PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Feb 2, 2004
Secure and Verifiable Electronic Voting Act of 2004 or SAVE Voting Act of 2004 - Amends the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to require Federal voting systems to produce a voter-verified paper record suitable for a manual audit, except that such a system should be paperless for individuals with disabilities. Specifies requirements for software used in voting systems. Requires information on the right to voter assistance to be given to those who are blind, disabled, or unable to read or write. Requires the Election Assistance Commission to: (1) provide States with funding to implement such voting systems; and (2) study, test, and develop best practices to enhance accessibility and voter-verification mechanisms for disabled voters.
Extends the deadline for States to request payments for activities to improve administration of elections and for replacement of punch card or lever voting machines.
Accelerates the deadline for compliance with voting systems standards from January 1, 2006, to the regularly scheduled November 2004 general Federal election. Requires each State and jurisdiction unable to meet such deadline to utilize a paper voting system at Commission expense in the November 2004 general election.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires Federal certification of technological security of voter registration lists.
Directs the Commission to: (1) conduct manual mandatory unannounced recounts of the voter-verified records in a specified number of State and overseas jurisdictions immediately following each general election for Federal office; and (2) promptly publish the results of those recounts.
Requires manufacturers of voting systems to implement safeguards for software, including background checks of personnel, certification, and public access to the software code.
Repeals the exemption of the Commission from certain Government contracting requirements.
People & committees
Sen. Boxer, Barbara [D-CA] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S374-375)
Introduced in Senate
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 18, 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 S.2045 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 S.2045 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 S.2045 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 S.2045 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.