House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).
Democrats in the U.S. Congress are pushing a new bill that would authorize the federal government to take away from state legislatures the power to regulate the election process granted by the Constitution. The move has already sparked strong criticism from officials in 16 states, as well as a backlash from many research institutions and experts. They argue that the Democrats are unconstitutionally controlling speech with this move and want to rule forever.
House Democrats cosponsored an election reform bill, the For the People Act of 2021 (H.R.1/S.1), on Feb. 22 in the name of anti-corruption. Key elements of the bill include: creating a nationwide automated voter registration system and an online voter registration system; allowing registration at the polls on polling day; mandating no-fault absentee ballots, which would require states to prohibit witness signatures and notarization on absentee ballots, and accepting mail-in ballots within 10 days of election day as long as they are postmarked on election day; restoring the right to vote for felons; and transferring the power to draw electoral districts from the state legislature to an independent commission; upgrade the District of Columbia to a state; and more. At the same Time, the bill would give the federal government the power to regulate paper ballots and election system vendors.
Republicans have called it an unconstitutional “federal takeover. Alabama Secretary of State John H. Merrill said in a statement Tuesday, Feb. 23, that he has joined with the secretaries of state of 15 other states to send a letter to bipartisan leaders in both houses of Congress asking them to reject the bill. They argue that the “one-size-fits-all” approach imposed by Congress strips states of their constitutional authority and further undermines the security and fairness of the election process.
An analysis by the Heritage Foundation, a U.S. think tank, concluded that the bill not only extends the worst parts of the election rule changes that occurred in the 2020 election to the entire U.S., but also centralizes the state-run election process at the federal level, which is “an unwise and unconstitutional mandate. “.
And the House Democrats’ massive voter registration and campaign process reform bill would give federal bureaucrats enormous new powers to control political speech, according to an analysis of the proposal by the Institute for Free Speech (IFS).
Hidden in the nearly 800 pages of H.R. 1 is a list of what censors would like to see listed, Eric Wang, author of the IFS study, noted in a statement releasing the analysis. It is placing new burdens on free speech and donor privacy. Wang is a senior fellow at IFS and special counsel in the election law practice group of the D.C.-area law firm Wiley Rein, LLP.
The statement says, “It proposes a democracy in which citizen participation should be punished; in which fewer people will have a voice in our government, our laws, and our public Life.”
In Title IV of HR1, the IFS analysis identifies 14 unconstitutional issues, the first of which is mandated speech. the IFS states that the bill is regulating speech and violates the Constitution because it refers subjectively and dangerously broadly to the fact that no speech by a federal candidate or elected official, at any time, can “promote,” “attack,” “support” or “oppose” a candidate or official.
King believes that this standard is incomprehensible and could be used to regulate any elected official who has not yet announced his or her retirement. It also includes the content of radio and television ads that are subject to current law, as long as they mention the name of a candidate or public official.
IFS analyzes that if HR1 passes, anyone operating a website could inadvertently violate the State Board of Elections’ disclaimer and reporting requirements by posting information about a federal candidate or elected official. Similarly, a group’s Facebook posts, Twitter tweets, etc. could be regulated as long as paid personnel are used to create such content. In addition, donor information would be forced to be made public, so many people might reduce their donations to avoid scrutiny by the Democratic Party.
For his part, U.S.-based scholar Cao Changqing tweeted, “The law is intended to keep the Democrats in power forever and turn the U.S. into a one-party system.” And some analysis points out that if the bill is implemented before 2022, it will be very difficult for the Republican Party to flip again.
Recent Comments