shall skip the overvoted ranking and proceed to the next valid ranking on the ballot during tabulation.

“(ii) STAR VOTING.- In the case of a STAR voting election, the system shall treat any candidate left unscored by the voter as having received a score of 0, and shall not invalidate the ballot on the basis that the voter did not score every candidate or gave multiple candidates the same score.”; and

(4) by striking paragraph (6) and inserting the following:

“(6) UNIFORM DEFINITION OF WHAT CONSTITUTES A VOTE.-

“(A) IN GENERAL.- Each State shall adopt uniform and nondiscriminatory standards that define what constitutes a vote and what will be counted as a vote for each category of voting system used in the State.

“(B) ALTERNATIVE VOTING METHODS.- For elections conducted under a qualified alternative voting method as defined in section 321(b), the standards adopted under subparagraph (A) shall provide that -

“(i) in the case of ranked-choice voting -

“(I) a ballot on which the voter has validly ranked at least one candidate constitutes a vote;

“(II) a ballot that is counted in the first round of tabulation but that does not contain a valid ranking for any continuing candidate in a subsequent round (an ‘exhausted ballot’) shall be treated as a ballot on which the voter has cast a vote in the rounds in which the ballot was active, but shall not be counted as a vote for any candidate in rounds after exhaustion; and

“(III) a voter’s failure to rank all candidates shall not cause the ballot to be treated as not constituting a vote;

“(ii) in the case of STAR voting -

“(I) a ballot on which the voter has assigned a score to at least one candidate constitutes a vote;

“(II) a ballot on which the voter scored both advancing candidates equally shall be treated as a ballot on which the voter has cast a vote in the scoring phase but has expressed no preference in the automatic runoff phase; and

“(III) a voter’s failure to score all candidates, or a voter’s assignment of identical scores to multiple candidates, shall not cause the ballot to be treated as not constituting a vote.”

(b) MILITARY AND OVERSEAS VOTERS.-

(1) STATE ABSENTEE BALLOTS.- Section 102 of the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (52 U.S.C. 20302) is amended by adding at the end the following:

“(j) ALTERNATIVE VOTING METHODS FOR MILITARY AND OVERSEAS VOTERS.- Each State shall ensure that any blank absentee ballot transmitted under this section for an election for Federal office permits the voter to express preferences among candidates in the manner required by the qualified alternative voting method designated by the State under section 321 of the Help America Vote Act of 2002.”

(2) FEDERAL WRITE-IN ABSENTEE BALLOT.- Section 103 of the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (52 U.S.C. 20303) is amended -

(A) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the following:

“(3) ALTERNATIVE VOTING METHOD FORMAT.- Not later than 18 months before the first election for Federal office to which section 321 of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 applies, the Presidential designee shall prescribe one or more alternative formats of the Federal write-in absentee ballot that permit absent uniformed services voters and overseas voters to express preferences among candidates in the manner required by each qualified alternative voting method defined in section 321(b) of such Act. The Presidential designee shall, in consultation with the Election Assistance Commission, ensure that the alternative format -

“(A) in the case of a State using ranked-choice voting, permits the voter to rank candidates in order of preference;

“(B) in the case of a State using STAR voting, permits the voter to assign a score of 0 through 5 to each candidate; and

“(C) includes clear instructions explaining the applicable voting method and is consistent with the ballot design requirements of section 321(c) of such Act.”; and

(B) in subsection (c), by adding at the end the following: “A Federal write-in absentee ballot cast for an election conducted under a qualified alternative voting method shall be processed in the manner prescribed by the Presidential designee under subsection (a)(3), and shall be tabulated in accordance with the tabulation rules applicable to the qualified alternative voting method designated by the State under section 321 of the Help America Vote Act of 2002.”

(c) CANDIDATE FILING.- Nothing in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (52 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.) shall be construed to prohibit any aspect of a qualified alternative voting method as implemented under this subtitle.

(d) CONTRIBUTION LIMITS AND DEFINITION OF ELECTION.-

(1) TREATMENT OF ALTERNATIVE VOTING METHODS.- Section 301(1) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (52 U.S.C. 30101(1)) is amended by adding at the end the following:

“(E) For purposes of this title, an election for Federal office conducted under a qualified alternative voting method as defined in section 321(b) of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 shall be treated as a single election regardless of the number of rounds of tabulation, automatic runoff phases, or other sequential steps in the tabulation process. The sequential elimination of candidates under ranked-choice voting and the automatic runoff phase under STAR voting are steps in the tabulation of a single election and do not constitute separate elections for purposes of the contribution limitations under section 315.”

(2) TREATMENT OF RUNOFF ELECTIONS UNDER ALTERNATIVE VOTING METHODS.- Section 301(1) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (52 U.S.C. 30101(1)) is further amended by adding at the end the following:

“(F) With respect to any election for Federal office conducted under a qualified alternative voting method as defined in section 321(b) of the Help America Vote Act of 2002, the term ‘runoff election’ as used in subparagraph (A) shall not apply to such election or to any tabulation round or automatic runoff phase conducted within it. No separate runoff election shall be required for such election, and the contribution limitations under section 315 that would otherwise have applied to a separate runoff election shall not apply. The per-election contribution limit for the general election shall constitute the sole applicable limit for the general election and any tabulation rounds or runoff phases conducted within it.”

(e) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION REGARDING STATE RUNOFF REQUIREMENTS.-

(1) IN GENERAL.- With respect to any election for Federal office in which a State has voluntarily designated a qualified alternative voting method under section 321(a) of the Help America Vote Act of 2002, the use of such method shall be deemed to satisfy any provision of State law that requires a winning candidate to receive a majority or specified threshold of votes, or that would otherwise require a runoff election, second election, or additional round of voting when no candidate achieves such a majority or threshold.

(2) NO SEPARATE ELECTION REQUIRED.- A State that has voluntarily designated a qualified alternative voting method for elections for Federal office shall not be required to conduct a separate runoff election for any such election, because the tabulation process inherent in each qualified alternative voting method identifies the candidate with the broadest support among participating voters.

(3) STATE DISCRETION PRESERVED.- Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to prohibit a State from retaining runoff elections for State or local offices, or to require any State to designate a qualified alternative voting method.

SUBTITLE B - GRANTS FOR STATE AND LOCAL ALTERNATIVE VOTING METHOD ADOPTION

SEC. 6005. CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY; VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION; SEVERABILITY OF FUNDING.

(a) SPENDING CLAUSE AUTHORITY.- This subtitle is enacted pursuant to the power of Congress under article I, section 8, clause 1 of the Constitution to lay and collect taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, and establishes a program of conditional financial assistance to eligible entities that voluntarily elect to adopt and maintain a qualified alternative voting method.

(b) VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION.- Participation in the grant program established under this subtitle is voluntary. Nothing in this subtitle requires any State or unit of local government to adopt a qualified alternative voting method, and the decision whether to apply for or accept a grant under this subtitle is solely within the discretion of each eligible entity.

(c) NO EFFECT ON OTHER FEDERAL FUNDING.- Neither the decision of an eligible entity to decline to apply for or accept a grant under this subtitle, nor the failure of an eligible entity to adopt a qualified alternative voting method, shall affect the eligibility of that entity for, or the amount of, any other payment, grant, or form of Federal financial assistance for which it would otherwise qualify. No condition imposed under this subtitle applies to any funds other than the grant funds provided under this subtitle.

(d) SEVERABILITY OF FUNDING PROGRAM.- If any provision of subtitle A, or the application of any such provision, is held invalid, such holding shall not affect the validity or operation of this subtitle, which shall continue in full force as an independent exercise of the spending power of Congress.

SEC. 6006. ESTABLISHMENT OF GRANT PROGRAM.

(a) IN GENERAL.- The Commission shall establish and administer an election modernization grant program to provide financial assistance to eligible entities for the purpose of adopting and implementing qualified alternative voting methods for elections at all levels of government, including State and local elections.

(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.- There are authorized to be appropriated $1,000,000,000 for the 5-fiscal-year period beginning with fiscal year 2027 to carry out this subtitle.

(c) ADMINISTRATIVE CAPACITY.- There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary, not to exceed $15,000,000 for the 5-fiscal-year period beginning with fiscal year 2027, for the Commission to hire not more than 25 additional full-time equivalent employees to administer the grant program established under this subtitle, develop regulations and guidance required by this subtitle, and provide technical assistance to eligible entities.

SEC. 6007. ELIGIBILITY AND APPLICATION.

(a) ELIGIBLE ENTITIES.- An eligible entity under this subtitle is -

(1) a State;

(2) a unit of local government with responsibility for the administration of elections; or

(3) a consortium of entities described in paragraphs (1) and (2).

(b) APPLICATION.- An eligible entity seeking a grant under this subtitle shall submit to the Commission an application at such time, in such manner, and containing such information as the Commission may require, including -

(1) a description of the qualified alternative voting method the entity proposes to adopt or has adopted;

(2) a detailed implementation plan, including -

(A) a timeline for adoption, with projected milestones;

(B) a description of the elections to which the method will apply;

(C) an assessment of required changes to voting equipment, tabulation software, and ballot design;

(D) a voter education and outreach plan that includes materials in languages required under section 203 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. 10503) and accessible formats for voters with disabilities; and

(E) a plan for training election officials, poll workers, and canvassing board members;

(3) a commitment to publish complete, anonymized cast vote records and detailed tabulation data for each election conducted under the new method, including all intermediate tabulation steps (such as round-by-round results for ranked-choice voting, or scoring-phase and runoff-phase results for STAR voting), in a machine-readable format prescribed by the Commission;

(4) a budget and plan for matching funds in accordance with Sec. 6009; and

(5) in the case of an application for an implementation grant under Sec. 6008(b) or a comprehensive adoption grant under Sec. 6008(c), an acknowledgment that the applicant has reviewed and accepts the maintenance-of-effort commitment described in Sec. 6015 and the repayment obligations described in Sec. 6016, including the requirement to maintain the adopted method for a period of not less than 10 years or 5 general election cycles, whichever is longer.

SEC. 6008. GRANT TIERS.

(a) TIER 1: PLANNING GRANTS.-

(1) IN GENERAL.- The Commission shall award planning grants to eligible entities for the purpose of conducting feasibility studies, legal analyses, software compatibility assessments, cost projections, and voter education planning related to the adoption of a qualified alternative voting method.

(2) AMOUNT.- Planning grants under this subsection shall be in amounts not less than $50,000 and not more than $500,000.

(3) MATCHING REQUIREMENT.- No matching funds shall be required for a planning grant under this subsection.

(4) NO ADOPTION COMMITMENT.- Receipt of a planning grant under this subsection shall not obligate the eligible entity to adopt any alternative voting method.

(b) TIER 2: IMPLEMENTATION GRANTS.-

(1) IN GENERAL.- The Commission shall award implementation grants to eligible entities that have enacted legislation or approved a ballot measure authorizing the use of a qualified alternative voting method for at least one category of elections within the jurisdiction’s authority.

(2) AMOUNT.- Implementation grants under this subsection shall be determined solely on the basis of the voting-age population of the jurisdiction, without regard to which qualified alternative voting method the entity has adopted or proposes to adopt, as follows -

(A) for jurisdictions with a voting-age population of less than 250,000, grants of not less than $100,000 and not more than $2,000,000;

(B) for jurisdictions with a voting-age population of not less than 250,000 and not more than 2,500,000, grants of not less than $500,000 and not more than $10,000,000; and

(C) for jurisdictions with a voting-age population exceeding 2,500,000, grants of not less than $2,000,000 and not more than $25,000,000.

(3) METHOD-NEUTRAL DETERMINATION.- In determining the amount of a grant under this subsection, the Commission shall not increase or decrease the grant amount based on the relative implementation cost of the specific qualified alternative voting method selected by the eligible entity. The grant amount for a jurisdiction with a given voting-age population shall be the same regardless of whether the entity adopts ranked-choice voting or STAR voting.

(4) MATCHING REQUIREMENT.- Implementation grants under this subsection shall be subject to the matching requirement of Sec. 6009.

(c) TIER 3: COMPREHENSIVE ADOPTION GRANTS.-

(1) IN GENERAL.- The Commission shall award competitive grants to States that submit comprehensive plans for statewide adoption of a qualified alternative voting method for elections at all levels of State and local government within the State.

(2) PRIORITY.- In evaluating applications under this subsection, the Commission shall give priority to States that propose -

(A) adoption for the broadest range of elections, including primary, general, special, and municipal elections;

(B) innovative voter education strategies, including multilingual outreach and partnerships with community organizations;

(C) pilot programs that allow phased implementation with evaluation at each stage; and

(D) data collection and evaluation plans that will contribute to the national evidence base on alternative voting methods; and

(E) the repeal, within the 3-year period preceding the date of application, of any State law that prohibited, restricted, or limited the use of any qualified alternative voting method, demonstrating the State’s affirmative commitment to expanding voter choice.

(3) AMOUNT.- Grants under this subsection shall be in amounts determined by the Commission based on the State’s voting-age population, the number of elections covered, and the scope of the adoption plan, but not more than $50,000,000 per State. The Commission shall not increase or decrease the grant amount based on the relative implementation cost of the specific qualified alternative voting method selected by the State.

(4) MATCHING REQUIREMENT.- Grants under this subsection shall be subject to the matching requirement of Sec. 6009.

(d) TIER 4: METHOD EVALUATION AND TRANSITION GRANTS.-

(1) IN GENERAL.- The Commission shall award grants to eligible entities that have been administering a qualified alternative voting method for at least 2 completed general election cycles and seek to -

(A) conduct a rigorous, independent comparative evaluation of the performance of the entity’s current method against one or more other qualified alternative voting methods, as defined in Sec. 6010;

(B) administer a pilot program to test an alternative qualified method in one or more elections within the jurisdiction, in parallel with or in place of the entity’s current method; or

(C) transition from the entity’s current qualified alternative voting method to a different qualified alternative voting method that the entity determines, based on evidence, better serves the interests of voters in the jurisdiction.

(2) EVALUATION CRITERIA.- Any comparative evaluation funded under paragraph (1)(A) shall assess, at a minimum -

(A) voter satisfaction and comprehension under each method evaluated, including disaggregated data by race, ethnicity, age, disability status, and language proficiency;

(B) the frequency with which each method elects candidates who would defeat every other candidate in a head-to-head contest (Condorcet efficiency);

(C) rates of ballot exhaustion, spoilage, and voter error under each method;

(D) susceptibility to strategic manipulation, including the incentive for voters to misrepresent their preferences;

(E) the effect of each method on the number and diversity of candidates and on negative campaigning; and

(F) administrative costs, including equipment, software, training, and voter education requirements for each method.

(3) PILOT PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS.- A pilot program funded under paragraph (1)(B) shall -

(A) be conducted for not fewer than 2 elections;

(B) include a voter education component sufficient to ensure voters understand both the pilot method and the purpose of the pilot;

(C) include a pre-registered evaluation plan specifying the metrics by which the pilot method will be assessed; and

(D) culminate in a public report comparing the performance of the pilot method against the entity’s current method, which shall be submitted to the Commission and made publicly available.

(4) TRANSITION SUPPORT.- An eligible entity receiving a grant under paragraph (1)(C) may use grant funds for all costs associated with transitioning to the replacement method, including the costs described in Sec. 6011. An entity that transitions to a different qualified alternative voting method under this subsection shall not be required to make any repayment under Sec. 6016, and the commitment period under Sec. 6015 shall continue to run from the date of the first general election conducted under the entity’s original qualified alternative voting method.

(5) AMOUNT.- Grants under this subsection shall be in amounts not less than $50,000 and not more than $5,000,000.

(6) MATCHING REQUIREMENT.- Grants under paragraph (1)(A) shall not be subject to any matching requirement. Grants under paragraphs (1)(B) and (1)(C) shall be subject to the matching requirement of Sec. 6009.

(7) NO OBLIGATION TO TRANSITION.- Receipt of a grant under paragraph (1)(A) or (1)(B) shall not obligate the eligible entity to adopt any method other than its current method. The purpose of such grants is to encourage evidence-based evaluation, not to predetermine outcomes.

SEC. 6009. MATCHING REQUIREMENT.

(a) IN GENERAL.- Except as provided in subsection (b) and in Sec. 6008(a)(3), the Federal share of the cost of activities funded under this subtitle shall not exceed 75 percent.

(b) WAIVER FOR FISCAL HARDSHIP.- The Commission may waive or reduce the matching requirement under subsection (a) for an eligible entity that demonstrates fiscal hardship, as determined by the Commission. In no case shall the Federal share exceed 90 percent.

(c) IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS.- For the purposes of meeting the matching requirement under this section, an eligible entity may include in-kind contributions, including the value of existing staff time, facilities, and equipment dedicated to implementation activities.

SEC. 6010. QUALIFIED ALTERNATIVE VOTING METHODS.

(a) IN GENERAL.- For the purposes of this subtitle, a ‘qualified alternative voting method’ means any method of casting and tabulating votes that -

(1) permits voters to express preferences among candidates beyond a single selection;

(2) produces outcomes that are not susceptible to the spoiler effect, under which the entry of an additional candidate who cannot win causes a change in the winner among the remaining candidates;

(3) does not penalize voters for expressing sincere preferences; and

(4) is administered in a manner that is transparent, auditable, and consistent with the requirements of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. 10301 et seq.) and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.).

(b) METHODS MEETING CRITERIA.- The following methods are deemed to satisfy the criteria of subsection (a), subject to verification by the Commission that the specific implementation proposed by the applicant meets the requirements of this subtitle -

(1) RANKED-CHOICE VOTING.- Ranked-choice voting, which for purposes of this subtitle means a method of casting and tabulating votes in which -

(A) voters rank candidates in order of preference;

(B) tabulation proceeds in sequential rounds as follows -

(i) in the first round, each ballot is counted as a vote for the candidate ranked first by the voter;

(ii) after each round, if no candidate has received a majority of the votes counted in that round for candidates continuing in the election, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated;

(iii) each ballot cast for an eliminated candidate is transferred to the next-highest-ranked continuing candidate on that ballot, if any; and

(iv) the process described in clauses (ii) and (iii) continues until a candidate receives a majority of the votes counted in that round for continuing candidates, at which point that candidate is declared the winner; and

(C) voters are not required to rank all candidates and a ballot shall not be considered invalid, spoiled, or otherwise defective solely because the voter did not rank every candidate; and

(2) STAR VOTING.- STAR voting (Score Then Automatic Runoff), which for purposes of this subtitle means a method of casting and tabulating votes in which -

(A) voters score each candidate on a scale of 0 to 5, where 0 indicates no support and 5 indicates maximum support, and voters may give any number of candidates the same score;

(B) tabulation proceeds in two phases as follows -

(i) in the scoring phase, the scores assigned by all voters to each candidate are summed, and the 2 candidates with the highest total scores advance to the automatic runoff; and

(ii) in the automatic runoff phase, each ballot is counted as a vote for whichever of the 2 advancing candidates the voter scored higher, and the candidate preferred on a greater number of ballots is declared the winner; and

(C) if a voter has given both advancing candidates the same score, that ballot is not counted as a preference for either candidate in the automatic runoff phase, but shall not be considered invalid, spoiled, or otherwise defective.

(c) CLOSED LIST.- No method other than those specified in subsection (b) shall be a qualified alternative voting method for purposes of this subtitle. Any expansion of the methods eligible for grants under this subtitle shall require an Act of Congress.

(d) EXCLUSION.- Plurality voting, as used in single-winner elections in which voters may vote for only one candidate and the candidate receiving the greatest number of votes wins regardless of whether such candidate receives a majority, shall not be a qualified alternative voting method for purposes of this subtitle.

(e) GRANDFATHERING OF EXISTING ALTERNATIVE VOTING METHODS.-

(1) ELIGIBILITY.- Notwithstanding the limitation in subsection (c), an eligible entity that, as of the date of enactment of this subtitle, administers elections using approval voting or any other alternative voting method that is not listed in subsection (b) but that satisfies the criteria described in subsection (a) shall be eligible for -

(A) Tier 1 planning grants under Sec. 6008(a) for any purpose, including evaluation of whether to continue with the entity’s current method or transition to a method listed in subsection (b);

(B) Tier 2 implementation grants under Sec. 6008(b) and Tier 3 comprehensive adoption grants under Sec. 6008(c), provided that the grant funds are used to maintain, improve, or expand the entity’s existing method or to transition to a method listed in subsection (b); and

(C) Tier 4 method evaluation and transition grants under Sec. 6008(d).

(2) LIMITATION.- The grandfathering provision under paragraph (1) shall apply only to an eligible entity that demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the Commission, that the entity was administering the applicable alternative voting method in at least one public election prior to the date of enactment of this subtitle. An eligible entity may not claim eligibility under this subsection for a method adopted after such date unless the method is listed in subsection (b).

(3) ENCOURAGEMENT TO EVALUATE.- An eligible entity receiving funds under this subsection is encouraged, but not required, to use a portion of such funds to conduct a comparative evaluation of the entity’s existing method against the methods listed in subsection (b), in order to inform future decisions about whether a transition would better serve voters in the jurisdiction.

SEC. 6011. PERMITTED USES OF FUNDS.

(a) PERMITTED PURPOSES.- An eligible entity receiving a grant under this subtitle shall use the grant funds for one or more of the following purposes:

(1) Acquisition, upgrade, testing, or certification of voting equipment and tabulation software capable of administering the applicable qualified alternative voting method.

(2) Ballot design, printing, and production, including development of accessible ballot formats.

(3) Voter education and outreach programs, including -

(A) public information campaigns conducted through broadcast, digital, and print media;

(B) production of multilingual educational materials;

(C) community-based outreach in partnership with civic organizations; and

(D) educational programs for schools and institutions of higher education.

(4) Training of election officials, poll workers, canvassing board members, and other election administration personnel.

(5) Development or procurement of election management systems and tabulation audit tools.

(6) Pilot programs to test qualified alternative voting methods in a limited number of elections prior to broader adoption.

(7) Post-election audits, evaluations, and studies of voter experience, including analysis of voter comprehension, demographic participation patterns, and method-specific performance metrics such as ballot exhaustion rates (for ranked-choice voting), equal-preference ballot rates (for STAR voting), or other indicators relevant to the adopted method.

(8) Cybersecurity enhancements related to the tabulation, transmission, and storage of ballot data under the adopted qualified alternative voting method, including secure handling of cast vote records, tabulation audit trails, and any centralized data aggregation required by the method.

(9) Legal analysis related to conforming State or local law to accommodate the qualified alternative voting method.

(10) Comparative evaluation of the adopted method’s performance against other qualified alternative voting methods, including voter satisfaction surveys, Condorcet efficiency analysis, and simulation modeling, to inform future method improvements.

(11) Costs associated with transitioning from one qualified alternative voting method to another, including equipment reconfiguration, software updates, ballot redesign, and voter re-education.

(12) Such other purposes as the Commission determines are reasonably related to the adoption, evaluation, improvement, or successful implementation of a qualified alternative voting method.

(b) RETENTION OF IMPLEMENTATION SAVINGS.-

(1) IN GENERAL.- If an eligible entity that has received an implementation grant under Sec. 6008(b) or a comprehensive adoption grant under Sec. 6008(c) completes the implementation of its adopted qualified alternative voting method at a total cost less than the grant amount received, the entity may retain the unexpended balance of the grant for use on any purpose described in subsection (a) or any other election administration purpose described in paragraph (3).

(2) METHOD-NEUTRAL INCENTIVE.- Congress finds that different qualified alternative voting methods vary in implementation cost, and that methods requiring only software upgrades and no new hardware or centralized tabulation infrastructure may be substantially less expensive to implement than methods requiring new equipment or centralized ballot handling. It is the intent of Congress that these cost differences inure to the benefit of the adopting jurisdiction rather than resulting in a reduced grant, so that jurisdictions adopting more cost-effective methods receive a direct fiscal benefit that may be reinvested in election administration.

(3) EXPANDED ELIGIBLE USES FOR RETAINED SAVINGS.- In addition to the purposes described in subsection (a), an eligible entity may use funds retained under this subsection for the following election administration purposes:

(A) Improvements to voter registration systems, including online registration platforms and automatic voter registration infrastructure.

(B) Expansion of early voting, vote-by-mail, or other measures to increase voter access and convenience.

(C) Upgrades to election cybersecurity infrastructure, including intrusion detection systems, post-election audit tools, and secure communications systems.

(D) Accessibility improvements to polling places and voting systems beyond those required by Federal law, including additional language access, disability accommodations, and mobile voting units for underserved communities.

(E) Recruitment, training, and retention programs for election officials and poll workers.

(F) Public trust and transparency initiatives, including election observation programs, open-data platforms, and civic education partnerships.

(4) REPORTING.- An eligible entity retaining funds under this subsection shall include in its annual report under Sec. 6012(a)(1) an accounting of -

(A) the total grant amount received;

(B) the total amount expended on implementation of the qualified alternative voting method;

(C) the amount retained under this subsection; and

(D) the specific uses to which retained funds have been or will be applied.

(5) PERIOD OF AVAILABILITY.- Funds retained under this subsection shall remain available for expenditure by the eligible entity for a period of 5 years after the date of the first general election conducted under the adopted qualified alternative voting method. Any funds not expended within such period shall be returned to the Commission for reallocation under this subtitle.

(6) NO EFFECT ON MAINTENANCE COMMITMENT.- The retention of savings under this subsection shall not affect the eligible entity’s obligations under Sec. 6015, including the commitment to maintain the adopted method for the full commitment period.

SEC. 6012. REPORTING AND EVALUATION.

(a) GRANTEE REPORTS.- Each eligible entity receiving a grant under this subtitle shall submit to the Commission -

(1) annual progress reports during the implementation period, including expenditure data and milestone updates; and

(2) a comprehensive post-implementation report not later than 6 months after the first general election conducted using the qualified alternative voting method, including -

(A) voter participation rates as compared to the most recent comparable election conducted under the previous method;

(B) method-specific performance indicators, including ballot exhaustion rates (for ranked-choice voting), equal-preference ballot rates (for STAR voting), or other metrics relevant to the adopted method;

(C) voter comprehension and satisfaction survey data, including disaggregated data by race, ethnicity, age, disability status, and language proficiency to the extent such data is available;

(D) candidate filing data;

(E) any legal challenges and their disposition; and

(F) an independent assessment of the accuracy and auditability of the tabulation process.

(2A) VOTER COMPREHENSION ASSESSMENT.-

(A) REQUIREMENT.- Each eligible entity that has received an implementation grant under Sec. 6008(b) or a comprehensive adoption grant under Sec. 6008(c) shall, not later than 90 days after the first general election conducted under the adopted qualified alternative voting method, conduct a statistically valid survey of voter comprehension, with results disaggregated by race, ethnicity, age, disability status, and language proficiency to the extent such data is available.

(B) REMEDIAL PLAN.- If the survey conducted under subparagraph (A) indicates that voter comprehension of the adopted method falls below 70 percent in any demographic group identified in such subparagraph, the eligible entity shall, not later than 180 days after the completion of the survey, submit to the Commission a remedial voter education plan describing targeted outreach strategies to address the comprehension gap.

(C) COMMISSION ASSISTANCE.- The Commission shall provide technical assistance to any eligible entity required to submit a remedial plan under subparagraph (B), including access to model voter education materials, multilingual outreach strategies, and best practices from other jurisdictions.

(3) PERIODIC METHOD REVIEW.- Each eligible entity that has received an implementation grant under Sec. 6008(b) or a comprehensive adoption grant under Sec. 6008(c) shall, not later than 6 months after completing the third general election cycle conducted under the adopted qualified alternative voting method, and every third general election cycle thereafter during the commitment period, submit to the Commission a method performance review that includes -

(A) a summary of the entity’s experience administering the method, including trends in voter participation, voter comprehension, candidate diversity, and method-specific performance indicators (such as ballot exhaustion rates, equal-preference ballot rates, or other metrics relevant to the adopted method) across completed election cycles;

(B) an assessment of whether the adopted method continues to satisfy the criteria described in Sec. 6010(a);

(C) a comparison, to the extent practicable using available data and published research, of the entity’s adopted method against at least one other qualified alternative voting method with respect to the metrics described in Sec. 6008(d)(2);

(D) identification of any operational challenges, voter concerns, or performance shortcomings observed during the review period; and

(E) a statement as to whether the entity intends to continue with the current method, seek a Tier 4 grant under Sec. 6008(d) to evaluate alternatives, or transition to a different qualified alternative voting method.

(4) COMMISSION ASSISTANCE WITH REVIEWS.- The Commission shall -

(A) develop and make publicly available standardized templates, data collection instruments, and analytical frameworks to assist eligible entities in conducting the periodic method review required under paragraph (3);

(B) maintain and publish a publicly accessible database of method performance data submitted by all grantees, to facilitate cross-jurisdictional comparison and evidence-based decision-making; and

(C) upon request, provide technical assistance to eligible entities conducting reviews, including access to academic experts and simulation tools for comparing voting methods.

(b) COMMISSION REPORTS.-

(1) ANNUAL REPORT.- The Commission shall submit to Congress an annual report summarizing the status of all grants awarded under this subtitle and any findings regarding the implementation and effects of alternative voting methods.

(2) FIVE-YEAR EVALUATION.- Not later than 5 years after the first grant is awarded under this subtitle, the Commission shall commission and transmit to Congress an independent evaluation of the program, including an assessment of -

(A) the effectiveness of each qualified alternative voting method in meeting the purposes of this title;

(B) best practices for implementation;

(C) the adequacy of funding levels; and

(D) recommendations for reauthorization or modification.

SEC. 6013. DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS.

(a) AUTHORIZATION.- The Commission shall, subject to the availability of funds under Sec. 6006(b), establish a demonstration project program to support the use of qualified alternative voting methods in binding public elections conducted by willing jurisdictions.

(b) PURPOSE.- The purpose of the demonstration project program is to generate rigorous, real-world evidence on the performance of qualified alternative voting methods, including methods that have not yet been widely used in government elections in the United States, in order to inform future adoption decisions by States and units of local government.

(c) NUMBER AND SELECTION.- The Commission shall select not fewer than 3 and not more than 5 eligible entities to participate in the demonstration project program, giving priority to entities that -

(1) propose to demonstrate a qualified alternative voting method for which limited real-world government election data currently exists;

(2) represent diverse geographic, demographic, and jurisdictional characteristics;

(3) commit to rigorous, independent evaluation in accordance with subsection (d); and

(4) have demonstrated institutional capacity to administer elections competently.

(d) EVALUATION.- Each demonstration project shall include an independent evaluation conducted by a qualified research institution, assessing the metrics described in Sec. 6008(d)(2). The Commission shall compile the results of all demonstration projects into a public report and transmit such report to Congress not later than 6 months after the final demonstration election is completed.

(e) AMOUNT.- Grants under this section shall be in amounts not less than $500,000 and not more than $5,000,000 per participating entity.

(f) MATCHING REQUIREMENT.- No matching funds shall be required for grants under this section.

(g) NO COMMITMENT OBLIGATION.- Receipt of a grant under this section shall not obligate the participating entity to permanently adopt any method. The demonstration project is for evaluation purposes only.

SEC. 6014. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS TO DISCOURAGE ADOPTION.

No funds appropriated or otherwise made available under any provision of Federal law may be used by any Federal agency, officer, or employee to penalize, withhold benefits from, or otherwise discriminate against any State or unit of local government on the basis that such State or unit of local government has adopted, is considering adopting, or has applied for a grant under this subtitle to adopt a qualified alternative voting method for any election.

SEC. 6015. MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT.

(a) COMMITMENT PERIOD.-

(1) IN GENERAL.- As a condition of receiving an implementation grant under Sec. 6008(b) or a comprehensive adoption grant under Sec. 6008(c), an eligible entity shall commit to maintaining the use of the qualified alternative voting method adopted under this subtitle for the applicable elections for a period of not less than the longer of -

(A) 10 years after the date of the first general election conducted using such method; or

(B) 5 completed general election cycles for each office to which the method applies.

(2) WRITTEN AGREEMENT.- Before disbursement of any funds under Sec. 6008(b) or 573(c), the chief election official of the eligible entity shall execute a written agreement with the Commission acknowledging the commitment period described in paragraph (1) and the repayment obligations described in Sec. 6016.

(3) PLANNING GRANTS EXCLUDED.- The commitment period under this subsection shall not apply to planning grants awarded under Sec. 6008(a).

(b) SCOPE OF COMMITMENT.- The commitment under subsection (a) shall require the eligible entity to -

(1) continue to use the qualified alternative voting method for at least the same categories and number of elections specified in the entity’s approved application under Sec. 6007(b) throughout the commitment period;

(2) continue to fund voter education and poll worker training sufficient to administer the method competently, as determined by the Commission;

(3) continue to publish cast vote records and detailed tabulation data (including all intermediate tabulation steps applicable to the adopted method) as required under Sec. 6007(b)(3); and

(4) submit annual compliance certifications to the Commission during the commitment period.

(c) ENCOURAGED MODIFICATIONS.- Congress finds that the purposes of this subtitle are best served when eligible entities treat the adoption of a qualified alternative voting method as the beginning of an ongoing commitment to voter-centered election design, not an endpoint. Accordingly, an eligible entity shall not be considered in violation of the commitment under subsection (a), and shall be affirmatively encouraged through the availability of Tier 4 grants under Sec. 6008(d), to undertake any of the following actions during the commitment period:

(1) TRANSITION TO AN IMPROVED METHOD.- Replacing the adopted qualified alternative voting method with a different qualified alternative voting method, as defined in Sec. 6010, for the same elections, provided the entity -

(A) notifies the Commission in writing not less than 12 months before the first election conducted under the replacement method;

(B) demonstrates that the replacement method satisfies the criteria of Sec. 6010(a); and

(C) documents the evidence basis for the transition, including data from the periodic method review conducted under Sec. 6012(a)(3), a comparative evaluation funded under Sec. 6008(d)(1)(A), or a pilot program conducted under Sec. 6008(d)(1)(B).

(2) EXPANSION.- Expanding the use of the adopted method to additional categories of elections beyond those specified in the original application.

(3) TECHNICAL IMPROVEMENTS.- Making technical or administrative modifications to the implementation of the method that do not alter the fundamental manner in which votes are cast, ranked, scored, or tabulated.

(d) CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT.-

(1) POLICY.- It is the policy of the United States that eligible entities receiving funds under this subtitle should continuously evaluate and improve their election methods based on evidence, and that no eligible entity should be penalized or discouraged from transitioning to a voting method that better serves the interests of voters solely because the entity previously adopted a different qualified alternative voting method with Federal assistance.

(2) COMMISSION GUIDANCE.- Not later than 1 year after the first grants are awarded under this subtitle, the Commission shall issue guidance to eligible entities on -

(A) best practices for conducting comparative evaluations of voting methods;

(B) criteria for determining when a transition to a different method may be warranted based on performance data;

(C) procedures for applying for Tier 4 grants under Sec. 6008(d) to support evaluation, piloting, or transition activities; and

(D) model legislation or ordinance language for jurisdictions seeking to authorize the use of ranked-choice voting or STAR voting for State or local elections.

(3) NO INFERENCE OF INADEQUACY.- An eligible entity’s decision to evaluate, pilot, or transition to a different qualified alternative voting method shall not be construed as evidence that the entity’s original method was inadequate, that the entity failed to comply with the terms of its grant, or that the entity’s original application was deficient.

(e) EXTENSION OR RENEWAL.- Upon expiration of the commitment period, an eligible entity may -

(1) continue using the qualified alternative voting method without further obligation to the Commission;

(2) discontinue use of the method without any repayment obligation; or

(3) apply for additional grants under this subtitle for further election modernization activities.

SEC. 6016. REPAYMENT FOR EARLY DISCONTINUATION.

(a) REPAYMENT OBLIGATION.-

(1) TRIGGER.- If, during the commitment period described in Sec. 6015(a), an eligible entity enacts legislation, issues an executive order, gives effect to a ballot measure, or takes any other official action that repeals, prohibits, or discontinues the use of the qualified alternative voting method adopted under this subtitle for any election covered by the entity’s commitment, the entity shall repay to the Commission an amount determined under subsection (b).

(2) DETERMINATION BY COMMISSION.- The Commission shall determine whether an action described in paragraph (1) has occurred and shall notify the eligible entity in writing of such determination, including the amount of repayment due and the deadline for payment.

(b) AMOUNT OF REPAYMENT.-

(1) GRADUATED SCHEDULE.- The amount of repayment required under subsection (a) shall be calculated according to the following graduated schedule based on the proportion of the commitment period completed at the time of discontinuation:

(A) If less than 20 percent of the commitment period has elapsed, 100 percent of all Federal funds disbursed to the entity under sections 573(b) and 573(c).

(B) If not less than 20 percent but less than 40 percent of the commitment period has elapsed, 80 percent of all Federal funds so disbursed.

(C) If not less than 40 percent but less than 60 percent of the commitment period has elapsed, 60 percent of all Federal funds so disbursed.

(D) If not less than 60 percent but less than 80 percent of the commitment period has elapsed, 40 percent of all Federal funds so disbursed.

(E) If not less than 80 percent of the commitment period has elapsed, 20 percent of all Federal funds so disbursed.

(2) CALCULATION.- For the purposes of paragraph (1), the proportion of the commitment period elapsed shall be determined by dividing the number of complete months between the date of the first general election conducted under the method and the effective date of the discontinuation action by the total number of months in the commitment period.

(c) NOTICE AND CURE.-

(1) NOTICE.- Upon learning of a proposed or pending action that may trigger a repayment obligation under this section, the Commission shall provide the eligible entity with written notice describing the potential repayment obligation and identifying any steps the entity may take to avoid triggering such obligation.

(2) CURE PERIOD.- An eligible entity shall have a period of 180 days after the date of notice under paragraph (1) to rescind, reverse, or otherwise cure the action giving rise to the repayment obligation. If the entity cures the action within such period, no repayment shall be required.

(3) SUSPENSION DURING LITIGATION.- If the action giving rise to a potential repayment obligation is the subject of pending litigation challenging the validity of such action under State or Federal law, the Commission shall suspend the repayment obligation until the litigation is resolved by final, non-appealable judgment. If the litigation results in the invalidation of the action, no repayment shall be required.

(d) EXCEPTIONS TO REPAYMENT.-

(1) REPLACEMENT WITH QUALIFIED METHOD.- No repayment shall be required if the eligible entity discontinues the adopted method and simultaneously replaces it with a different qualified alternative voting method in accordance with Sec. 6015(c)(1).

(2) FORCE MAJEURE.- No repayment shall be required if the Commission determines that discontinuation was necessitated by circumstances beyond the control of the eligible entity, including a court order by a court of competent jurisdiction holding that the specific implementation of the method in that jurisdiction violates the Constitution of the United States, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, or the constitution of the applicable State.

(3) FEDERAL PREEMPTION.- No repayment shall be required if discontinuation results from the enactment of a subsequent Federal statute that prohibits or is inconsistent with the continued use of the adopted method.

(e) REPAYMENT TERMS.-

(1) DEADLINE.- Repayment shall be due not later than 2 years after the date of the Commission’s final determination under subsection (a)(2), or such later date as the Commission may establish under paragraph (2).

(2) INSTALLMENT PLAN.- The Commission may, upon request by the eligible entity, authorize repayment in equal annual installments over a period of not more than 5 years if the Commission determines that immediate repayment would impose an undue fiscal hardship on the entity.

(3) INTEREST.- Amounts subject to repayment under this section shall bear interest at the rate applicable to obligations of the United States Treasury with comparable maturities, beginning on the date that is 2 years after the Commission’s final determination or, if an installment plan is authorized, on any installment that is not paid when due.

(f) DEPOSIT OF REPAYMENTS.- Amounts repaid under this section shall be deposited in the general fund of the Treasury and shall be available, subject to appropriation, for grants under this subtitle.

(g) ANNUAL REPORT ON COMPLIANCE.- The Commission shall include in the annual report required under Sec. 6012(b)(1) a summary of -

(1) the compliance status of all eligible entities subject to a commitment period under Sec. 6015;

(2) any repayment determinations made during the preceding year; and

(3) any cure actions taken by eligible entities under subsection (c)(2).

SUBTITLE C - GENERAL PROVISIONS

SEC. 6017. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION REGARDING STATE AUTHORITY.

(a) STATE AND LOCAL ELECTIONS.- Nothing in subtitle A of this title shall be construed to require any State or unit of local government to use any particular voting method for any election for State or local office, except to the extent that a State voluntarily adopts such a method as a condition of receiving a grant under subtitle B.

(b) STATE CHOICE AMONG METHODS.- Nothing in this title shall be construed to prefer one qualified alternative voting method over another. The selection among qualified alternative voting methods defined in section 321(b) of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (as added by this title) for elections for Federal office, and among qualified alternative voting methods defined in Sec. 6010 for elections funded under subtitle B, is solely within the discretion of each State.

(c) MORE PROTECTIVE PROVISIONS.- Nothing in this title shall be construed to preempt any provision of State law that provides greater voter choice or more expressive ballot design than provided for under this title.

SEC. 6018. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING STATE BANS ON ALTERNATIVE VOTING METHODS.

(a) FINDINGS.- Congress finds that, as of the date of enactment of this title, 19 States have enacted laws prohibiting or restricting the use of ranked-choice voting or other alternative voting methods, and that such prohibitions prevent voters and election officials in those States from accessing the benefits described in Sec. 6002(a).

(b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.- It is the sense of Congress that -

(1) State laws that prohibit or restrict the use of qualified alternative voting methods deny voters the opportunity to benefit from more expressive, representative, and competitive elections;

(2) such prohibitions are particularly contrary to the public interest in light of the substantial and growing body of evidence that alternative voting methods produce outcomes more reflective of voter preferences than plurality voting;

(3) States that have enacted such prohibitions are encouraged to repeal them and to evaluate the potential benefits of qualified alternative voting methods for their voters; and

(4) nothing in this section shall be construed to have any legal effect beyond expressing the views of Congress.

SEC. 6019. GRANT ELIGIBILITY NOT AFFECTED BY STATE BANS.

(a) PLANNING GRANTS.- The existence of a State law that prohibits or restricts the use of one or more qualified alternative voting methods shall not render a State or unit of local government within that State ineligible for a planning grant under Sec. 6008(a). Such a grant may be used to study the feasibility of adopting an alternative voting method, evaluate the potential effects of repeal of such prohibition, or for any other purpose described in Sec. 6008(a).

(b) IMPLEMENTATION AND COMPREHENSIVE GRANTS.- A State or unit of local government within a State that has repealed a law described in subsection (a) shall be eligible for implementation grants under Sec. 6008(b), comprehensive adoption grants under Sec. 6008(c), and method evaluation and transition grants under Sec. 6008(d) on the same terms as any other eligible entity.

SEC. 6020. SEVERABILITY.

If any provision of this title, or the application of such provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this title, and the application of such provision to other persons and circumstances, shall not be affected thereby.

SEC. 6021. EFFECTIVE DATES.

(a) CONDITIONAL AMENDMENTS.- The amendments made by subtitle A shall take effect on the date of enactment of this title and shall apply with respect to any election for Federal office conducted under a qualified alternative voting method designated by a State under section 321(a) of the Help America Vote Act of 2002, as added by this title.

(b) SUBTITLE B.- The grant program established under subtitle B shall begin accepting applications not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this title.