The For the People Act, currently before the U.S. Senate, could override many state laws. | Adobe Stock
The For the People Act, currently before the U.S. Senate, could override many state laws. | Adobe Stock
The For the People Act, legislation that has been passed by the U.S. House of Representatives and currently is pending before the Senate, could make sweeping changes to future federal elections, some of which would negate existing Alabama state laws, critics of the measure argue.
Under current Alabama state law, absentee ballots have to be postmarked by the day before the election and received by noon on the day of election. Hand-delivered ballots can be received from a medical emergency designee by noon on Election Day, by a voter on Election Day, or by any other party no later than the last business day prior to the election. The For the People Act would change that and would require every state to accept main-in ballots that are postmarked by Election Day to be counted if they arrive up to 10 days after Election Day.
“A state may not refuse to accept or process a ballot submitted by an individual by mail with respect to an election for federal office in the state on the grounds that the individual did not meet a deadline for returning the ballot to the appropriate state or local election official if the ballot is postmarked or otherwise indicated by the U.S. Postal Service to have been mailed on or before the date of the election, or has been signed by the voter on or before the date of the election,” the pending federal law reads.
Additionally, the act, designated HR 1, also would give states the option not to verify signatures on absentee or mail-in ballots. It also makes it more difficult to dismiss a questionable voter signature, requiring that no fewer than two election judges be present and agree to do so.
Proponents of the bill, such as the Brennan Center for Justice, argue that this and other measures in the legislation will make it easier to vote in federal elections. However, criticisms such as that published in the National Review, question the wisdom of overriding the right of states to regulate elections and argue that the mandates in the legislation are extreme and overburden states in a way that makes compliance difficult.