PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Sep 29, 2010
Federal Election Integrity Act of 2010 - Amends the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to make it unlawful for a chief state election administration official to take active part in political management or in a political campaign with respect to any election for federal office over which the official has supervisory authority.
Waives application of this Act if the chief state election administration official himself or herself, or an immediate family member, is a candidate.
States that the budgetary effects of this Act, for compliance with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, shall be determined by reference to the latest statement titled "Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation" for this Act, provided that such statement has been submitted before the vote on passage.
People & committees
Rep. Davis, Susan A. [D-CA-53] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 296 - 129 (Roll no. 563). (text: CR 9/28/2010 H7145-7146)
House roll call 563 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 296 - 129 (Roll no. 563).(text: CR 9/28/2010 H7145-7146)
House roll call 563 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H7372)
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. 512.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H7145-7148)
Mrs. Davis (CA) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 215.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on House Administration. H. Rept. 111-363.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on House Administration. H. Rept. 111-363.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the House Committee on House Administration.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E84)
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: Apr 7, 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.512 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.512 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.512 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.512 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.