From Motor Voter to MEGA Act: 30 Years of Federal Election Law Battles

Last updated 4 days ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.

Over thirty years later, Republicans in Congress have introduced what amounts to a dramatic shift in federal election policy. A new bill doesn’t reverse the philosophy of making registration convenient—it undoes thirty years of federal rules that made voting simpler.

States would have to check whether every voter is still eligible at least once every thirty days using government databases known to be riddled with errors. It would ban universal mail voting. Mail ballots would have to arrive by Election Day, potentially preventing military personnel serving overseas from voting. And it would create a centralized database in every state that would function as the sole gatekeeper for federal elections—if you’re not in the database, you don’t vote.

This transforms voting from a right you possess unless someone proves you shouldn’t have it, into something closer to a privilege you must repeatedly demonstrate you deserve.

The National Voter Registration Act of 1993

The NVRA established that states had to offer registration when people applied for or renewed driver’s licenses. It required acceptance of a standardized federal registration form. It mandated registration opportunities at public assistance offices. The theory was straightforward: meet people where they already are.

The law also included protections against overzealous purges. States had to maintain accurate lists, but they couldn’t remove people without following specific procedures designed to prevent eligible people from getting caught in the net. Those safeguards would become increasingly important as the political winds shifted.

The Help America Vote Act of 2002

The 2000 election—hanging chads, butterfly ballots, the Supreme Court deciding who would be president—convinced Congress that election infrastructure needed modernizing. The result was the Help America Vote Act of 2002, which passed in October 2002.

HAVA required every state to create a computerized statewide database. The logic made sense: centralize records that had been scattered across counties, make it simpler to identify people who’d moved or died, reduce duplicate registrations. Technology would solve the problem of outdated rolls while making registration more convenient for eligible people.

Databases are only as good as the data they contain. Government databases turn out to be surprisingly bad at identifying who should and shouldn’t be allowed to vote. Real people got flagged as ineligible based on database errors. Real people had to prove they deserved to stay on the rolls. And the people running these purge programs knew the error rates were high.

Shelby County v. Holder and the End of Preclearance

For nearly fifty years, the Voting Rights Act had included a provision that required certain states and localities—those with histories of racial discrimination in voting—to get federal approval before changing their election laws. Federal reviewers blocked roughly one in ten proposed changes as discriminatory or likely to harm people of color.

The Supreme Court’s Shelby County decision in 2013 struck down the preclearance requirement. Before Shelby County, states had to get federal approval first, which meant their discriminatory intent might get exposed before the law took effect. After Shelby County, they could pass whatever they wanted and force advocates to sue after the fact—a process that takes years and often comes too late to prevent harm in upcoming elections.

State-Level Voting Restrictions After Shelby County

What followed was a wave of restrictive laws unlike anything seen since the Jim Crow era. Republican-controlled states implemented strict photo ID requirements. They purged rolls aggressively. They cut early voting periods. They closed polling places in communities of color. They made mail voting harder.

Investigative reporting found that the actual trigger for purges was simply failure to vote, with officials using inactivity as the basis for removal rather than confirmed evidence of relocation or death—a practice that penalizes people for not participating. Ohio developed a system that followed the letter of the law but not the spirit when it came to federal prohibitions on using failure to vote as the “sole” reason for removal. Ohio used nonvoting as a key trigger that, combined with other factors, resulted in massive purges.

The justification for all this activity was always “election integrity” and preventing “fraud.” Fraud in elections is extremely rare. Analysis of Heritage Foundation data—compiled by conservative researchers specifically looking for fraud—found fraud rates of about 0.0000845 percent in Arizona over twenty-five years. Similarly tiny percentages appeared in other states. Impersonation fraud, the specific type that strict ID laws are designed to prevent, occurs in isolated instances at most. You’re more likely to be struck by lightning than to encounter someone committing in-person fraud.

The SAVE Act

Building on momentum from state-level restrictions, a new bill was introduced in Congress. States would have to demand documents proving you’re a U.S. citizen—passport, birth certificate, naturalization papers—before registering anyone to vote in federal elections.

This is the opposite of Motor Voter’s approach. Instead of meeting people where they are and making registration convenient, this would require documents that many Americans lack. Elderly Americans born before hospital births became standard never received formal birth certificates. Married women would need birth certificates with their maiden names on them. Native Americans whose records were disrupted by how the government handled reservations and forced relocations. Low-income Americans who can’t afford to track down documents or don’t have safety deposit boxes to store them in.

The SAVE Act passed the House but died in the Senate. It served as a trial balloon, testing how far Republicans could push federal restrictions.

The Make Elections Great Again Act

On January 29, 2026, Rep. Bryan Steil introduced the Make Elections Great Again Act, which takes everything from the SAVE Act and adds layers of additional restrictions that would fundamentally transform how Americans vote.

Every person voting in person would need to present government-issued photo identification. No exceptions for elderly people who no longer drive. No accommodations for people who’ve lost their IDs in house fires or natural disasters.

Every state would have to create “a single, uniform, official, centralized, interactive computerized statewide list” that would be “the official list for the conduct of all elections for Federal office.” This centralized database would be the sole gatekeeper—if you’re not in it, you don’t vote in federal elections, period.

States would have to check whether every voter is still eligible to vote “on an ongoing basis, but in no case less frequently than once every 30 days.” Every month, your state would run your name through databases checking whether you’ve died, moved, lost your citizenship, or otherwise become ineligible. Those databases—Social Security death records, DMV files, immigration records—contain significant errors. Your name would be posted publicly as potentially ineligible while you attempt to prove you should remain registered. Your neighbors could see it. Your employer could see it. Anyone could see it. You’d have to work through bureaucracy to get your name cleared, all while potentially losing your ability to vote in upcoming elections.

MEGA would ban universal mail voting. Research on Colorado’s all-mail system found it increased turnout by about eight percentage points, with larger gains among young people, blue-collar workers, people of color, and people with less education—exactly the populations that already face barriers. States like Oregon, Washington, Utah, and Hawaii have used universal mail voting successfully for years.

Mail ballots would have to arrive by Election Day, not be postmarked by then. For over 150 years, service members and Americans abroad have relied on mail voting. International mail is slow and unpredictable. The strict arrival deadline would prevent military personnel from voting.

MEGA creates dual enforcement mechanisms. The attorney general can sue states to force compliance. Private individuals can sue election officials who register people without required proof of citizenship. This allows private citizens to sue election officials, which would pressure them to reject registrations rather than risk litigation.

Constitutional Questions

The Constitution gives Congress some power over elections, but there’s always been disagreement about how much power Congress has. Can Congress mandate that states establish centralized databases? Can it ban voting methods that states have used successfully? Can it require documents that contradict other federal laws?

MEGA appears designed to force these questions to the Supreme Court. It conflicts with the National Voter Registration Act, which requires states to accept federal forms from applicants who attest to citizenship under penalty of perjury. It conflicts with Supreme Court precedent in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council, which held that states can’t impose additional requirements beyond what the federal form requires. Republican sponsors say Congress can make all states follow the same voting rules. Voting rights advocates say Congress can decide when and where people vote, but this doesn’t extend to fundamentally restructuring state election administration. The current Supreme Court’s conservative majority would likely side with Republicans on that argument.

Who MEGA Would Harm

The practical impact would fall hardest on people who already struggle to vote. The elderly who lack driver’s licenses and don’t have easy access to birth certificates. People who became citizens without readily available naturalization papers. Native Americans whose records were disrupted by how the federal government handled reservations and forced relocations. People experiencing homelessness. Low-income workers who can’t afford to take time off to visit government offices during business hours.

Women who changed their names through marriage would need birth certificates with their maiden names on them plus documentation connecting that name to their current legal name. Young people might not have access to documents stored at their parents’ homes in different states. Rural people in areas with limited DMV offices would face acute challenges meeting documentation requirements.

The thirty-day check would inevitably flag eligible people as ineligible by mistake. People get flagged based on database errors, placed on public lists, and forced to prove their eligibility while potentially losing their vote in upcoming elections. This is documented reality in states that have implemented similar programs.

Opposition to MEGA

Democrats have unified against MEGA. Rep. Joe Morelle of New York, ranking Democrat on the House Administration Committee, called it “their latest attempt to block millions of Americans from exercising their right to vote.” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries dismissed it as “dead on arrival,” characterizing it as suppression driven by Republicans’ knowledge that “when [voters have] a free and fair election, they’re going to lose.”

Senator Alex Padilla of California, ranking member of the Senate Rules Committee and former California secretary of state, argued MEGA would “disenfranchise millions of married women, service members, and rural and minority voters” while enabling “vindictive lawsuits against state election officials.”

State election officials worry the bill would force expensive changes without paying for them. MEGA would force expensive system changes without providing funding to implement them. Even some conservative election law experts have criticized it. Stephen Richer, a conservative election law expert, acknowledged MEGA was better thought out than Trump’s executive order on elections but still represented problematic federal overreach into state administration.

Attorney General Letitia James of New York led a coalition of nineteen state attorneys general in suing President Trump over his election administration executive order, creating legal arguments that could be used to challenge the MEGA Act in court.

The John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act

While MEGA advances through Congress, advocates have pushed the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which would restore federal approval requirements based on recent discrimination rather than 1960s data. It would strengthen the part of the Voting Rights Act that lets people challenge discriminatory laws.

These two bills are complete opposites. MEGA treats voting as something requiring proof and documentation, something government should make harder through requirements and verification. The Lewis Act treats voting as a fundamental right that federal government should protect against discrimination. MEGA restricts access uniformly. The Lewis Act targets restrictions at jurisdictions with discrimination histories. MEGA expands enforcement through lawsuits. The Lewis Act expands oversight through federal approval. One bill makes voting harder. The other makes discrimination harder.

From Motor Voter to MEGA: A Thirty-Year Arc

The arc from Motor Voter to MEGA isn’t about how elections are run. It’s about what kind of country we want to be.

Motor Voter embodied a belief that democracy strengthens when more eligible people participate. Make registration convenient. Meet people where they are. The idea was that voting is a right, and government should facilitate its exercise.

MEGA is based on a different idea: that voting should be harder, that access should be restricted, that verification should be constant. The assumption is that voting is a privilege requiring repeated proof of worthiness.

The Shelby County decision was the turning point—when federal election law changed from protecting rights to enabling restrictions. In the dozen years since, thousands of polling places have closed, hundreds of thousands of eligible people have been purged, restrictive laws have proliferated.

MEGA represents the culmination of this trajectory. It’s an attempt to embed restrictive practices into federal law and impose them on all states, including those that have rejected such restrictions.

MEGA faces unified Democratic opposition in the Senate, where ten Republican votes would be needed to overcome a filibuster. It probably violates the Constitution in several ways. State officials have expressed implementation concerns. Democratic states have said they won’t follow it. But introducing the bill signals that the Republican Party, controlling the House and presidency in 2026, believes this is the direction laws should move.

Rights will remain a central battleground in politics—a struggle between those who believe democracy strengthens through maximum participation and those who believe it requires restricting the electorate. Motor Voter assumed that if you made voting simpler, more people would participate, and that would be good for democracy. MEGA assumes that if you make voting harder, fewer “wrong” people will participate, and that would be good for Republicans. That’s not a policy difference. It’s a fundamental disagreement about whether democracy should include everyone or some people.

Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.