PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Apr 29, 2016
Verifying Optimal Tools for Elections Act of 2016 or the VOTE Act of 2016
This bill amends the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to direct the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) to make a payment to each eligible state in which a precinct used at least one outdated voting machine to administer the regularly scheduled federal general election held in November 2012.
A state shall use the funds from such a payment to replace outdated voting machines in qualifying precincts with voting machines that: (1) have never been used in any federal general election and are not outdated voting machines, or have been used only with respect to federal general elections held after November 2012; and (2) are auditable and meet specified requirements.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
A state receiving such a payment shall ensure that all the outdated voting machines in its qualifying precincts have been replaced in time for the regularly scheduled federal general election in November 2018.
The EAC shall make grants to states for the education and training, through webinars or other appropriate means, of election officials and poll workers on matters including voting machine maintenance, pre- and post-election voting machine testing, and the development of contingency plans.
The EAC shall also make grants to state or local governments to conduct pilot testing with respect to, and carry out the implementation of, voting systems that use: (1) non-proprietary open source software, and (2) commercial or custom firmware and hardware.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) shall develop, or fund the development of, a common data format allowing for voting-equipment device interoperability.
A voting system used in a federal election in a state may not at any time during the election contain or use any election-dedicated voting system technology that is not deposited by the state with the NIST National Software Reference Library before the election.
People & committees
Rep. Johnson, Henry C. "Hank," Jr. [D-GA-4] · D–GA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Research and Technology.
Referred to the Committee on House Administration, and in addition to the Committee on Science, Space, 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, Space, 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, Space, 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 12, 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.5131 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.5131 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.5131 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.5131 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.