Posted on Mar 30, 2021
H.R.1 - For the People Act: Support or oppose? Why?
1.49K
32
13
5
5
0
From Congress.gov:
This bill addresses voter access, election integrity, election security, political spending, and ethics for the three branches of government.
Specifically, the bill expands voter registration and voting access and limits removing voters from voter rolls.
The bill provides for states to establish independent, nonpartisan redistricting commissions.
The bill also sets forth provisions related to election security, including sharing intelligence information with state election officials, protecting the security of the voter rolls, supporting states in securing their election systems, developing a national strategy to protect the security and integrity of U.S. democratic institutions, establishing in the legislative branch the National Commission to Protect United States Democratic Institutions, and other provisions to improve the cybersecurity of election systems.
This bill addresses campaign spending, including by expanding the ban on foreign nationals contributing to or spending on elections; expanding disclosure rules pertaining to organizations spending money during elections, campaign advertisements, and online platforms; and revising disclaimer requirements for political advertising.
This bill establishes an alternative campaign funding system for certain federal offices. The system involves federal matching of small contributions for qualified candidates.
This bill sets forth provisions related to ethics in all three branches of government. Specifically, the bill requires a code of ethics for federal judges and justices, prohibits Members of the House from serving on the board of a for-profit entity, expands enforcement of regulations governing foreign agents, and establishes additional conflict-of-interest and ethics provisions for federal employees and the White House.
The bill also requires candidates for President and Vice President to submit 10 years of tax returns.
See full text here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1/text
This bill addresses voter access, election integrity, election security, political spending, and ethics for the three branches of government.
Specifically, the bill expands voter registration and voting access and limits removing voters from voter rolls.
The bill provides for states to establish independent, nonpartisan redistricting commissions.
The bill also sets forth provisions related to election security, including sharing intelligence information with state election officials, protecting the security of the voter rolls, supporting states in securing their election systems, developing a national strategy to protect the security and integrity of U.S. democratic institutions, establishing in the legislative branch the National Commission to Protect United States Democratic Institutions, and other provisions to improve the cybersecurity of election systems.
This bill addresses campaign spending, including by expanding the ban on foreign nationals contributing to or spending on elections; expanding disclosure rules pertaining to organizations spending money during elections, campaign advertisements, and online platforms; and revising disclaimer requirements for political advertising.
This bill establishes an alternative campaign funding system for certain federal offices. The system involves federal matching of small contributions for qualified candidates.
This bill sets forth provisions related to ethics in all three branches of government. Specifically, the bill requires a code of ethics for federal judges and justices, prohibits Members of the House from serving on the board of a for-profit entity, expands enforcement of regulations governing foreign agents, and establishes additional conflict-of-interest and ethics provisions for federal employees and the White House.
The bill also requires candidates for President and Vice President to submit 10 years of tax returns.
See full text here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1/text
Law
Congress
Voting
Edited 3 y ago
Posted 3 y ago
Responses: 2
2
2
0
The Act is unconstitutional. The US Constitution, "Article 1, Section 4 1: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof".
Amendment X. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Amendment XIV. "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Article 1 says state legislatures make laws concerning elections in their state. The 10th Amendment clearly states the Federal Government cannot exercise powers not enumerated in the Constitution and such unenumerated powers are left to the States and the People. The 14th Amendment includes the equal protection clause requiring the United States and states to apply laws equally to all Citizens. Mandating the manner in which elections are conducted as to time, place, and format (mail-in ballots for example) is Federal intrusion on states rights and therefore unconstitutional.
I'm extremely opposed to the Government "matching funds" provision. Taxpayers will be providing funds matching contributions to candidates six times the amount of the contribution. This means my tax dollars will be funding candidates I may not agree with. My contributions, if any, are an expression of my First Amendment right to free speech, i.e., freedom of expression. If a candidate can't raise enough money to run for office, then do they have the leadership qualities, positions on issues, and other characteristics necessary to serve.
Same-day registration sounds good at first. It denies states and local governments the capability to ensure people who register are actually Citizens and actually live in the precinct in which they register. Same for the requirement to allow updates to address up to and including election day.
Limits on use of interstate cross checks. This provision makes it more difficult for states to remove voters from their role who have moved to other states. It puts additional burdens on the states to prove the person has moved. Additional costs will possibly inhibit some jurisdictions from cleaning voter roles. Also requires changes to voter roles to be completed 6 months before election.
The law sets up the precursor to allowing children ages 16-17 to vote. Children as young as 16 can register to vote for when they turn 18. Too easy to change this provision to start voting at 16.
The law allows felons to vote regardless of state laws to the contrary.
Plus many other provisions that make it easier to cheat, such as universal mail-in ballot requirements with no signature verification. Prohibition of voter ID requirements.
Basically the law is a guarantee that all the voting fraud and irregularities that happened in 2020 will be perpetuated and legal.
Amendment X. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Amendment XIV. "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Article 1 says state legislatures make laws concerning elections in their state. The 10th Amendment clearly states the Federal Government cannot exercise powers not enumerated in the Constitution and such unenumerated powers are left to the States and the People. The 14th Amendment includes the equal protection clause requiring the United States and states to apply laws equally to all Citizens. Mandating the manner in which elections are conducted as to time, place, and format (mail-in ballots for example) is Federal intrusion on states rights and therefore unconstitutional.
I'm extremely opposed to the Government "matching funds" provision. Taxpayers will be providing funds matching contributions to candidates six times the amount of the contribution. This means my tax dollars will be funding candidates I may not agree with. My contributions, if any, are an expression of my First Amendment right to free speech, i.e., freedom of expression. If a candidate can't raise enough money to run for office, then do they have the leadership qualities, positions on issues, and other characteristics necessary to serve.
Same-day registration sounds good at first. It denies states and local governments the capability to ensure people who register are actually Citizens and actually live in the precinct in which they register. Same for the requirement to allow updates to address up to and including election day.
Limits on use of interstate cross checks. This provision makes it more difficult for states to remove voters from their role who have moved to other states. It puts additional burdens on the states to prove the person has moved. Additional costs will possibly inhibit some jurisdictions from cleaning voter roles. Also requires changes to voter roles to be completed 6 months before election.
The law sets up the precursor to allowing children ages 16-17 to vote. Children as young as 16 can register to vote for when they turn 18. Too easy to change this provision to start voting at 16.
The law allows felons to vote regardless of state laws to the contrary.
Plus many other provisions that make it easier to cheat, such as universal mail-in ballot requirements with no signature verification. Prohibition of voter ID requirements.
Basically the law is a guarantee that all the voting fraud and irregularities that happened in 2020 will be perpetuated and legal.
(2)
(0)
MSgt Steve Sweeney
I do not agree with these arguments as seen in other posts. The issue of "States Rights" has been raised many times in the past, generally to allow states to continue in some deplorable conduct that negatively impacts a certain segment of the population. The election powers ARE delegated to the states in Article 1 which implies the federal government has some say, especially with regard to federal elections.
Your tax dollars as well as mine have and will continue to support things we do not agree on, from both sides. If people could arbitrarily pick and choose what their tax dollars funded, you can bet funding for the DoD and other government activities would change dramatically.
Not concerned with people remaining on voters roles given the very minute amounts of provable voter fraud. I would rather have old names on a list that have no impact beyond the need for some administrative housekeeping rather than remove eligible voters and possibly disenfranchising a legitimate voter.
I have no problem with the 2020 voting record given that virtually none of the alleged voter fraud claimed actually occurred as evidenced by the court filings on the matters. Most secure election in history - a triumph for the Trump administration. What is very telling is how those making the fraud claims, when they actually got to court, did not actually argue fraud in their filings which would give them an opportunity (requirement) to produce actual evidence of fraud ... It was a red herring.
Your tax dollars as well as mine have and will continue to support things we do not agree on, from both sides. If people could arbitrarily pick and choose what their tax dollars funded, you can bet funding for the DoD and other government activities would change dramatically.
Not concerned with people remaining on voters roles given the very minute amounts of provable voter fraud. I would rather have old names on a list that have no impact beyond the need for some administrative housekeeping rather than remove eligible voters and possibly disenfranchising a legitimate voter.
I have no problem with the 2020 voting record given that virtually none of the alleged voter fraud claimed actually occurred as evidenced by the court filings on the matters. Most secure election in history - a triumph for the Trump administration. What is very telling is how those making the fraud claims, when they actually got to court, did not actually argue fraud in their filings which would give them an opportunity (requirement) to produce actual evidence of fraud ... It was a red herring.
(1)
(0)
Lt Col Jim Coe
MSgt Steve Sweeney obviously we disagree on this. I have only one question about your post, if 2020 was the most secure election in history, which. Election came in second?
(0)
(0)
MSgt Steve Sweeney
Lt Col Jim Coe - Could be the 2008 Obama/McCain election before a concerted, state level effort from the Russian government to influence elections via social media .... though a case could be made for the 1924 election between Coolidge and Davis. Depends on the measurement somewhat. This may help you in making a determination:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/ps-political-science-and-politics/article/measuring-electoral-integrity-around-the-world-a-new-dataset/506F05DEF195C4A73DD1C937591B2071
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/ps-political-science-and-politics/article/measuring-electoral-integrity-around-the-world-a-new-dataset/506F05DEF195C4A73DD1C937591B2071
Measuring Electoral Integrity around the World: A New Dataset | PS: Political Science &...
Measuring Electoral Integrity around the World: A New Dataset - Volume 47 Issue 4
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
MSgt Steve Sweeney I am opposed for the simple fact the the Constitution gives the responsibility for conducting federal elections to the states. I like the idea of a uniform set of rules on how to manage the election process including maintaining voter rolls, however, that is up to the state legislature, not the federal government. This is one more way that allows states to cede power and authority to the federal government. They will end up complaining about "states' rights" and how powerless they are while asking for more federal funding. Legislation like this creates a culture of dependence and citizens will continue to blame presidential administration for local problems when the real culprit is the state legislature.
This only came about because a states (Texas) had a problem with how another state (Pennsylvania) conducted their election. Such a disagreement should be settled in the SCOTUS, not the legislative branch. If a state wants universal mail-in ballots, let them vote for it.
This only came about because a states (Texas) had a problem with how another state (Pennsylvania) conducted their election. Such a disagreement should be settled in the SCOTUS, not the legislative branch. If a state wants universal mail-in ballots, let them vote for it.
(1)
(0)
CSM William Everroad
Points well taken. However, it is important to distinguish that the the amendments for voting, do not grant rights, they instead prohibit the states from discriminating.
I think we are creeping into the question, "who is eligible to vote?", to answer to which lies with the states. They could let anyone with a state address vote if they wanted to.
I don't justify prisoners being denied a vote, they still have rights. It depends on how you classify voting as a right. If we determine that education is an inherent right, then prisoners would be entitled to education, same logic applies for voting.
2020 was the most secure election in history, sure there will be new threats in the future, but overreacting because of rumor is wasteful (money being used to entice states to get on board).
I agree with you, the issue with the way it went down in the 1800s was that Congress did not want to outlaw slavery, instead they left it up to individual states. Pending a constitutional amendment, voting and election management is the domain of the states. To spend money trying to regulate, induce, or affect election law is wasteful and an overreach of the federal government. If they want the power, amend the constitution.
I agree with campaign finance reform, but to pack it into a contentious bill is the reason we are having legislative slowdown now. I guarantee no one would object to a standalone finance reform bill, but they would rather waste precious session time debating the merits of election reform using campaign finance reform as the grease.
I think we are creeping into the question, "who is eligible to vote?", to answer to which lies with the states. They could let anyone with a state address vote if they wanted to.
I don't justify prisoners being denied a vote, they still have rights. It depends on how you classify voting as a right. If we determine that education is an inherent right, then prisoners would be entitled to education, same logic applies for voting.
2020 was the most secure election in history, sure there will be new threats in the future, but overreacting because of rumor is wasteful (money being used to entice states to get on board).
I agree with you, the issue with the way it went down in the 1800s was that Congress did not want to outlaw slavery, instead they left it up to individual states. Pending a constitutional amendment, voting and election management is the domain of the states. To spend money trying to regulate, induce, or affect election law is wasteful and an overreach of the federal government. If they want the power, amend the constitution.
I agree with campaign finance reform, but to pack it into a contentious bill is the reason we are having legislative slowdown now. I guarantee no one would object to a standalone finance reform bill, but they would rather waste precious session time debating the merits of election reform using campaign finance reform as the grease.
(0)
(0)
MSgt Steve Sweeney
CSM William Everroad - I think we know where each of us stand... though I don't agree that no one would object to a standalone finance reform bill. I can guarantee you there would be objection, even if the objection was only put forward to cover what monied interests actually object to. Thanks for the convo.
(1)
(0)
CSM William Everroad
No problem, but I would be interested in wargaming objections to campaign finance reform. Most people I have talked to about it suggest that the only possible defense is the "unreasonable burden" argument, but I would be interest to hear what you think.
(1)
(0)
MSgt Steve Sweeney
CSM William Everroad - I didn't have anything specific in mind, but I am certain people would find objections if only for the simple reason that the proposal was backed or was perceived to benefit the other party. However, to get an idea of what kind of challenges may actually arise, we could look back at the debate around the Citizens United decision that opened the floodgates for unaccounted corporate money into politics under the guise of 1st Amendment rights.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google