H.Res. 799: Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that it is not a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment for a State to extend particular consideration to members of the uniformed services and overseas citizens to ensure that such individuals are able to exercise their rights to vote in elections for public office.
Before you vote › Federal bills
H.Res. 799: Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that it is not a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment for a State to extend particular consideration to members of the uniformed services and overseas citizens to ensure that such individuals are able to exercise their rights to vote in elections for public office.
112th Congress · introduced 2012-09-20 · Government Operations and Politics · Latest: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution.
federal
Follow this bill, step by step
- Where it came from: introduced 2012-09-20 · official record
- Who proposed it: Rep. Turner, Michael R. [R-OH-3] · what a sponsor is
- What happened next: no floor votes in our records yet. Why?
- Where it stands now: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution. Not final yet: this can still change. We check for updates every day.
- If it becomes law and spends money: follow the money to money laws, then agencies and contracts and grants.
Official title
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that it is not a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment for a State to extend particular consideration to members of the uniformed services and overseas citizens to ensure that such individuals are able to exercise their rights to vote in elections for public office.
Plain summary
Affirms that it is U.S. policy to provide for the ability of members of the uniformed services to exercise their constitutional right to vote and acknowledges that particular consideration be given to them due to restrictions, uncertainties, and risks, such as deployment, that present a challenge in voting. Recognizes the legislative and judicial precedent of granting particular consideration to members of the uniformed services and overseas citizens regarding absentee voting. Affirms that while the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects against arbitrary classifications, and requires that similarly situated persons be treated equally, members of the uniformed services and overseas citizens are not similarly situated, and that the restrictions, uncertainties, and risks that members of the uniformed services face warrant consideration that is not arbitrary.
Congressional Research Service summary (Introduced in House), quoted unchanged (nonpartisan). Read the source.
What a vote does
A “Yea” vote
A Yea supports adopting this resolution.
A “Nay” vote
If it is not passed, current law stays as it is.
PSI Sci description of the legislative step (not an opinion).
What does this mean? (plain words)
Official text
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that it is not a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment for a State to extend particular consideration to members of the uniformed services and overseas citizens to ensure that such individuals are able to exercise their rights to vote in elections for public office.
Source: Congressional Research Service summary (Introduced in House)
AI explanation – may be wrong, check the official text
No AI explanation yet. It takes up to a minute to write and is then saved for everyone.
Limited to a few requests an hour per person.
The strongest published arguments
Arguments for (supporters)
Needs sources: no published arguments on this side yet. We only show items backed by a published source. Suggest one.
Arguments against (opponents)
Needs sources: no published arguments on this side yet. We only show items backed by a published source. Suggest one.
Alternatives
Needs sources: no published alternatives yet (for example a different bill, a law instead of an amendment, or keeping current law). We only show items backed by a published source. Suggest one.
How did my representative vote? · This bill's floor votes
Officials and money
Sponsor: Rep. Turner, Michael R. [R-OH-3] · 11 cosponsors
Cost estimate: No cost estimate published yet.
Cosponsors on this site
Jim Jordan (R-OH), Robert E. Latta (R-OH)
Sponsor's campaign money: Rep. Turner, Michael R. [R-OH-3] reported raising $1.3 million (2025–2026). Details. Shown for context only; it does not mean any donor supported this bill.
No linked floor roll calls in our collected records yet. This does not mean the bill has never had a vote. Check the official bill history.
Words on this page, explained (2)
- Resolution
- A formal statement or decision by a legislative body. Simple resolutions often only express an opinion or set rules for one chamber; they do not become law.
- Roll-call vote
- A vote where each member's position is recorded by name, so the public can see how every member voted. "Yea" means yes, "Nay" means no, "Present" means the member was there but did not take a side.
Plain meanings written from linked sources. All words.
Sources
- Congressional Research Service summary (Introduced in House)
- Congress.gov
- Data: GovInfo BILLSTATUS bulk data (Library of Congress), BILLSTATUS-112hres799.xml <https://www.govinfo.gov/bulkdata/BILLSTATUS/112/hres>
Record fed-us-cong112-hres799 · catalog fed-us-congress-bills-cong112 · updated 2026-11-15 by psicol fed-bills-cong112