Election Security Grant Ties Data Sharing

Summary#

The Election Security Partnership Act is a proposed new law; it does not amend an existing law. It would appropriate additional federal election-security grant money for states that agree to send voter-registration information to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Its stated goal is to support election administration and security; it has not become law, and its passage is uncertain.

  • The bill would appropriate $20 million to the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) for extra payments to eligible states.
  • A state would qualify only if it received a payment under the 2026 election security grant program and signed an agreement with the DHS Secretary.
  • Under that agreement, the state must provide DHS, at least quarterly after September 30, 2026, its complete official list of people registered as eligible to vote in federal elections.
  • DHS would compare the information through the SAVE system to identify people who are not U.S. citizens. The bill sets a maximum payment for each state, but does not set an allocation formula.
  • The bill does not require states to remove anyone from voter rolls, or change voter eligibility rules.

What it means for you#

  • States: A state receiving a 2026 grant would have to share its complete voter-registration list at least quarterly after September 30, 2026, to qualify for the extra payment. Preparing and sending the lists would require state work, but the bill gives no estimate of that burden.
  • Voters: Your state’s complete official list of people registered as eligible voters for federal elections would be sent to DHS if your state takes part. The bill does not specify the data fields in the list or set rules for handling possible matches.
  • Election agencies and federal taxpayers: The EAC would make the payments, and the bill would provide $20 million for that purpose. The text does not require the full amount to be paid out.
  • Voters generally: The bill does not directly change who may register or vote, how elections are run, or how voter-registration records are corrected.

Money#

The bill would appropriate $20 million in additional federal funds; it does not provide a full cost estimate.

  • A state’s payment could be no more than 10% of what that state received under the 2026 election security grant program.
  • The bill does not state how the EAC would divide the $20 million among eligible states, or whether all of it would be paid.
  • The text gives no estimate for federal administration or state costs. It does not set a state matching-payment requirement.

What is unclear#

  • The bill does not explain how the EAC would allocate payments among eligible states, or what happens if the state payment caps do not add up to the full $20 million.
  • It does not set a payment schedule or say when the quarterly data-sharing agreement would end.
  • It does not specify the voter-list data fields, or detail privacy and security protections for the information.
  • It does not establish how DHS would handle possible matches, notify states or voters, or correct errors. It also does not require any action against a person identified through the comparison.
  • The supplied material does not include the 2026 grant program’s governing law, so its current terms and how these extra payments would interact with that program could not be verified.

Case for#

  • The bill appears intended to provide more money for election administration and security while encouraging states to help identify people who are not U.S. citizens on federal voter-registration lists.
  • A possible argument for the approach is that it pairs federal funding with a specific data-sharing condition, rather than requiring every state to take part.
  • The additional funds could support election technology and security improvements, which the bill names as eligible activities.

Case against#

  • One concern is that the bill requires states to send a complete voter list, but does not spell out data protections or how DHS should handle uncertain matches.
  • The bill does not explain how a possible identification would be checked or corrected. Without those details, readers cannot tell how errors would be addressed.
  • The payment formula is unclear, and the bill gives no estimate of the costs to federal or state agencies.
  • The bill does not say whether other election-security grant rules would apply to these payments or how the new condition fits with existing programs.