Hamadeh’s PROVE Act Closes Some Overseas Voting Loopholes—But Leaves Others
The PROVE Act advances election integrity but falls short of comprehensive UOCAVA reform
U.S. Rep. Abe Hamadeh's (R-AZ) H.R. 4851, known as the Proving Residency for Overseas Voter Eligibility (PROVE) Act, is a meaningful attempt to address vulnerabilities in overseas voting—but it doesn’t go far enough.
Introduced on Aug. 1, the bill amends the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) to impose stricter requirements on certain overseas voters. Republicans in Congress should strengthen Hamadeh’s bill and send it to President Donald Trump’s desk.
Problems With Current Law
Restoration News previously covered many of the problems with UOCAVA and how it opens the door for both Americans and foreigners to vote illegally. The PROVE Act, which was referred to the Committee on House Administration, would fix some of these problems. But it lacks the necessary safeguards and enforcement to ensure that only American citizens living abroad with a residency tie to a state may vote in that state.
A major problem with UOCAVA is that it leaves the verification of overseas voters' identities to the states’ discretion.
Some states don’t hold overseas voters to the same standards as their in-state absentee voters because UOCAVA doesn’t force them to. The Federal Postcard Application (FPCA) for a ballot only requests a potential voter’s driver’s license number or last four Social Security digits. Some states offer a box for the voter applicant to check if the applicant cannot or does not want to provide either.
The partisan nature of American politics means that a lack of federal oversight jeopardizes election integrity in blue states. In their quest to oppose anything Republicans support, many Democrats enact policies that undermine the democracy they claim to defend. For instance, in 2024, Pennsylvania Secretary of State Al Schmidt even forbade local officials from verifying the identity of UOCAVA applicants.
The moral hazard this creates is not only theoretical. In 2020, Iranian hackers proved how easy it is for foreigners to fraudulently receive a ballot. In 2024, Republican observers in one Washington county saw UOCAVA ballots going for Democratic candidates at an unlikely 9–1 ratio. Washington exempts UOCAVA voters from the state’s regular voter registration deadlines, privileging them above in-state residents.
Other states don’t even require people who claim American citizenship to have ever set foot on American soil to vote. This is especially troubling in a presidential election because people whose parents hail from different states could choose their state based on swing state status.
North Carolina was one such example until last year. After absentee votes cost Republican Jefferson Griffith his 2024 North Carolina state Supreme Court election, he challenged 60,000 of them over invalid registrations. Among those challenged were votes from never-residers who took advantage of the state’s silence on this UOCAVA loophole. Although the courts ultimately ruled against his case, the North Carolina Supreme Court did forbid future overseas voters from receiving a North Carolina ballot if they have never resided in the state.
The PROVE Act Is a Good Start
“H.R. 4851 serves as an introduction to tackle a basic integrity issue with overseas citizens voting,” Voter Reference Foundation executive director Joe Benson told Restoration News. “It starts the discussion; however, refinement is required to ensure it will completely address the problem it seeks to solve.”
To Hamadeh’s credit, his bill does target the loophole exploited by never-residers.
It stipulates, “A State may not transmit an absentee ballot to an overseas voter unless the voter provides the State with a verifiable mailing address within the State of—(A) a current residence of the voter; or (B) a current residence of a spouse, parent, or legal guardian of the voter.”
The bill requires the same for those requesting a federal write-in absentee ballot.
If no such address is provided, U.S. residents abroad may still vote, but they have to vote as residents of the District of Columbia—a policy Restoration News has suggested.
Although the PROVE Act doesn’t ban never-residers, allowing for addresses belonging to one’s spouse makes sense, as couples typically share a household. Tightening the parental residence allowance by requiring the address to be current is also helpful. Today, never-residers can vote based on where their parents lived in the past, a vague standard that invites corruption.
Prohibiting never-residers who do not at least have a spouse, parent, or guardian with a current residence is fair to stateside voters and diminishes the possibility of foreigners fraudulently claiming residence. These legitimate U.S. citizens may still vote, but they must do so as stateless citizens, like D.C. residents.
Room for Improvement
The PROVE Act falls short in three ways:
- It does not demand proof of overseas residence and U.S. citizenship—leaving the meager Social Security number or driver’s license verification standard in place.
- It exempts overseas military members.
- It lacks enforcement mechanisms.
Failing to demand proof of overseas residence, like a utility bill, allows domestic voters to potentially exploit UOCAVA after the voter registration deadline has passed. Given Schmidt’s shenanigans in Pennsylvania, it’s crucial that the federal government require state and local officials to do their job and verify that UOCAVA applicants live overseas.
Additionally, requiring photo identification would provide better proof of U.S. citizenship. This would not be difficult for applicants, considering that overseas Americans are required to possess passports.
Hamadeh likely exempted military personnel to avoid accusations that he’s trying to disenfranchise servicemembers. But without this exemption, the only way his bill would affect American servicemembers is if they were orphans, had no U.S. address, and were not married to someone with a U.S. address.
In such rare cases, these individuals should not be allowed to receive state ballots anyway, since they are not residents of any state and cannot go home to parents who are residents of any state. The few overseas American servicemembers who might fit this narrow category would still be able to vote, but on a D.C. ballot, like other stateless overseas Americans. Removing this exemption would also prevent non-U.S. citizens serving in the U.S. military from making an unprovable claim of deceased parents who once resided in a U.S. state.
Most importantly, the PROVE Act falls short on data sharing and enforcement. It doesn’t mandate that states share records for address verification and outlines no specific penalties for noncompliance with the requirements it does include.
To truly strengthen election integrity for overseas voting, Congress should build on the PROVE Act by enhancing it and sending it to the president's desk. Requiring evidence of overseas living would close the door on potential domestic fraudsters, ensuring UOCAVA serves its intended purpose. Mandating ID and citizenship proof via scanned passports would bring overseas voting in line with what most states already require from in-state residents and reduce impersonation risks. Removing the military exemption would prevent servicemembers from voting in states they have no connection to and prevent potential voter fraud from noncitizens serving in the military. Finally, this bill needs teeth to force state officials to comply.
As the 2026 midterms approach, passing the PROVE Act as is would mark an improvement over UOCAVA’s current lax standards. Hamadeh's bill deserves credit for spotlighting the issue and narrowing residence-based loopholes, but comprehensive reform demands more.
In a polarized country, ensuring every vote is legitimate isn't partisan—it's essential to maintaining faith in America’s democratic system.
(READ MORE: Democrats Want to Nationalize Ranked Choice Voting)
