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 · Jun 6, 2008
Voting Opportunities and Integrity in the Conduct of Elections Act of 2008 - Amends the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to: (1) allow individuals to vote in an election before the date of the regularly scheduled election; (2) require the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) to issue standards for administration of such voting; and (3) require each state to permit any person otherwise qualified to vote in a federal election to vote in a manner other than in person, and impose no conditions or restrictions on absentee voting other than a reasonable deadline for requesting and returning the ballot.
Directs the EAC to establish a Vote by Mail grant program.
Requires each federal election voting system to require the use of or produce an individual, durable, voter-verified, paper ballot of the voter's vote, available for voter inspection and verification before the vote is cast and counted.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Directs the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology to study, test, and develop best practices to enhance the accessibility of ballot verification mechanisms for individuals with disabilities, for voters whose primary language is not English, and for voters with difficulties in literacy.
Prohibits the use of: (1) uncertified election dedicated voting system technologies; and (2) any voting system unless its manufacturer and the election officials using it meet applicable security requirements.
Provides for mandatory availability of paper ballots at polling places.
Requires the Director of the National Science Foundation to make research grants for development of election-dedicated voting system software.
Requires states to make unannounced random hand counts of the voter-verified paper ballots in a federal election.
Directs the EAC to establish: (1) a pre-registration implementation grant program; (2) an automatic re-registration grant program; and (3) a computerized system capable of communicating and exchanging data among participating states (interoperability).
Prohibits voter caging practices (those preventing voting or registration through the reliance by officials on certain non-forwardable or non-returned documents).
People & committees
Sen. Nelson, Bill [D-FL] · D–FL
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.
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 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 S.3100 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.3100 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.3100 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.3100 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.