Dems Take ‘Big Lies And Fake Outrage’ On The Road To Georgia

Democrats Head Down To Georgia For More Dishonesty And Demagoguery

“Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) will hold a Senate Rules Committee hearing in Georgia … on voting rights as Democrats ramp up their efforts after Republicans blocked a sweeping election bill. Klobuchar, who chairs the committee, will hold a hearing on July 19.” (“Klobuchar To Hold Voting Rights Hearing In Georgia On July 19,” The Hill, 6/28/2021)

• “Senate Democrats, stymied in their push to mandate a major revamp of election laws, are beginning to map out their next steps to draw attention to the issue and to put the focus on a critical battleground state: Georgia. The Democratic-led Senate Rules Committee plans to move ahead with a series of hearings, including in Georgia, calling for passage of new legislation …” (“Democrats Plot Next Steps On New Election Rules With A Focus On Georgia,” CNN, 6/22/2021)

REMINDER: The Georgia Election Law Features Mainstream, Common Sense Provisions And Expands Early Voting

GEORGIA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE JAN JONES (R): “In Georgia, we are making it easier to vote and harder to cheat…. SB 202 is a bold, forward-facing approach to elections, implementing new measures to increase voter accessibility and fairness. So, let me break down some of the key components of SB 202 [the Georgia Election Integrity Act of 2021] and what it does for the State of Georgia…. It is easy to write alarming words and misleading sound bites that would lead people away from the facts, because the facts simply don’t support what many are hearing or seeing, and it is just plain wrong.” (Speaker Pro Tempore Jan Jones, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing, 4/20/2021)

• “For the first time, elections superintendents shall continue processing, counting and tabulating ballots until such activities are completed on Election Day to prevent the untimely release of returns. It establishes new guidelines for the public tabulation of ballots by type and authorizes the Secretary of State to maintain accurate voter rolls to ensure that absentee voting is legitimate. It requires transparency in any emergency voting measures that are adopted …” (Speaker Pro Tempore Jan Jones, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing, 4/20/2021)

• “For the first time, Georgia law now requires two Saturdays, instead of one, and two optional Sundays of early voting. SB 202 creates more uniformity of days and hours of early voting in all 159 Georgia counties. Now, 134 of Georgia’s 159 counties will offer more in-person voting hours than ever before. I would note Georgia’s total amount of 17 to 19 days of early voting is more than Delaware, the District of Columbia, New Mexico, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, and Wisconsin.” (Speaker Pro Tempore Jan Jones, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing, 4/20/2021)

• “As Georgia makes our no-excuse absentee voting more secure, states like Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and New York—among others—simply don’t have any no-excuse absentee voting. We also eliminated subjective signature matching for absentee ballots and ballot applications, but California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Minnesota, Rhode Island, and Vermont all have some form of absentee ballot matching—either against signatures or registration records. Instead, voters in Georgia may provide their driver’s license number, last four digits of social security member and birth date or utilize a free state-issued voter ID card. All three are objective forms of identification. Let me be clear: Georgia did not eliminate no-excuse absentee voting. We also retained in law, and systematized, ballot drop boxes, a creative voting method invented due to the COVID-19 pandemic.” (Speaker Pro Tempore Jan Jones, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing, 4/20/2021)

• “Certainly, though, SB 202 does not prohibit poll workers from giving water to people in line. In fact, it does the opposite: SB 202 prohibits offering anything of value within 150 feet of a polling place, except for water offered by election officials. This is because in 2018 and 2020, activists and candidates passed out water, food, and gift cards, some with logos affixed to them, at polling locations while voters stood in line. A number of candidates appearing on the ballot even did the same. It’s a practice referred to as ‘line-warming,’ and while not technically illegal it surely violates the spirit of free elections. The fact is that most states have a prohibition of activities considered to be campaigning or electioneering within a protected space. The protected distance by state ranges from 30 feet in Virginia and 100 feet in California to 150 feet in Massachusetts and 300 feet in Oklahoma.” (Speaker Pro Tempore Jan Jones, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing, 4/20/2021)

Dem Leaders Haven’t Been Shy About Explaining That Passing Their Federal Election Takeover Is Primarily About Helping Them Win Elections

PBS’ JUDY WOODRUFF: “Let me — well, speaking of elections, Democrats are facing a tough landscape in next year's midterms. You have Republicans controlling the redrawing of congressional districts… in a number of states, in Texas, in Florida, in North Carolina, in addition to Georgia, the first three all gaining House seats. Isn't that going to make it exceedingly uphill for your party to hold onto the majority in the House?”
HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): “Well, just the elections are about campaigns, and we are ready. We are ready with our M's, mobilization to own the ground, to get out the vote with our message of unity for the people, again, so proud of what the Biden-Harris administration is putting forth, and then, of course, with the resources, the money that is needed to do this. But we would be better if we can pass the H.R.1 and S.1. in order to remove obstacles to participation for people to vote. But I would just say this. I think you have heard me say this before, but for the benefit of our audience, people talk about, well, in the past, the president's party has lost seats in the off-year. Any assumptions about past elections are obsolete.” (PBS’ Newshour, 5/05/2021)

PELOSI: “And as we keep saying, we are not going away until we pass legislation to stop gun violence. And we will have a better chance to do it if we pass H.R. 1.” (Speaker Pelosi, Press Conference, 6/17/2021)

HOUSE DEMOCRATIC WHIP JIM CLYBURN (D-SC): “We screw up this voting thing and [Raphael] Warnock ain't going to be in the Senate and we ain't going to win nothing in North Carolina and we won't have a chance down in Florida… If we do what is necessary to allow people to cast an unfettered vote, we won't have to worry about that, because we'll win big-time in off-year elections… But if we don't, we're going to lose big-time in off-year elections. First things first.” (“Biden to raise stakes in voting rights battle as his party presses for more,” NBC News, 7/13/2021)

Democrats Still Haven’t Changed Any Of The Worst Provisions Of Their Partisan And Potentially Unconstitutional Legislation

Democrats’ Partisan Bill Would Still Funnel Public Money Into Their Campaign Coffers

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL EDITORIAL BOARD: “H.R.1 would create a scheme of public funds to match small political donations at a 6-to-1 rate. Give your guy $200, and he might get $1,200 from the government.” (Editorial, “Making Every Election Like 2020,” The Wall Street Journal, 3/01/2021)

• “The For the People Act of 2021, known as H.R. 1… would provide public matching funds for qualifying congressional and presidential candidates at a rate of 6:1, among many other provisions. The 6:1 match would kick in for each grassroots contribution to a candidate up to $200. For example, a $200 donation to a House candidate would garner a $1,200 match in public funds for a total contribution of $1,400. The program would begin in the 2028 election cycle and would be voluntary. Candidates would opt in by meeting donation qualifications and would be subject to certain contribution limits.” (“House Democrats’ H.R. 1 Would Create New Public Financing Of Congressional Campaigns,” Fox News, 3/03/2021)

Given The Opportunity To Strip Provisions From The Bill Sending Public Money To Their Own Political Campaigns, Senate Democrats Voted To Take The Money

SEN. ROY BLUNT (R-MO), Senate Rules & Administration Committee Ranking Member: “This amendment strikes a provision that creates public financing for campaigns for the U.S. Senate. Specifically, the program creates a 6 to 1 government match to any small donor contributions of $200 or less in a congressional campaign. Meaning for every $200, the federal government will match $1,200. Supporters of this go out of their way to argue that the funds that will be spent aren’t taxpayer dollars, they’re funds that have come from assessments placed on top of fines and penalties paid by corporations and tax cheats…. I understand why you’d want to say that [but] it’s clear that all funds that flow through the U.S. Treasury are public funds, they belong to the American people. These would be funds that belong to the American people going to politicians. Under … this portion of the bill, every Senator that sat on this committee would be eligible for up to $80 million for their Senate campaigns. Every incumbent Senator would over six years be able to collect a total of $1.8 billion. That’s not to mention their opponents who also would be eligible for these funds. I think this is one of the things that the American people would be most opposed to in this bill…. I think there’s a better way to use this money and virtually everybody that I work for in the state of Missouri would think there’s a better way to use this money. This serves only to put money in the pockets of political campaigns. I think it’s a big mistake. I’d urge my colleagues to join me in striking this provision of the bill.” (Sen. Blunt, U.S. Senate Rules & Administration Committee Business Meeting, 5/11/2021)

SEN. TED CRUZ (R-TX): “I strongly support Senator Blunt’s amendment. You know, as the American people think of needy populations in need of assistance, I have yet to encounter a single constituent in Texas or in any of our states that considers politicians anywhere near the top of the list. This bill, in addition to being the ‘Corrupt Politicians Act,’ is also the ‘Welfare for Politicians Act.’ Because this bill creates a matching program for politicians—not just an even matching program, a 6 to 1 matching program of federal funds flooding in to federal elections. Because the Democratic majority, by the way, the narrowest majority possible, in a 50-50 Senate, has deemed that billions of dollars of federal funds need to flow into funding their campaigns…. Your constituents, in every one of your states, I’d venture, do not want to give your campaigns or my campaigns millions of dollars of federal money. We don’t need welfare for politicians and I urge you to support Senator Blunt’s amendment.” (Sen. Cruz, U.S. Senate Rules and Administration Committee Business Meeting, 5/11/2021)

All 9 Democrats on the Senate Rules Committee voted against Sen. Blunt’s amendment. (“Senate Rules And Administration Committee Markup: Senate Panel Displays Partisan Divide Over Sweeping Voting Bill,” CQ Committee Coverage, 5/11/2021)

It Still Would Transform The FEC From A Bipartisan Body ‘Into A Partisan Weapon’ ‘With Likely Ruinous Effect On Our Political System’

SEN. McCONNELL: “[A]mong the many fairly blatant power plays built into this legislation is a naked attempt to turn our neutral Federal Election Commission into a partisan weapon…. [T]he Democrat Politician Protection Act would take the FEC down to a five-member body and give sitting presidents the power to appoint the chairperson -- who holds the keys to determine who to investigate and what enforcement to pursue. The evenness of the FEC is a vital way to ensuring Americans’ political speech — and campaigns for public office — are regulated fairly and evenhandedly. Of course that needs to be done on a bipartisan basis. But the Democrats want to throw that right out the window and carve out a partisan majority on this crucial commission.” (Sen. McConnell, Remarks, 2/13/2019)

NINE FORMER FEC COMMISSIONERS: “[S. 1] would transform the FEC from a bipartisan, six-member body to a five-member body subject to, and indeed designed for, partisan control…. If Congress wanted to destroy confidence in the fairness of American elections, it is hard to imagine a better first step than to eviscerate the FEC’s bipartisan structure.” (9 Former FEC Commissioners, Letter to Speaker Pelosi, Rep. McCarthy, and Sens. Schumer and McConnell, 2/09/2021)

• “We write out of deep concern for the threat that the self-styled ‘For the People Act’ (H.R. 1 and S. 1 in the current Congress …) poses to the long-standing bipartisan structure of the Federal Election Commission a concern based on our many years of experience as commissioners of the FEC…. We are all former members of the FEC. Collectively, we have over six decades of service on the Commission. Most of us served as Chair of the FEC, and at least one of us was serving on the Commission at all times between 1998 and 2020.” (9 Former FEC Commissioners, Letter to Speaker Pelosi, Rep. McCarthy, and Sens. Schumer and McConnell, 2/09/2021)

• “[W]e believe that [H.R. 1], by shifting the Commission from a bipartisan, six-member body to a five-member body subject to partisan control, would be highly detrimental to the agency’s credibility. It would lead to more partisanship in enforcement and in regulatory matters, shattering public confidence in the decisions of the FEC. The Commission depends on bipartisan support and universal regard for the fairness of its actions. The [bill] frustrates these goals with likely ruinous effect on our political system.” (9 Former FEC Commissioners, Letter to Speaker Pelosi, Rep. McCarthy, and Sens. Schumer and McConnell, 2/09/2021)

Democrats’ Partisan Legislation Would Still Expand The Newly Partisan FEC’s Power To Regulate Vast Swathes Of Political Speech

SEN. McCONNELL: “Democrats are also coming after Americans’ free speech. The Federal Election Commission was set up after Watergate to be a bipartisan panel by design. The FEC intentionally needs bipartisan consensus to throw a penalty flag. Washington Democrats want to scrap that. Their bill would convert the FEC into an odd-numbered, partisan body. And this partisan FEC would get even greater scope to nose around in even more of Americans’ speech and activities.” (Sen. McConnell, Remarks, 3/04/2021)

INSTITUTE FOR FREE SPEECH: “H.R. 1 would: Unconstitutionally regulate speech that mentions a federal candidate or elected official at any time under a vague, subjective, and dangerously broad standard that asks whether the speech ‘promotes,’ ‘attacks,’ ‘supports,’ or ‘opposes’ (‘PASO’) the candidate or official. This standard is impossible to understand and would likely regulate any mention of an elected official who hasn’t announced their retirement.” (“Analysis of H.R. 1 (Part One):’For the People Act’ Is Replete with Provisions for the Politicians,” Institute for Free Speech, 2/2021)

• “Compel groups to declare on new, publicly filed ‘campaign-related disbursement’ reports that their ads are either ‘in support of or in opposition’ to the elected official mentioned, even if their ads are neither. This form of compulsory speech forces organizations to declare their allegiance or opposition to public officials, provides false information to the public, and is unconstitutional.” (“Analysis of H.R. 1 (Part One):’For the People Act’ Is Replete with Provisions for the Politicians,” Institute for Free Speech, 2/2021)

• “Subject far more issue ads to lengthy disclaimer requirements, which will coerce groups into truncating their substantive message and make some advertising, especially online, practically impossible.” (“Analysis of H.R. 1 (Part One):’For the People Act’ Is Replete with Provisions for the Politicians,” Institute for Free Speech, 2/2021)

• “For the first time ever, subject groups that sponsor communications about judicial nominees to burdensome campaign finance reporting, donor exposure, and disclaimer requirements without any sound policy justification or recognized constitutional basis for doing so.” (“Analysis of H.R. 1 (Part One):’For the People Act’ Is Replete with Provisions for the Politicians,” Institute for Free Speech, 2/2021)

• “Expand the universe of regulated online political speech (by Americans) beyond paid advertising to  include, apparently, communications on groups’ or individuals’ own websites, social media platforms, and e-mail messages.” (“Analysis of H.R. 1 (Part One):’For the People Act’ Is Replete with Provisions for the Politicians,” Institute for Free Speech, 2/2021)

• “Regulate speech (by Americans) about legislative issues by expanding the definition of ‘electioneering  communications’ – historically limited to large-scale TV and radio campaigns  targeted to the electorate in a campaign for office – to include online advertising, even if the ads are not targeted in any way at a relevant electorate.” (“Analysis of H.R. 1 (Part One):’For the People Act’ Is Replete with Provisions for the Politicians,” Institute for Free Speech, 2/2021)

• “Impose inflexible disclaimer requirements on online ads from American speakers that may make many forms of small, popular, and cost-effective ads advocating government policy changes or the election or defeat of candidates effectively impossible.” (“Analysis of H.R. 1 (Part One):’For the People Act’ Is Replete with Provisions for the Politicians,” Institute for Free Speech, 2/2021)

The Bill Still Includes Mandates Forcing Organizations To Publicize Their Donors In Order To Open Them Up To Political Attacks, Something Even The ACLU Opposes

“Some of the disclosure requirements in H.R. 1 have drawn objections from across the ideological spectrum. The American Civil Liberties Union has said that it supports disclosures tied to ‘express advocacy’ of a candidate’s election or defeat. The bill goes further, though, requiring disclosures in connection with policy debates that refer to candidates.” (“Constitutional Challenges Loom Over Proposed Voting Bill,” The New York Times, 5/05/2021)

SEN. McCONNELL: “The bill also tramples on citizens’ privacy with new mandates that would intensify ‘cancel culture’ and help mobs harass people for their private views.” (Sen. McConnell, Remarks, 3/04/2021)

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION (ACLU): “Unfortunately, the DISCLOSE Act of 2019 [included in H.R. 1] reaches beyond those bounds, and, like its predecessors, strikes the wrong balance between the public’s interest in knowing who supports or opposes candidates for office and the vital associational privacy rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. The upshot of the DISCLOSE Act, and the essence of why we oppose it, is that it would chill the speech of issue advocacy groups and non-profits such as the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, or the NRA that is essential to our public discourse and protected by the First Amendment.” (ACLU, Letter to Reps. McGovern and Cole, 3/01/2019)

• ACLU: “[T]he bill would also require disclosure of an overbroad number of donors. Even with the $10,000 trigger, many donors to issue advocacy organizations may be surprised to find themselves held responsible for communications they may not know about, or, potentially, even support. It is unfair to hold donors responsible for every communication in which an organization engages. Moreover, it is unclear how such an overbroad requirement serves the government’s interest in providing the electorate information about who is supporting or opposing a candidate for office. The Constitution requires a healthy respect for associational privacy. In NAACP v. Alabama, the Supreme Court recognized that “[i]nviolability of privacy in group association may in many circumstances be indispensable to preservation of freedom of association, particularly where a group espouses dissident beliefs.” For that reason alone, we should be very cautious when contemplating invasions of that privacy. Because the DISCLOSE Act would expose the private associations of an overbroad number of donors, it fails to respect this first constitutional principle.” (ACLU, Letter to Reps. McGovern and Cole, 3/01/2019)

Amicus Brief from the ACLU, NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE FUND, KNIGHT FIRST AMENDMENT INSTITUTE AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN (HRC), and the PEN AMERICAN CENTER: “The disclosure law at issue here, at least as it has been implemented by California, risks undermining the freedom to associate for expressive purposes. That freedom, in turn, is fundamental to our democracy, and has long been protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. A critical corollary of the freedom to associate is the right to maintain the confidentiality of one’s associations, absent a strong governmental interest in disclosure. If the State could categorically demand disclosure of associational information, the ability of citizens to organize to defend values out of favor with the majority would be seriously diminished. As this Court recognized in NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson,357 U.S. 449 (1958), the compelled disclosure of an expressive association’s members or supporters threatens to chill free association, because people may refrain from exercising those freedoms rather than expose themselves to government reprisal or private retaliation…. In general, the compelled disclosure of associational information to the public dramatically increases the risk of private retaliation against the members and supporters of potentially controversial groups, is more likely to chill the exercise of associational freedoms …” (“Brief Amici Curiae Of The American Civil Liberties Union, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Inc., Naacp Legal Defense And Educational Fund, Inc., Knight First Amendment Institute At Columbia University, Human Rights Campaign, And Pen American Center, Inc., In Support Of Petitioners,” Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Becerra, Nos. 19-251 & 19-255, Supreme Court of the United States, 3/01/2021)

Earlier This Month The Supreme Court Struck Down A California Requirement That Charitable Organizations Give Their Donor Lists To The State In Part Because ‘The Risk Of A Chilling Effect On Association Is Enough’

CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS: “The ‘government may regulate in the [First Amendment] area only with narrow specificity,’ … and compelled disclosure regimes are no exception. When it comes to ‘a person’s beliefs and associations,’ ‘[b]road and sweeping state inquiries into these protected areas . . . discourage citizens from exercising rights protected by the Constitution.’ … [W]e conclude that California’s blanket demand for [IRS Form 990] Schedule Bs [listing names and addresses of donors] is facially unconstitutional.” (Americans For Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, Attorney General Of California, Supreme Court of the United States, No. 19–251, 7/01/2021)

• “In the First Amendment context … we have recognized ‘a second type of facial challenge, whereby a law may be invalidated as overbroad if a substantial number of its applications are unconstitutional, judged in relation to the statute’s plainly legitimate sweep.’ … We have no trouble concluding here that the Attorney General [of California’s] disclosure requirement is over-broad.” (Americans For Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, Attorney General Of California, Supreme Court of the United States, No. 19–251, 7/01/2021)

• “Our cases have said that disclosure requirements can chill association ‘[e]ven if there [is] no disclosure to the general public.’ … It is irrelevant, moreover, that some donors might not mind—or might even prefer—the disclosure of their identities to the State. The disclosure requirement ‘creates an unnecessary risk of chilling’ in violation of the First Amendment … The petitioners here, for example, introduced evidence that they and their supporters have been subjected to bomb threats, protests, stalking, and physical violence … Such risks are heightened in the 21st century and seem to grow with each passing year, as ‘anyone with access to a computer [can] compile a wealth of information about’ anyone else, including such sensitive details as a person’s home address or the school attended by his children…. The gravity of the privacy concerns in this context is further underscored by the filings of hundreds of organizations as amici curiae in support of the petitioners. Far from representing uniquely sensitive causes, these organizations span the ideological spectrum, and indeed the full range of human endeavors: from the American Civil Liberties Union to the Proposition 8 Legal Defense Fund; from the Council on American-Islamic Relations to the Zionist Organization of America; from Feeding America—Eastern Wisconsin to PBS Reno. The deterrent effect feared by these organizations is real and pervasive …’” (Americans For Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, Attorney General Of California, Supreme Court of the United States, No. 19–251, 7/01/2021)

• “When it comes to the freedom of association, the protections of the First Amendment are triggered not only by actual restrictions on an individual’s ability to join with others to further shared goals. The risk of a chilling effect on association is enough, ‘[b]ecause First Amendment freedoms need breathing space to survive.’” (Americans For Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, Attorney General Of California, Supreme Court of the United States, No. 19–251, 7/01/2021)

Democrats’ Partisan Bill Is Still ‘A Sweeping Federalized Overhaul Of The Electoral System’ That ‘Usurps States’ Authority Over Elections’

SEN. McCONNELL: “Perhaps most worrisome of all is the unprecedented proposal to federalize our nation’s elections, giving Washington D.C. politicians even more control over who gets to come here in the first place. Hundreds of pages are dedicated to telling states how to run their elections, from when and where they must take place, to the procedures they have to follow, to the machines they have to use.” (Sen. McConnell, Remarks, 1/29/2019)

Democrats Even Admit ‘That’s Really What This Bill Is About’

REP. ZOE LOFGREN (D-CA), House Administration Committee Chair: “I would just note that I understand the gentleman’s objection to federalizing federal election eligibility, but that’s really what this bill is about.” (U.S. House of Representatives Administration Committee, Markup, 2/26/2019)

• “Congressional Democrats have pushed … H.R. 1 or S.1, which would amount to a sweeping federalized overhaul of the electoral system across the country.” (“Biden-Aligned Nonprofit Launches Voting Rights Initiative,” Politico, 4/28/2021)

State Officials: ‘This Unnecessary Bill Federalizes And Micromanages State Election Systems, Unconstitutionally And Unwisely Interferes With The Authority Of The States, And Restricts The Choices Of Our Citizens’

Democratic state-level election director: “I can’t guarantee it’s not going to be a total clusterfuck the first election.” (Jessica Huseman, Op-Ed, “How This Voting Rights Bill Could Turn the Next Election Into a Clusterf*ck,” Daily Beast, 3/20/2021)

16 CURRENT AND FORMER SECRETARIES OF STATE: “As the chief election officials of our respective states who are responsible for administering the election process, from the registration of voters to their casting of ballots to the counting and tallying of votes, we are writing to express our deep concern over, and opposition to, HR 1. This unnecessary bill federalizes and micromanages state election systems, unconstitutionally and unwisely interferes with the authority of the states, and restricts the choices of our citizens in conducting elections. It also imposes crippling financial mandates on state governments and severely limits our ability to ensure the balance of access and security of the election process, while eliminating the verification of state qualification standards for voters.” (16 Secretaries of State, Letter to Speaker Pelosi and Rep. McCarthy, 3/06/2019)

• 16 CURRENT AND FORMER SECRETARIES OF STATE: “HR 1 creates federal mandates for problems that currently do not exist. No provision of federal law requires states to offer registration on the day of election, to preregister minors to vote, to require weeks of early voting, mandatory online registration, or to offer automatic voter registration simply because the person is on a government list. These are extremely costly mandates that should only become the law of a state after the legislatures of those states decide to implement them. The implementation of automatic voter registration has proven to be more complicated and costly than anticipated. The changes in HR 1 would impose extraordinary expenses to our election infrastructure.” (16 Secretaries of State, Letter to Speaker Pelosi and Rep. McCarthy, 3/06/2019)

20 STATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL: “As the chief legal officers of our states, we write regarding H.R.1, the For the People Act of 2021 (the ‘Act’) and any companion Senate bill. As introduced, the Act betrays several Constitutional deficiencies and alarming mandates that, if passed, would federalize state elections and impose burdensome costs and regulations on state and local officials. Under both the Elections Clause of Article I of the Constitution and the Electors Clause of Article II, States have principal—and with presidential elections, exclusive—responsibility to safeguard the manner of holding elections. The Act would invert that constitutional structure, commandeer state resources, confuse and muddle elections procedures, and erode faith in our elections and systems of governance.” (20 Attorneys General, Letter to Reps. Pelosi and McCarthy and Sens. Schumer and McConnell, 3/03/2021)

• “Despite recent calls for political unity, the Act takes a one-sided approach to governing and usurps states’ authority over elections. With confidence in elections at a record low, the country’s focus should be on building trust in the electoral process. Around the nation, the 2020 general elections generated mass confusion and distrust—problems that the Act would only exacerbate. Should the Act become law, we will seek legal remedies to protect the Constitution, the sovereignty of all states, our elections, and the rights of our citizens.” (20 Attorneys General, Letter to Reps. Pelosi and McCarthy and Sens. Schumer and McConnell, 3/03/2021)

Democrats’ Partisan Election Takeover Still Undermines State Voter ID Laws While Forcing States To Accept Ballot Harvesting

The Legislation Would Still ‘Force All 50 States To Allow The Absurd Practice Of Ballot Harvesting’

SEN. McCONNELL: “[Democrats] want to force all 50 states to allow the absurd practice of ballot harvesting, where paid operatives can show up at polling places carrying a thick stack of filled-out ballots with other people’s names on them.” (Sen. McConnell, Remarks, 2/25/2021)

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL EDITORIAL BOARD: “H.R.1 would overrule state laws against ballot harvesting, letting Americans nationwide ‘designate any person’ to return a vote, provided the carrier ‘does not receive any form of compensation based on the number of ballots.’ Also, states ‘may not put any limit on how many voted and sealed absentee ballots any designated person can return.’ Yes, paid partisan operatives could go door to door, amassing thousands of votes, as long as they billed by the hour.” (Editorial, “Making Every Election Like 2020,” The Wall Street Journal, 3/01/2021)

PAGE 225: “(2) PERMITTING VOTERS TO DESIGNATE OTHER PERSON TO RETURN BALLOT. —The State— (A) shall permit a voter to designate any person to return a voted and sealed absentee ballot to the post office, a ballot drop-off location, tribally designated building, or election office so long as the person designated to return the ballot does not receive any form of compensation based on the number of ballots that the person has returned and no individual, group, or organization provides compensation on this basis; and (B) may not put any limit on how many voted and sealed absentee ballots any designated person can return to the  post office, a ballot drop off location, tribally designated building, or election office.” (S.2093, 117th Congress)

The Democrat Politician Protection Act Still ‘Would Dismantle Meaningful Voter ID Laws’ In State After State

SEN. McCONNELL: “[Democrats] want to forbid states from implementing Voter I.D. or doing simple things like checking their voter rolls against change-of-address submissions.” (Sen. McConnell, Remarks, 2/25/2021)

20 STATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL: “Perhaps most egregious is the Act’s limitations on voter ID laws. Fairly considered, requiring government-issued photo identification at the polls represents nothing more than a best practice for election administration. Government-issued photo identification has been the global standard for documentary identification for decades. … Voter ID laws remain popular, with thirty-five states requiring some form of documentary personal identification at the polls. Yet the Act would dismantle meaningful voter ID laws by allowing a statement, as a substitute for prior-issued, document-backed identification, to “attest[] to the individual’s identity and . . . that the individual is eligible to vote in the election.” This does little to ensure that voters are who they say they are. Worse, it vitiates the capacity of voter ID requirements to protect against improper interference with voting rights. … Robust voter ID laws, however, require all voters to present photo identification, i.e., objective, on-the-spot confirmation of the right to vote that immediately refutes bad-faith challenges based on vaguely articulated suspicions. Fair election laws treat all voters equally. By that standard, the Act is not a fair election law.” (20 Attorneys General, Letter to Reps. Pelosi and McCarthy and Sens. Schumer and McConnell, 3/03/2021)

But Requiring An ID To Vote Remains A Broadly Popular Policy For Americans

“[F]ully 4 in 5 Americans (80%) support requiring voters to show photo identification in order to cast a ballot. Just 18% oppose this.” (“Public Supports Both Early Voting And Requiring Photo ID to Vote,” Monmouth University Polling Institute, 6/21/2021)

“Voter ID, a major component of Georgia’s new election law, is popular among people despite criticism about the measure from Democratic leaders, according to recent polls.” (“Voter ID Rules Popular Among Public: Polls,” Washington Examiner, 4/02/2021)

According to an April Pew Research Center survey, 76% of Americans, including 61% of Democrats, favor “requiring all voters to show government-issued photo identification to vote.” (Pew Research Center, 4/22/2021)

“The [AP-NORC] poll found bipartisan agreement on requiring all voters to provide photo identification at their polling place -- something that more than a dozen mostly Republican-led states have implemented…. Overall, 72% are in favor of requiring voters to provide photo identification to vote, while just 13% are opposed. Ninety-one percent of Republicans and 56% of Democrats are in favor.” (The Associated Press, 4/02/2021)

“[T]he public strongly supports one of the other major stipulations of Georgia’s new law: the ID requirement for absentee voting. That latest YouGov/The Economist poll found that Americans support requiring a photo ID in order to vote absentee, 53 percent to 28 percent. And Georgians are even more supportive: 74 percent of registered voters in the UGA/AJC poll backed requiring voters to include a copy of their photo ID or other documentation in order to vote by mail. Indeed, voter ID laws … are quite popular in general. In another national poll out this week from Selzer & Co./Grinnell College, 56 percent of adults favored keeping laws that require people to show a photo ID before voting, while just 36 percent wanted to eliminate them. And this isn’t an opinion Americans suddenly adopted …  In fall 2018, the Pew Research Center found that 76 percent of Americans favored requiring everyone to show a government-issued photo ID in order to vote, versus only 23 percent who opposed it.” (FiveThirtyEight, 4/02/2021)