PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on House Administration, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 11, 2025
Voting Only Through English Act or the VOTE Act
This bill requires states to use English-only ballots to qualify for certain federal election funds. It also repeals a prohibition on English-only federal elections and eliminates language assistance provisions under the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA). (The VRA requires some jurisdictions to provide materials such as ballots and registration information in English and in other covered languages for voters whose English proficiency is limited. The bill removes these requirements.)
Specifically, the bill prohibits a state from receiving federal election administration funds if the state provides ballots for a federal election that include text in any language other than English.
People & committees
Rep. Hamadeh, Abraham [R-AZ-8] · R–AZ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on House Administration, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on House Administration, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Nov 13, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.2054 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.2054 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.2054 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.2054 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2025-03-11 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
This proposal would make a state ineligible for federal election-administration funding for any fiscal year in which it provides federal-election ballots containing any language other than English. That condition would also cover ballots combining English with another language. The bill would also delete parts of the Voting Rights Act, but the supplied text does not reproduce those existing provisions.
a State shall be ineligible to receive Federal funds provided for purposes of the administration of elections for Federal office for any fiscal year during which the State provides ballots for an election for Federal office that include text in any language other than English.
Section 4(f) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. 10303(f)) is amended— (1) by striking paragraphs (1), (3), and (4); and (2) by striking (2) No and inserting No.
Section 1 would name the proposal the Voting Only Through English Act, or VOTE Act.
This act may be cited as the Voting Only Through English Act or the VOTE Act.
Section 2 would impose the funding restriction despite the Voting Rights Act or any other law. The restriction concerns federal funds for administering federal elections and applies for any fiscal year in which the state provides the specified ballots; it does not state a loss of all federal funding.
Notwithstanding the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. 10301 et seq.) or any other provision of law, a State shall be ineligible to receive Federal funds provided for purposes of the administration of elections for Federal office for any fiscal year during which the State provides ballots for an election for Federal office that include text in any language other than English.
Section 3 would delete paragraphs (1), (3), and (4) of section 4(f) of the Voting Rights Act. It would also remove the paragraph number “(2)” before “No,” leaving that word in place. The supplied amendment language establishes these textual changes but does not show the full substance of the provisions being changed.
Section 4(f) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. 10303(f)) is amended— (1) by striking paragraphs (1), (3), and (4); and (2) by striking (2) No and inserting No.
The official-actions snapshot updated November 13, 2025, records introduction in the House and referral to the Judiciary and House Administration committees on March 11, 2025. This snapshot does not establish the bill's subsequent status.
Source snapshot updated 2025-11-13T09:05:35Z.
2025-03-11: Introduced in House
2025-03-11: Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on House Administration, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-03-11. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not extend to other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not establish the absence of earmarks in other versions or accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow carve-out, special exemption, or preferential benefit was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Nov 13, 2025. How PlainBill uses AI