HB7320, titled the "Minnesota Voter Integrity Act of 2026," would withhold federal Help America Vote Act (HAVA) funding from Minnesota until the state Secretary of State provides specified voting-related records to the U.S. Attorney General. The required materials include documentation supporting same-day voter registration, records of votes cast by same-day registrants, certain records maintained under Minnesota election law, and any other records the Attorney General deems relevant to HAVA compliance.
The bill does not directly change Minnesota election procedures or amend state election statutes. Instead, it creates a federal funding condition tied to the state’s production of election records, effectively using HAVA grant money as leverage to compel disclosure and review of Minnesota’s voter-registration and voting records. If enacted, the practical effect would be to suspend or delay HAVA funds to Minnesota until the federal reporting request is satisfied.
Impact
HB7320 would affect the flow of federal election-administration funding to Minnesota by making HAVA funds unavailable until the state submits the specified records to the Attorney General. It would not itself alter Minnesota’s same-day registration law or recordkeeping requirements, but it would place pressure on state election officials to produce records related to same-day registration and voter compliance. The bill primarily affects the Minnesota Secretary of State, the U.S. Attorney General, and state election administrators who rely on HAVA funding.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and available context, the measure appears to be framed by its sponsors as a voter-integrity and election-accountability bill. No committee transcript or recorded vote is available, so there is no documented legislative debate in the provided materials. The overall tone of the bill is adversarial toward Minnesota’s election administration, but the available record does not show broader support or opposition beyond the sponsors and referral stage.
Contention
The central point of contention is likely Minnesota’s same-day voter registration system and the extent to which state election records should be turned over to federal authorities. Supporters appear to view the bill as a tool to verify compliance with HAVA and to scrutinize election integrity. Critics would likely argue that it targets Minnesota’s election practices, especially same-day registration, and uses federal funding as a punitive mechanism rather than a neutral oversight tool. Because no hearing transcript or vote history is provided, the specific arguments of opponents are not documented in the supplied materials.
Photo ID required to register vote and to vote, SAVE Minnesota Act established, proof of citizenship to vote required, voter identification card created, provisional ballots established, driver's license requirements modified, and money appropriated.
Elections integrity act established requiring photo ID to register and to vote, ID cards and provisional ballots established, and criminal penalties increased.