PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Failed by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 239 - 178 (Roll no. 188).
Congressional Research Service
Version 18 · Reported to House amended, Part I · Apr 14, 2008
Emergency Assistance for Secure Elections Act of 2008 - Directs the Election Assistance Commission to reimburse certain jurisdictions for the costs of: (1) converting from electronic or other voting systems to paper ballot voting systems for the general elections for federal office to be held in November 2008; (2) retrofitting direct recording electronic voting systems to produce voter verifiable paper records; and (3) providing backup paper ballots if the jurisdiction uses a direct recording electronic voting system which happens to fail. Authorizes appropriations.
Directs the Commission to reimburse any state for the documented reasonable costs it incurs in conducting manual audits of the results of any of the regularly scheduled general elections for federal office in November 2008 (including, at state option, manual audits of state and local elections).
Requires the state to: (1) reimburse immediately counties and other jurisdictions for the costs incurred as a result of a state audit; and (2) submit to the Commission a report on audit results in order to receive a payment under this Act. Authorizes appropriations.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Provides for payments for state, county, or equivalent locations conducting hand counts of the results of 2008 general elections. Authorizes appropriations.
Provides that if a state, county, or equivalent location uses a direct recording electronic voting system to conduct an election, the state, county, or equivalent location may not receive a payment for conducting a hand count of the votes cast in the election unless it certifies to the Commission that its system produces a paper record printout of the marked ballot verifiable by the voter at the time the vote is cast.
Requires the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to study, test, and develop products and practices that ensure the accessibility of paper ballot verification and casting for individuals with disabilities, for voters whose primary language is not English, and for voters with difficulties in literacy. Authorizes appropriations.
People & committees
Rep. Holt, Rush [D-NJ-12] · D–NJ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Failed by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 239 - 178 (Roll no. 188).
House roll call 188 · Individual votesFailed of passage/not agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Failed by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 239 - 178 (Roll no. 188).
House roll call 188 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H2306-2307)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 5036.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H2289-2297; text of measure as reported in House: CR H2289-2292)
Ms. Lofgren, Zoe moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 360.
Committee on Science and Technology discharged.
Committee on Science and Technology discharged.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on House Administration. H. Rept. 110-582, Part I.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on House Administration. H. Rept. 110-582, Part I.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation.
Referred to the Committee on House Administration, and in addition to the Committee on Science and Technology, 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 House Administration, and in addition to the Committee on Science and Technology, 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 House Administration, and in addition to the Committee on Science and Technology, 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 currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 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.5036 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.5036 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.5036 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.5036 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.