House Resolution 1 - For the People Act 2021 or is it for the Democrat Party?

 

HR1 – FOR THE PEOPLE ACT 2021

Sponsor:	Rep. Sarbanes, John P. [D-MD-3] (Introduced 01/04/2021)
Committees:	House - House Administration; Intelligence (Permanent Select); Judiciary; Oversight and Reform; Science, Space, and Technology; Education and Labor; Ways and Means; Financial Services; Ethics; Homeland Security; Armed Services
Latest Action:	House - 03/03/2021 The Clerk was authorized to correct section numbers, punctuation, and cross references, and to make other necessary technical and conforming corrections in the engrossment of H.R. 1.  (All Actions)
Roll Call Votes:	There have been 8 roll call votes

 

Introduced in House (01/04/2021)

 

117th CONGRESS 1st Session

 

H. R. 1

To expand Americans’ access to the ballot box, reduce the influence of big money in politics, strengthen ethics rules for public servants, and implement other anti-corruption measures for the purpose of fortifying our democracy, and for other purposes.

---

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 4, 2021

Mr. Sarbanes (for himself, Ms. Pelosi, and Ms. Lofgren) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration, and in addition to the Committees on Intelligence (Permanent Select), the Judiciary, Oversight and Reform, Science, Space, and Technology, Education and Labor, Ways and Means, Financial Services, Ethics, Homeland Security, and Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

---

A BILL

To expand Americans’ access to the ballot box, reduce the influence of big money in politics, strengthen ethics rules for public servants, and implement other anti-corruption measures for the purpose of fortifying our democracy, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “For the People Act of 2021”.

SEC. 3. FINDINGS OF GENERAL CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY.

Congress finds that the Constitution of the United States grants explicit and broad authority to protect the right to vote, to regulate elections for Federal office, and to defend the Nation’s democratic process. Congress enacts the “For the People Act of 2021” pursuant to this broad authority, including but not limited to the following:

(1) Congress finds that it has broad authority to regulate the time, place, and manner of congressional elections under the Elections Clause of the Constitution, article I, section 4, clause 1.[Article 1 Section 4 Clause 1 reads: The Times, Places and Manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations except as to the places of chusing senators. As you can see, the Founders stated that it was up to the STATES to regulate elections. What the 117^th Congress is wanting to do is invoke the second half of this clause and nationalize the election process thus eliminating the States authority.] The Supreme Court has affirmed that the “substantive scope” of the Elections Clause is “broad”; that “Times, Places, and Manner” are “comprehensive words which embrace authority to provide for a complete code for congressional elections”; and “[t]he power of Congress over the Times, Places and Manner of congressional elections is paramount, and may be exercised at any time, and to any extent which it deems expedient; and so far as it is exercised, and no farther, the regulations effected supersede those of the State which are inconsistent therewith”. Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, 570 U.S. 1, 8–9 (2013) [Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Ariz., Inc., 570 U.S. 1 (2013)

• Opinions

 

• Audio & Media

• Syllabus

 

• Opinion (Scalia)

 

• Concurrence (Kennedy)

 

• Dissent (Thomas)

 

• Dissent (Alito)

Justia Opinion Summary and Annotations

The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) requires states to accept and use a uniform federal form to register voters for federal elections, 42 U.S.C. 1973gg–4(a)(1). The form developed by the Election Assistance Commission, requires only that an applicant aver, under penalty of perjury, that he is a citizen. Arizona law required rejection of any application for registration, including the federal form, if not accompanied by documentary evidence of citizenship. The district court granted summary judgment, upholding Arizona’s requirement. The Ninth Circuit reversed in part, holding that the requirement is preempted by the NVRA. The Supreme Court affirmed. The Elections Clause imposes on states the duty to prescribe the time, place, and manner of electing Representatives and Senators, but confers on Congress the power to alter those regulations or supplant them altogether. The Clause confers authority to provide a complete code for congressional elections, including regulations relating to “registration.” The NVRA term “accept” implies that the form is to be accepted as sufficient and Congress, when it acts under the Clause, is always on notice that its legislation will displace some element of a state’s preexisting legal regime. While the NVRA forbids states to demand additional information beyond that required by the federal form, it does not preclude states from denying registration based on information in their possession establishing the applicant’s ineligibility. The NVRA can be read to avoid a conflict, however. The NVRA permits a state to request state-specific instructions on the federal form and a state may challenge rejection of that request. That alternative means of enforcing its constitutional power to determine voting qualifications remains open to Arizona.

In other words, the Ninth District Court has undermined the Constitution, once again, by stating that a resident does not have to prove citizenship to vote.](internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Indeed, “Congress has plenary and paramount jurisdiction over the whole subject” of congressional elections, Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. (10 Otto) 371, 388 (1879), and this power “may be exercised as and when Congress sees fit”, and “so far as it extends and conflicts with the regulations of the State, necessarily supersedes them”. Id. At 384. Among other things, Congress finds that the Elections Clause was intended to “vindicate the people’s right to equality of representation in the House”. Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 16 (1964). [In this case the appellants, who were qualified voters in Georgia’s Fifth Congressional District which was two to three times larger than the other districts, were wanting the Congressional districts to be more equal.]

(2) Congress also finds that it has both the authority and responsibility, as the legislative body for the United States, to fulfill the promise of article IV, section 4, of the Constitution, which states: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government[.]”. [Article Four Section Four reads: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened0 against domestic Violence. The definition of Republic, according to the Free Dictionary is: ‘Republic (redirected from republican form of government) Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Financial, Encyclopedia.

Republic

That form of government in which the administration of affairs is open to all the citizens. A political unit or "state," independent of its form of government’ If you notice, it states CITIZENS. As you can plainly see, the Constitution states clearly that it is the United States Government’s responsibility to protect the states from invasion and domestic violence. What happened to that during the riots, looting, arson, and assaults in Minnesota, Washington, Oregon, Illinois, and New York in 2020?]. Congress finds that its authority and responsibility to enforce the Guarantee Clause is particularly strong given that Federal courts have not enforced this clause because they understood that its enforcement is committed to Congress by the Constitution.

(3) (A) Congress also finds that it has broad authority pursuant to section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to legislate to enforce the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment, including its protections of the right to vote and the democratic process. [Fourteenth Amendment

Section 1 All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.

Section 2 Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 5 The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

I believe that the 117^th Congress missed the part about persons being CITIZENS.]

(B) Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right to vote, which is “of the most fundamental significance under our constitutional structure”. Ill. Bd. of Election v. Socialist Workers Party, 440 U.S. 173, 184 (1979); see United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 (1941) (“Obviously included within the right to choose, secured by the Constitution, is the right of qualified voters within a state to cast their ballots and have them counted . . .”). As the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed, the right to vote is “preservative of all rights”, Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886). Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment also protects the right to vote, granting Congress additional authority to reduce a State’s representation in Congress when the right to vote is denied.

(C) As a result, Congress finds that it has the authority pursuant to section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect the right to vote. Congress also finds that States and localities have eroded access to the right to vote through restrictions on the right to vote including excessively onerous voter identification requirements, burdensome voter registration procedures, voter purges, limited and unequal access to voting by mail, polling place closures, unequal distribution of election resources, and other impediments.

(D) Congress also finds that “the right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen’s vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise”. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 555 (1964). Congress finds that the right of suffrage has been so diluted and debased by means of gerrymandering of districts. Congress finds that it has authority pursuant to section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to remedy this debasement.

(4) (A) Congress also finds that it has authority to legislate to eliminate racial discrimination in voting and the democratic process pursuant to both section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which grants equal protection of the laws, and section 2 of the Fifteenth Amendment, which explicitly bars denial or abridgment of the right to vote on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. [But a voter still has to be a CITIZEN]

(B) Congress finds that racial discrimination in access to voting and the political process persists. Voting restrictions, redistricting, and other electoral practices and processes continue to disproportionately impact communities of color in the United States and do so as a result of both intentional racial discrimination, structural racism, and the ongoing structural socioeconomic effects of historical racial discrimination. [Where are the Democrats getting their information from? They NEVER PROVE any of these things are happening, especially when it comes to racial inequality. Bring out the research, Speaker Pelosi and Leader Schumer. Words mean nothing coming from a career politician. Prove to the people of the United States that all this is going on. From what I can see, the only places in the country that minorities are held down are in DEMOCRAT CONTROLLED CITIES AND STATES.]

(C) Recent elections and studies have shown that minority communities wait longer in lines to vote, are more likely to have their mail ballots rejected, continue to face intimidation at the polls, are more likely to be disenfranchised by voter purges, and are disproportionately burdened by voter identification and other voter restrictions. Research shows that communities of color are more likely to face nearly every barrier to voting than their white counterparts. [Once again, where is your research? Prove these allegations.]

(D) Congress finds that racial disparities in disenfranchisement due to past felony convictions is particularly stark. In 2020, according to the Sentencing Project, an estimated 5,200,000 Americans could not vote due to a felony conviction. One in 16 African Americans of voting age is disenfranchised, a rate 3.7 times greater than that of non-African Americans. In seven States–Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wyoming–more than one in seven African Americans is disenfranchised, twice the national average for African Americans. Congress finds that felony disenfranchisement was one of the tools of intentional racial discrimination during the Jim Crow era. Congress further finds that current racial disparities in felony disenfranchisement are linked to this history of voter suppression, structural racism in the criminal justice system, and ongoing effects of historical discrimination. [NCSL.org information: In the District of Columbia, Maine and Vermont, felons never lose their right to vote, even while they are incarcerated.

In 18 states, felons lose their voting rights only while incarcerated, and receive automatic restoration upon release.

In 19 states, felons lose their voting rights during incarceration, and for a period of time after, typically while on parole and/or probation. Voting rights are automatically restored after this time period. Former felons may also have to pay any outstanding fines, fees or restitution before their rights are restored as well.

In 11 states felons lose their voting rights indefinitely for some crimes, or require a governor’s pardon in order for voting rights to be restored, face an additional waiting period after completion of sentence (including parole and probation) or require additional action before voting rights can be restored. These states are listed in the fourth category on Table 1. Details on these states are found in Table 2 below.]

(5) (A) Congress finds that it further has the power to protect the right to vote from denial or abridgment on account of sex, age, or ability to pay a poll tax or other tax pursuant to the Nineteenth, Twenty-Fourth, and Twenty-Sixth Amendments. [I am not aware of ANY state or jurisdiction that doe not allow voting by anyone other than non-citizens. There is no poll, or any other, tax anywhere in the US that I am aware of. As for age and sex, no laws against women or the aged voting. No laws keeping blacks, gays, transsexuals, naturalized citizens, natural citizens, or any other form of CITIZEN from voting.]

(B) Congress finds that electoral practices including voting rights restoration conditions for people with convictions, voter identification requirements, and other restrictions to the franchise burden voters on account of their ability to pay. [Almost every citizen has some form of official ID, whether it be a driver’s license or state issued ID. The only thing this clause intends to do is do completely away with proving that you are a CITIZEN.]

(C) Congress further finds that electoral practices including voting restrictions related to college campuses, age restrictions on mail voting, and similar practices burden the right to vote on account of age. [Once again, where is the PROOF of this allegation? There is no proof. College kids can still vote if they are of legal age. There is no restrictions on that other than they have to vote in their HOME district.]

SEC. 4. STANDARDS FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW.

(a) In General.—If any action is brought for declaratory or injunctive relief to challenge, whether facially or as-applied, the constitutionality of any provision of this Act or any amendment made by this Act or any rule or regulation promulgated under this Act, the following rules shall apply:

(1) The action shall be filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and an appeal from the decision of the district court may be taken to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. [This clause is put in there so that no one can say it cannot be challenged. What the 117^th Congress is attempting to do here is keep it where they know it will be upheld by a liberal court. And, by demanding that it be done in Washington, DC it is paramount to one of the complaints of the Colonies of having to travel long distance to have a case heard by a court.]

(2) The party filing the action shall concurrently deliver a copy the complaint to the Clerk of the House of Representatives and the Secretary of the Senate. [Once again, traveling long distance, making it difficult to file, demanding unreasonable restrictions. This is why the Colonies declared independence from the Crown. This is a form of tyranny.]

(3) It shall be the duty of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and the Supreme Court of the United States to advance on the docket and to expedite to the greatest possible extent the disposition of the action and appeal.

(b) Intervention By Members Of Congress.—In any action described in subsection (a), any Member of the House of Representatives (including a Delegate or Resident Commissioner to the Congress) or Senate shall have the right to intervene either in support of or opposition to the position of a party to the case regarding the constitutionality of the provision. To avoid duplication of efforts and reduce the burdens placed on the parties to the action, the court in any such action may make such orders as it considers necessary, including orders to require interveners taking similar positions to file joint papers or to be represented by a single attorney at oral argument.

 

This is just the start of this horrendous, anti-Constitutional law. It allows online registration, no signature verification, mandatory mail-in ballots, no purging of outdated records, and it goes on and on and on. This entire bill is, in effect, doing away with all election law and protection. It will allow widespread fraud and corruption. The worst part of it is that it disenfranchises millions of CITIZENS and effectively does away with the Constitutional provisions of the people electing their representatives and the Electoral College.

 

Wake up, Patriots! The Democrats are out to win at all costs. They have proven they are not for America. Opening the borders, inviting millions of illegals into the country, killing tens of thousands of jobs, passing bill after bill that sends trillions of American taxpayer dollars overseas and to Party backers while leaving the American people homeless and hungry. This bill, HR1 is just ONE BILL that destroys what the Founders built. With the Democrats in control of the House and Senate (with the deciding vote laid at the hands of the Vice President), and the White House, they are pushing through such socialistic laws that our rights and freedoms will be gone in a matter of months.

 

They have bills in the works to do away with the Second Amendment, they are already silencing the conservative voice, and once the First and Second are gone the rest will go soon after.