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
117th 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)
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 117th 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 117th 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.
