On Tuesday (March 2), Democrats pushed their H.R. 1 bill, known as the For the People Act, to the House floor for discussion and a vote. It was preceded by almost no Republican amendments and only one perfunctory committee hearing.
The massive, nearly 800-page proposal would turn many of the most controversial voter registration and voting procedures during the 2020 presidential election into federal law. These election measures were originally implemented by state officials in response to the Communist virus (New Coronavirus) outbreak and national lockdown.
The House spent most of the morning debating the bill and then began considering the 56 amendments that were allowed to be brought to a vote. Only seven of the adopted amendments were authored by Republicans. A vote on the passage of the final version of the bill is expected on Wednesday (March 3).
The most controversial provisions of H.R. 1 include allowing nationwide mass mail-in voting, voter registration for 16- and 17-year-olds, permanently allowing early voting, minimum verification of online registration, legalizing ballot collection, federal matching funds for candidates who make private contributions, and voting rights for felons after they have served their sentences.
At the same Time, this bill contains significant changes in many areas of U.S. government administration, including constitutional issues such as civil service regulatory rules. These rules govern, for example, who can talk about a candidate for federal office, when and about what.
In addition, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) would be transformed into a majority party rule-making entity, rather than the regulatory organization that currently requires bipartisan support.
The proposal would also allow federal candidates to draw salaries from campaign funds donated by individuals and special interest groups, a form of compensation that has previously been deemed illegal.
The proposal would also shift authority over congressional districts from the states to a new independent commission made up of academics, government officials and ordinary citizens.
Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-California, who sits on the House Administration Committee, managed the presentation of supporters during Tuesday morning’s general debate on the bill. The last election was held during a once-in-a-century pandemic, and we saw changes that made it easier for many Americans to vote, reforms to absentee and early voting,” she said. It also highlighted what many of us already knew, that there are still significant inequalities in our democracy.”
Lofgren asserted that turnout in the 2020 election was “record, with no credible cases of election irregularities,” and that “we should protect the right to vote, not restrict it.”
Sen. Rodney Davis, an Illinois Republican on the House Administration Committee, managed the opposition presentation. “This nearly 800-page bill takes away the right of state and local governments to make their own election-related decisions and puts those powers in the hands of the federal government,” the senior Republican said during the morning debate.
“It violates Americans’ (constitutional) First Amendment right to free speech by allowing the use of corporate funds to publicly fund congressional campaigns ……H.R.1 would launder corporate money through the U.S. Treasury and then use those funds to publicly fund congressional campaigns.
“I know that when I go back Home and talk to my constituents, they will think that creating a program that will help raise more money for my campaign is not something the federal government should be doing.”
Rep. Debbie Lesko, an Arizona Republican, described the bill as “not for the people, but for the politicians. The bill weaponizes the Federal Election Commission, violates states’ rights and severely restricts free speech.”
At one point during the meeting, Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, asked, “Why aren’t we having a debate here about the problems and potential concerns with mail-in ballots? This is part of a non-partisan, all-consuming concern, so why aren’t we having a robust debate here for the American people to see?”
House Majority Leader Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) responded by saying, “This is a legitimate debate, and I think we’ve had that debate. And frankly, I want to tell my friend from Texas, I think we’ve won this debate. We’ve won it time and time again in the courtroom.”
Late last week, the Lofgren-led committee with jurisdiction over the federal election watchdog held a hearing on H.R. 1 on Feb. 25, but Republicans argued that the hearing fell far short of what a legislative proposal of this size should be.
Davis said at the hearing that he and his two Republican colleagues on the committee “submitted a total of 25 amendments today” and that we submitted them because the majority decided not to follow the usual process of denying minorities and many Americans a voice in this legislation.
Not only did this bill not pass consideration, but our committee held only one hearing on this nearly 800-page bill,” he testified. That hearing was held four days ago. At the hearing, the minority witness was the only person on the panel who actually ran the election. h.r. 1 would not only be difficult for many states to implement, but it would also undermine policies that many states have put in place to improve the election process to meet the unique needs of their voters.”
The House is expected to continue debating the 56 amendments for the remainder of Tuesday.
Recent Comments