HB723 amends Title III of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) to prohibit a State from soliciting, receiving, or spending any payment or donation of funds, property, or personal services from private entities for the administration of elections for Federal office. The prohibition explicitly covers programs for voter education, outreach, and registration.
The bill preserves only one narrow exception: a State may accept donated space for use as a polling place or early voting site.
The bill shifts the financing borderlines of federal election administration. By removing private funding and most in-kind support, it forces election officials to rely on public funds and creates a statutory enforcement hook under HAVA.
That will matter to secretaries of state and local election administrators who commonly coordinate with nonprofits and private funders for outreach, as well as to private foundations and corporations that currently underwrite voter-registration drives or administrative support in some jurisdictions.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill inserts a new Section 305 into HAVA that bars States from soliciting, receiving, or expending private payments, property, or personal services for administering federal elections, with a single carved-out allowance for donated space used as polling or early voting locations. It also updates HAVA’s enforcement cross-reference so the Department of Justice can enforce the new prohibition.
Who It Affects
State election agencies and the local election offices that implement them, nonprofit civic groups and foundations that fund voter education or registration, private companies that provide in-kind election support, and the Department of Justice as the federal enforcer under HAVA.
Why It Matters
The bill codifies a bright-line restriction on private participation in federal election administration, shifting resource responsibilities back to public authorities and narrowing partnership models that some jurisdictions use to expand outreach or operations. That raises practical funding and compliance questions for under-resourced local election offices.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
HB723 adds a new Section 305 to Title III of HAVA and makes a few technical adjustments to the statute’s structure. The new provision says, in clear terms, that a State may not solicit, receive, or spend any private payment or donation—whether money, property, or paid services—for the administration of an election for Federal office.
The bill lists voter education, voter outreach, and voter registration as examples of covered activities.
The statute goes further than a passive ban: it forbids solicitation as well as receipt and expenditure. That means election officials could not lawfully seek private grants or enter contracts that bring private money or paid personnel into federal election administration.
The only explicit carve-out lets a State accept donated physical space to serve as a polling place or early voting site; no other in-kind gifts or services are exempted.To make the new prohibition enforceable, the bill updates HAVA’s enforcement cross-reference so existing enforcement tools tied to Section 401 apply to the new Section 305. The bill also renumbers the surrounding sections and states that the prohibition takes effect for any federal election held after enactment.
The text does not create a federal funding replacement mechanism for jurisdictions that previously relied on private support, nor does it define several operative terms—like “State,” “private entity,” or “administration”—which will matter for implementation.Operationally, election administrators will need to review prior agreements with nonprofits, contractors, and corporate partners to identify covered relationships and stop any prohibited activity for federal elections after the effective date. Nonprofit and corporate partners that currently provide paid services, donated equipment, or funding for outreach should expect to lose that role with respect to federal election administration unless the assistance is strictly limited to donating space for polling or early voting.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill inserts a new Section 305 into HAVA that bars a State from soliciting, receiving, or spending private payments, property, or personal services for administering federal elections.
The prohibition explicitly mentions voter education, voter outreach, and voter registration as covered programs, not just ballot processing or polling operations.
The sole statutory exception permits a State to accept a donation of physical space for use as a polling place or an early voting site; no other in-kind exceptions appear in the text.
Section 401’s enforcement cross-reference is amended so existing HAVA enforcement mechanisms apply to the new prohibition, creating a federal enforcement path.
The bill takes effect for any election for federal office held after enactment, and it renames the surrounding HAVA sections (305→306 and 306→307) as clerical adjustments.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Declares the Act’s name as the 'Protect American Election Administration Act of 2025.' This is a standard short-title clause with no operative effect on implementation or compliance.
Ban on private funds, property, and services for federal election administration
Adds a standalone prohibition to HAVA stating that a State may not solicit, receive, or expend any payment or donation of funds, property, or personal services from a private entity for administering elections for Federal office. The provision specifically lists voter education, outreach, and registration programs as included activities, broadening the ban beyond narrow operational tasks to programs that often rely on external funding. Practically, this section changes how states can structure grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements related to federal elections.
Narrow exception for donated polling or early voting space
Creates a single exception allowing a State to accept donated physical space to be used as a polling place or early voting site. The text limits the exception to space only; it does not authorize donated equipment, personnel, training, or informational materials. That narrowness preserves a limited operational accommodation but leaves other common forms of private assistance off-limits.
Tie the new prohibition into HAVA enforcement
Modifies the enforcement cross-reference in HAVA Section 401 to include the new Section 305. That makes the new ban subject to the same federal enforcement framework already available for other HAVA provisions—most directly, enforcement actions by the Department of Justice—rather than leaving enforcement solely to state-level remedies or ad hoc litigation.
Technical renumbering and effective date
Performs clerical renumbering of the existing HAVA sections to accommodate the insertion and states the amendment applies to any federal election held after the Act’s enactment. The effective date creates a clear trigger for compliance planning but the bill does not include transition funding or phased implementation language.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Elections across all five countries.
Explore Elections in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Voters concerned about private influence: The ban reduces avenues through which private donors or companies could be perceived to influence election administration, supporting public confidence in the formal neutrality of election operations.
- Federal oversight actors (Department of Justice): DOJ gains a clear statutory basis to police private funding in federal election administration through existing HAVA enforcement mechanisms, simplifying enforcement priorities.
- State-level policymakers seeking uniform rules: Officials who favor a clear national rule limiting private involvement in federal elections gain a uniform statutory standard that preempts disparate local practices.
- Political campaigns and parties worried about unequal private support: Campaigns operating across jurisdictions gain a more level administrative playing field if private funding that could have advantaged some locales is curtailed.
Who Bears the Cost
- State and local election offices: Jurisdictions that previously relied on private grants, donated equipment, or paid contractor services for outreach, registration drives, or staffing will face operational gaps and potential new costs to replace those resources with public funding.
- Nonprofit civic organizations and foundations: Groups that fund voter education, registration drives, or supply equipment and paid services will lose a legal avenue to directly support state-run federal election activities, constraining common public–private partnerships.
- Private donors and corporate sponsors: Entities that provide in-kind services, operational support, or grants for civic engagement cannot lawfully fund those activities for federal election administration and will need to reroute support to non-state initiatives.
- Small jurisdictions with limited budgets: Counties and municipalities that depend on external assistance for voter outreach or temporary staffing are likely to feel the impact most acutely and may face reduced access to services unless public funds are increased.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is straightforward: the bill protects the perceived impartiality of federal election administration by eliminating most private funding, but it does so without providing replacement resources or clear definitions, forcing election officials to choose between foregoing valuable services or diverting scarce public funds—or litigating the scope of the ban.
The bill presents a direct trade-off between insulating election administration from private influence and reducing flexible resources for outreach and operations. Implementers must resolve how to interpret key undefined terms the statute leaves open: 'State' could be read narrowly to mean state governments or broadly to include counties and municipalities that run elections; 'private entity' is not defined and could vary from for‑profit corporations to volunteer-led nonprofits; and 'administration' is open-ended enough to encompass training, technology, and vendor contracts unless narrowly construed by regulators or courts.
These definitional gaps will produce litigation and agency guidance headaches.
Enforcement mechanics are simplified by folding the new prohibition into HAVA’s existing enforcement cross-reference, but that creates questions about capacity and timing. DOJ enforcement is resource-intensive and litigation will likely be the primary path for testing scope and exemptions.
The bill also leaves a policy hole: it does not appropriate funds to replace the services and programs it prohibits, so jurisdictions that relied on private support must find alternative public funding or reduce services—an outcome that could depress outreach and registration precisely where resources are scarce. Finally, the narrow exception for donated space invites workarounds and gray-area disputes (for example, whether providing space plus volunteers or equipment crosses the statutory line).
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.