CDZ Why are republicans opposed to HR1?

[asaratis]

Not unconstitutional.

At least 20 state Attorneys general disagree with you...

Twenty Republican Attorneys General Argue HR1 Is Unconstitutional - Tennessee Star

Twenty Republican attorneys general argue that HR1, the “For the People Act,” which passed the U.S. House late in the night on Wednesday, is unconstitutional.

tennesseestar.com

The constitutional deficiencies they mention are “only the beginning of the Act’s problems,” they argue, listing issues others have raised, including eliminating state voter identification laws, limiting how states maintain voter registration, creating a federal registration database, and much more.

“Perhaps most egregious is the Act’s limitations on voter ID laws,” they argue. Thirty-five states currently require some form of documentary personal identification in order to vote, which the bill would seek to eliminate.

Attorneys general of the following states signed the letter: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia.

The Heritage Foundation

Since our founding in 1973, The Heritage Foundation has been working to advance the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.

www.heritage.org

Testimony before Committee on the Judiciary
United States House of Representatives


Hans von Spakovsky is an authority on a wide range of issues—including civil rights, civil justice, the First Amendment, immigration.

Below are selected portions of his testimony.

Title I, Subtitle E, Section 1401 of H.R. 1 mandates that states that take away the right of a criminal to vote when he/she is convicted of a felony restore that ability to vote the moment the felon is released from a "correctional institution or facility.,, This provision is clearly unconstitutional. The issue is not whether it is good public policy to restore the right of a felon to vote after release from prison, or only after the felon has finished probation and paid any ordered fines or restitution to victims, or only after a waiting period in which the felon proves that he/she has turned over a new leaf. The issue here is that Congress cannot override the Constitution with a federal statute.


The Fourteenth Amendment was one of the key post-Civil War, Reconstruction amendments sponsored and passed by Republicans - the party of Abraham Lincoln and abolition - to help secure the rights of black Americans. These same members of Congress deliberately protected the rights of states to withhold the right to vote from citizens who are convicted of serious crimes against their fellow citizens. Section 2 of the amendment specifically provides that states may abridge the right to vote "for participation in rebellion or other crime.,, By doing so, Congress recognized a process that goes back to ancient Greece and Rome. Such restrictions were adopted by states after the American Revolution; by the beginning of the Civil War, 70% of states had statutes barring felons from voting.13


It is true that a handful of statistics tried to use this provision during Reconstruction and afterward to disenfranchise black voters. However, all those laws have been amended, as they had to be in order to avoid being struck down as discriminatory, as the U.S. Supreme Court did in 1985 with Alabama's law in Hunter v. Underwood. 14


The bottom line is that states have the ability under the Fourteenth Amendment to take away the ability of felons to vote in both state and federal elections. Furthermore, states have the constitutional authority to decide when or if to restore that right, as long as they do so in a manner that is not racially discriminatory under the Constitution.


As the Supreme Court has said, "[p]rescribing voting qualifications...'forms no part of the power to be conferred upon the national government"' by the Elections Clause of the Constitution. The only way that Congress could force states to automatically restore the right of felons to vote as soon as they are out of prison is by passing a constitutional amendment that is then also approved by three-fourths of the states under the procedures outlined in Article V of the Constitution.

Title I, Subtitle C, Sec. 1201 of H.R. 1 prohibits what some advocates refer to as "vote caging," which the bill in essence defines as election officials using the United States Postal Service's (USPS) national change of address (NCOA) system to verify the address of registered voters. Nothing about this verification process, however, is either sinister or suspect. Indeed, federal law (specifically, the NVRA) expressly sanctions this activity. Congress previously determined - quite correctly - that the NCOA database, which consists of change-of-address requests submitted by individuals to the USPS when moving, would help election officials identify registered voters who have moved out of their dist rict .6
....


This provision of H.R. 1 additionally imposes federal restrictions and procedural rules on the ability of individual voters to challenge the eligibility of another voter who they believe is not qualified to vote, including imposing a criminal penalty. The procedures for such challenges are strictly within the province of state law since they deal with the qualification of a voter; as long as the challenges are not being done in a racially discriminatory manner that would violate the VRA, the federal government does not have the constitutional authority to dictate to the states the procedural rules used for determining the qualifications of a voter.

Title II, Subtitle E, Section 2400 et seq. of H.R. 1 forces states to establish independent redistricting commissions to draw the boundaries of congressional districts and alternatively gives a three-judge court of the U.S. District of the District of Columbia the authority to draw such districts if the plan of the commission is not enacted into law. This provision is an unfair and unwise interference into the right of the voters and citizens of particular states to make their own decisions, either through the referendum process 19 or through their elected representatives in the state legislatures, on what is the best way of choosing members of Congress from their state. It is potentially unconstitutional, too.


We are a federal system, one in which we have a federal government and fifty independent and sovereign state governments. The forms of state governments vary across the nation, from the organization and operation of state legislatures, the selection of judges, the election or appointment of state officials, the rules that govern election campaigns, and the duties of different state executive officers. This system was deliberately and intentionally chosen by our Founders when they wrote our Constitution and it has been a stable system that has carried us through civil war, two world wars and other conflicts, and both good and bad economic times.


The citizens of different states, for example, have made different choices about how to draw legislative districts, with many leaving it to their state legislatures and others, such as California and Arizona, establishing independent commissions. H.R. 1 would take away the ability of voters to make their own choice about how congressional districts should be drawn. This obviously anti-democratic measure would replace elected state representatives with unelected, appointed members of a commission - members who are unaccountable to the voters in elections.


In states where the legislature draws districts, the regular political process influences redistricting as it does other political issues. Citizens can vote out of office legislators whose redistricting decisions they don't like. If a state's own electorate - either directly through a referendum process or indirectly through its elected legislators- opts for a redistricting commission, so be it. But where an unelected commission has been thrust upon voters via federal law, citizens have no recourse to alter the process or the results since H.R. l's Section 2412 dictates all the details of the commissions.


As if this was not bad enough, the second part of Section 2402 of the bill potentially punts redistricting decisions to unelected federal judges in Washington, D.C. The real problem here, though, is not political. The problem is that conferring such power on federal courts to draw redistricting plans is a stark violation of the U.S. Constitution's separation of powers. Federal courts get involved in drawing redistricting plans only if the plan drawn by a state legislature or a commission is discriminatory and violates either the VRA or the "one person, one vote" standard of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Cla use.20


This bill would give the judicial branch established under Article Ill of the Constitution the right to draw the boundaries of legislative districts not only when there has been a violation of the


law, but also when an independent commission has not adopted a plan by a particular date or a commission has not been established. That is an entirely different circumstance. In so doing, the bill transfers to the judiciary a power that the Elections Clause of the Constitution exclusively gives to the legislative branch. That violates basic separation of powers principles as well as the delegation doctrine. It is antidemocratic and unconstitutional.

Title VII, Subtitle A, Section 7001 of H.R. 1 requires the Judicial Conference of the United States, which is chaired by the Chief Justice, to establish a mandatory "code of conduct" (ethics rules) for the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. This is potentially unconstitutional as a violation of the separation of powers principle of the Constitution.


Article Ill states that the "judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." Three such inferior courts exist today-the U.S. District Courts, the U.S. Courts of Appeal, and the U.S. Court of International Trade. Congress can mandate that these courts follow codes of judicial conduct and ethics rules because Congress created those courts.


The Constitution, not Congress, created the Supreme Court. It is an independent, co-equal branch. In the same way that the Justices cannot dictate what ethics rules apply to members of Congress or the president, it is highly questionable whether Congress can dictate the ethics rules that apply to the Supreme Court.


As Chief Justice John Roberts explained in his "2011 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary," the current Code of Conduct for federal judges applies only to lower federal court judges because there is "a fundamental difference between the Supreme Court and the other federal courts" under Article Ill.21 Since the Judicial Conference was established by Congress "for the benefit of the courts it created" and is "an instrument for the management of the lower federal courts, its committees have no mandate to prescribe rules or standards for any other body." 22


According to the Chief Justice, the Justices use the current Code of Conduct for the lower courts as guidance, as well as "a wide variety of other authorities to resolve specific ethics issues." He points out that while Congress has "directed Justices and judges to comply with both financial reporting requirements and limitations on the receipt of gifts and outside earned income," the Supreme Court has "never addressed whether Congress may impose those requirements on the Supreme Court." This is a very subtle way for the Chief Justice to point out that there may be a serious constitutional problem under Article Ill with Congress trying to impose such mandates on the justices, although they comply with the current provisions voluntarily.

Title VII, Subtitle D, Section 7301 of H.R. 1 would ban political appointees of a president from any involvement in any matter- including litigation - in which the president (or his spouse) is a party and includes any entity in which the president or his spouse has a "substantial interest." It transfers responsibility for that matter to a "career appointee in the agency." This is an unconstitutional provision that violates the principle of separation of powers and directly interferes with the president's constitutional duties.


Article II, Section 3 provides the duty of the president to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." This provision would apply to any litigation against a president's policies, programs, executive orders, or his enforcement of a particular federal statute that names the president. It would prevent the president's political subordinates, such as the Attorney General or the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, from participating in, directing the defense of, or assisting in any matter in which the president has been named as a party.


If this provision had been the law when Barack Obama was president, the parties challenging Obama's Deferred Action for Parents of Childhood Arrivals program in the litigation filed by Texas and 25 other states could have easily named Obama as a specific party. Then neither Attorney General Loretta Lynch nor DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson could have participated in the defense of the lawsuit.


Similarly, President Donald Trump's attorney general and DHS secretary would have been barred from participating in the defense of the president's executive orders restricting the entry of aliens from certain terrorist safe havens since he was a named party in Trump v. Hawaii, the litigation in which the Supreme Court upheld those executive orders. 27


This proposed amendment to federal law violates the Constitution and tries to prevent a president from being able to rely on his own appointees in defending his "faithful" execution of the law and in implementing his policies and programs.

Conclusion


My testimony has only covered the portions of H.R. 1 under the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee. As I have explained, many of these provisions are clearly unconstitutional, redundant of federal laws already in place, and simply bad public policy. Many of the provisions I have not covered that affect federal campaign finance law seem intended to protect incumbents, discourage challengers, make it more difficult for the public to participate in politics by chilling political speech and activity, and impose onerous compliance costs. Other provisions on elections come at the expense of federalism and appear intended to nationalize and micromanage the election process, interfere with the right of states to administer elections and determine the qualifications of the electorate, and damage the integrity and security of the election system.


Sometimes legislation proposed by Congress is bad policy; sometimes it is unnecessary; and sometimes it is unconstitutional. H.R. 1 is all three.

 

[asaratis]

The enabling of voting by non-citizens and the preventing of states to purge their registration rolls of dead people and people that have moved out of precinct is unconstitutional. Both of these are included in HR1.

Lol, no. Those things are not in the bill. I read it, did you? I posted a link to the full text earlier.

Perhaps you should read it again. Yes, they are in the bill. Check out my most previous reply to you ^^^^^.

I am hereby done with trying to convince YOU.

However, I may post more about the unconstitutionality of this "For the Democrat Party" Bill in this thread or elsewhere on the forum for the benefit of intelligent readers that may care about hearing something other than your lies.

 

[Synthaholic]

How the fuck do you explain the voter fraud convictions if voter fraud is just a myth, you low IQ piece of subhuman garbage?

You mean the Republican ones?

I'm crazy?

Pennsylvania Republican slapped with felony charges for casting ballot for long-dead mother

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The enabling of voting by non-citizens and the preventing of states to purge their registration rolls of dead people and people that have moved out of precinct is unconstitutional. Both of these are included in HR1.

Lol, no. Those things are not in the bill. I read it, did you? I posted a link to the full text earlier.

yes as a matter of fact the bill denies the states the right to purge their rolls and the auto registration system ensures that illegals will be registered.

 

[Muhammed]

How the fuck do you explain the voter fraud convictions if voter fraud is just a myth, you low IQ piece of subhuman garbage?

You mean the Republican ones?

I'm crazy?

Yes. And stupid too.

 

[Crepitus]

The enabling of voting by non-citizens and the preventing of states to purge their registration rolls of dead people and people that have moved out of precinct is unconstitutional. Both of these are included in HR1.

Lol, no. Those things are not in the bill. I read it, did you? I posted a link to the full text earlier.

yes as a matter of fact the bill denies the states the right to purge their rolls and the auto registration system ensures that illegals will be registered.

Wrong on both counts. Rolls can still be purged, just not with impunity for the purpose of voter supression. They must kiss more than one election, and be notified by mail.and given the chance to remedy the issue.

Auto registration doesn't enroll illegals.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The enabling of voting by non-citizens and the preventing of states to purge their registration rolls of dead people and people that have moved out of precinct is unconstitutional. Both of these are included in HR1.

Lol, no. Those things are not in the bill. I read it, did you? I posted a link to the full text earlier.

yes as a matter of fact the bill denies the states the right to purge their rolls and the auto registration system ensures that illegals will be registered.

Wrong on both counts. Rolls can still be purged, just not with impunity for the purpose of voter supression. They must kiss more than one election, and be notified by mail.and given the chance to remedy the issue.

Auto registration doesn't enroll illegals.

the auto registration in this bill has no requirement for identifying the person for verifying status or eligability. It auto registers everyone that does the thing listed. That means any illegal that preforms that function is auto registered. NC had auto registration for drivers license then started giving licenses to illegals, it took a special act of the legislature to ensure illegals were not auto registered too.

 

[Crepitus]

The enabling of voting by non-citizens and the preventing of states to purge their registration rolls of dead people and people that have moved out of precinct is unconstitutional. Both of these are included in HR1.

Lol, no. Those things are not in the bill. I read it, did you? I posted a link to the full text earlier.

yes as a matter of fact the bill denies the states the right to purge their rolls and the auto registration system ensures that illegals will be registered.

Wrong on both counts. Rolls can still be purged, just not with impunity for the purpose of voter supression. They must kiss more than one election, and be notified by mail.and given the chance to remedy the issue.

Auto registration doesn't enroll illegals.

the auto registration in this bill has no requirement for identifying the person for verifying status or eligability. It auto registers everyone that does the thing listed. That means any illegal that preforms that function is auto registered. NC had auto registration for drivers license then started giving licenses to illegals, it took a special act of the legislature to ensure illegals were not auto registered too.

Don't be silly. How are you gonna register unidentified people?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The enabling of voting by non-citizens and the preventing of states to purge their registration rolls of dead people and people that have moved out of precinct is unconstitutional. Both of these are included in HR1.

Lol, no. Those things are not in the bill. I read it, did you? I posted a link to the full text earlier.

yes as a matter of fact the bill denies the states the right to purge their rolls and the auto registration system ensures that illegals will be registered.

Wrong on both counts. Rolls can still be purged, just not with impunity for the purpose of voter supression. They must kiss more than one election, and be notified by mail.and given the chance to remedy the issue.

Auto registration doesn't enroll illegals.

the auto registration in this bill has no requirement for identifying the person for verifying status or eligability. It auto registers everyone that does the thing listed. That means any illegal that preforms that function is auto registered. NC had auto registration for drivers license then started giving licenses to illegals, it took a special act of the legislature to ensure illegals were not auto registered too.

Don't be silly. How are you gonna register unidentified people?

Unless the ID is marked then everyone is registered. last I checked the states giving IF to illegals dont want the fed to know by checking ID so they are NOT marked. Meaning any illegal getting the id is registered. Dumb ass. Any illegal with the ID that does any of the listed things is REGISTERED,

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Why are republicans opposed to HR1?

It's seems to me there is nothing but good in this bill. Someone please explain why the republicans hate it.

H.R. 1 FACT SHEET

CLEAN AND FAIR ELECTIONS

Improve Access – H.R. 1 expands access to the ballot box by taking aim at institutional barriers to voting, including cumbersome voter registration systems, disenfranchisement and limited voting hours. H.R. 1 will create automatic voter registration across the country, ensure that individuals who have completed felony sentences have their full voting rights restored, expand early voting and enhance absentee voting, simplify voting by mail, reduce long lines and wait times for voters and modernize America’s voting system.

Promote Integrity – H.R. 1 commits Congress to build the record necessary to restore the Voting Rights Act, as embodied by the House-passed H.R. 4. It also commits Congress to deliver full congressional voting rights and self-government for the residents of the District of Columbia, which only statehood can provide, prohibits voter roll purges like those seen in Ohio, Georgia and elsewhere and ends partisan gerrymandering to prevent politicians from picking their voters.

Ensure Security – H.R. 1 ensures that American elections are decided by American voters, without interference, by enhancing federal support for voting system security, particularly with paper ballots and also by increasing oversight of election system vendors and by requiring the development of a national strategy to protect U.S. democratic institutions.

END THE DOMINANCE OF BIG MONEY IN OUR POLITICS

Guarantee Disclosure – H.R. 1 shines a light on dark money in politics by upgrading online political ad disclosure and requiring all organizations involved in political activity to disclose their large donors. H.R. 1 also breaks the so-called ‘nesting-doll’ sham that allows big-money contributors and special interests to hide the true funding source of their political spending.

Empower Citizens – H.R. 1 strengthens the political power of hardworking Americans by creating a multiple matching system for small donations. This innovative, 21st-century system of citizen-owned elections will break the stranglehold of special interests on Congress and lay the groundwork for an agenda that meets the needs of the American people. The voluntary multiple matching system will be completely paid for by a new surcharge on corporate law breakers and wealthy tax cheats. That way, the individuals and corporations who break the public trust – like Wells Fargo, which created fake bank accounts for unwitting customers, or Volkswagen, which lied about harmful carbon emissions from its vehicles, or Facebook, which violates Americans’ privacy, or Purdue Pharma, which fueled the opioid crisis – bear the cost of building a more just and equitable democracy. H.R. 1 also reaffirms Congress’ authority to regulate money in politics, pushing back on the Supreme Court’s wrong-headed Citizens United decision.

Strengthen Oversight – H.R. 1 ensures that there are cops on the campaign finance beat that will enforce the laws on the books. H.R. 1 tightens rules on super PACs and restructures the Federal Election Commission to break the gridlock and enhance its enforcement mechanisms. It also repeals Mitch McConnell’s riders that prevent government agencies from requiring commonsense disclosure of political spending.

ENSURE PUBLIC SERVANTS WORK FOR THE PUBLIC INTEREST

Fortify Ethics Law – H.R. 1 breaks the influence economy in Washington and increases accountability by expanding conflict of interest law and divestment requirements, slowing the revolving door, preventing Members of Congress from serving on corporate boards and requiring presidents to disclose their tax returns.

Impose Greater Ethics Enforcement – H.R. 1 gives teeth to federal ethics oversight by overhauling the Office of Government Ethics, closing loopholes for lobbyists and foreign agents, ensuring watchdogs have sufficient resources to enforce the law and creating a code of ethics for the Supreme Court.

HR1, the For the People Act

sarbanes.house.gov

.

bigger question is why are democrats for it???

it basically takes away a lot of individual freedom and increases the power of government...

that is the million dollar question the fact it takes away individual rights.

 

[Crepitus]

What

that is the million dollar question the fact it takes away individual

What rights does it take away?

 

[Synthaholic]

How the fuck do you explain the voter fraud convictions if voter fraud is just a myth, you low IQ piece of subhuman garbage?

You mean the Republican ones?

I'm crazy?

Yes. And stupid too.

Thank you for the win.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Is HR1 that bill that makes it easier for the Corrupt and Racist Democrat Party to violate the Voting Rights of American citizens?
Why are the Progressives so opposed to the Right to Vote?

 

[asaratis]

Is HR1 that bill that makes it easier for the Corrupt and Racist Democrat Party to violate the Voting Rights of American citizens?
Why are the Progressives so opposed to the Right to Vote?
View attachment 470865

This article concisely defines much of what this blatantly unconstitutional bill that has been craftily designed by the socialist/Marxist/communist Democrat Party and euphemistically labeled as "For the People" will do for the socialist/Marxist/communist Democrat Party. Their goal is to completely destroy the constitutional Republic that we call the United States of America.

Any congress member that votes for this bill should be tried for and convicted of treason.

False Narrative Pushing H.R.1 - Do Not Believe It

H.R.1 is a bill that will undermine American workers and businesses. It will be catastrophic for our economy and for the future of our country

amac.us

 

[Grumblenuts]

Jesus. What an incredible waste of time, banging out way over the top screeds like that just to smear people on the left. Life is short. Best get one before it's gone.

 

[asaratis]

Jesus. What an incredible waste of time, banging out way over the top screeds like that just to smear people on the left. Life is short. Best get one before it's gone.

It's evident that the left doesn't want the truth to be exposed about this power-grabbing bill. Why don't you try to rebut some of the claims made rather than summarily dismissing them? Your childish one-liners do not impress me...at all.

 

[InspectorDetector]

Why are republicans opposed to HR1?

It's seems to me there is nothing but good in this bill. Someone please explain why the republicans hate it.

H.R. 1 FACT SHEET

CLEAN AND FAIR ELECTIONS

Improve Access – H.R. 1 expands access to the ballot box by taking aim at institutional barriers to voting, including cumbersome voter registration systems, disenfranchisement and limited voting hours. H.R. 1 will create automatic voter registration across the country, ensure that individuals who have completed felony sentences have their full voting rights restored, expand early voting and enhance absentee voting, simplify voting by mail, reduce long lines and wait times for voters and modernize America’s voting system.

Promote Integrity – H.R. 1 commits Congress to build the record necessary to restore the Voting Rights Act, as embodied by the House-passed H.R. 4. It also commits Congress to deliver full congressional voting rights and self-government for the residents of the District of Columbia, which only statehood can provide, prohibits voter roll purges like those seen in Ohio, Georgia and elsewhere and ends partisan gerrymandering to prevent politicians from picking their voters.

Ensure Security – H.R. 1 ensures that American elections are decided by American voters, without interference, by enhancing federal support for voting system security, particularly with paper ballots and also by increasing oversight of election system vendors and by requiring the development of a national strategy to protect U.S. democratic institutions.

END THE DOMINANCE OF BIG MONEY IN OUR POLITICS

Guarantee Disclosure – H.R. 1 shines a light on dark money in politics by upgrading online political ad disclosure and requiring all organizations involved in political activity to disclose their large donors. H.R. 1 also breaks the so-called ‘nesting-doll’ sham that allows big-money contributors and special interests to hide the true funding source of their political spending.

Empower Citizens – H.R. 1 strengthens the political power of hardworking Americans by creating a multiple matching system for small donations. This innovative, 21st-century system of citizen-owned elections will break the stranglehold of special interests on Congress and lay the groundwork for an agenda that meets the needs of the American people. The voluntary multiple matching system will be completely paid for by a new surcharge on corporate law breakers and wealthy tax cheats. That way, the individuals and corporations who break the public trust – like Wells Fargo, which created fake bank accounts for unwitting customers, or Volkswagen, which lied about harmful carbon emissions from its vehicles, or Facebook, which violates Americans’ privacy, or Purdue Pharma, which fueled the opioid crisis – bear the cost of building a more just and equitable democracy. H.R. 1 also reaffirms Congress’ authority to regulate money in politics, pushing back on the Supreme Court’s wrong-headed Citizens United decision.

Strengthen Oversight – H.R. 1 ensures that there are cops on the campaign finance beat that will enforce the laws on the books. H.R. 1 tightens rules on super PACs and restructures the Federal Election Commission to break the gridlock and enhance its enforcement mechanisms. It also repeals Mitch McConnell’s riders that prevent government agencies from requiring commonsense disclosure of political spending.

ENSURE PUBLIC SERVANTS WORK FOR THE PUBLIC INTEREST

Fortify Ethics Law – H.R. 1 breaks the influence economy in Washington and increases accountability by expanding conflict of interest law and divestment requirements, slowing the revolving door, preventing Members of Congress from serving on corporate boards and requiring presidents to disclose their tax returns.

Impose Greater Ethics Enforcement – H.R. 1 gives teeth to federal ethics oversight by overhauling the Office of Government Ethics, closing loopholes for lobbyists and foreign agents, ensuring watchdogs have sufficient resources to enforce the law and creating a code of ethics for the Supreme Court.

HR1, the For the People Act

sarbanes.house.gov

.

bigger question is why are democrats for it???

it basically takes away a lot of individual freedom and increases the power of government...

Not to mention of course, that it takes much of the power of the individual sate and transfers it to the federal government which flies directly in the face of the Constitution.

 

[Crepitus]

Why are republicans opposed to HR1?

It's seems to me there is nothing but good in this bill. Someone please explain why the republicans hate it.

H.R. 1 FACT SHEET

CLEAN AND FAIR ELECTIONS

Improve Access – H.R. 1 expands access to the ballot box by taking aim at institutional barriers to voting, including cumbersome voter registration systems, disenfranchisement and limited voting hours. H.R. 1 will create automatic voter registration across the country, ensure that individuals who have completed felony sentences have their full voting rights restored, expand early voting and enhance absentee voting, simplify voting by mail, reduce long lines and wait times for voters and modernize America’s voting system.

Promote Integrity – H.R. 1 commits Congress to build the record necessary to restore the Voting Rights Act, as embodied by the House-passed H.R. 4. It also commits Congress to deliver full congressional voting rights and self-government for the residents of the District of Columbia, which only statehood can provide, prohibits voter roll purges like those seen in Ohio, Georgia and elsewhere and ends partisan gerrymandering to prevent politicians from picking their voters.

Ensure Security – H.R. 1 ensures that American elections are decided by American voters, without interference, by enhancing federal support for voting system security, particularly with paper ballots and also by increasing oversight of election system vendors and by requiring the development of a national strategy to protect U.S. democratic institutions.

END THE DOMINANCE OF BIG MONEY IN OUR POLITICS

Guarantee Disclosure – H.R. 1 shines a light on dark money in politics by upgrading online political ad disclosure and requiring all organizations involved in political activity to disclose their large donors. H.R. 1 also breaks the so-called ‘nesting-doll’ sham that allows big-money contributors and special interests to hide the true funding source of their political spending.

Empower Citizens – H.R. 1 strengthens the political power of hardworking Americans by creating a multiple matching system for small donations. This innovative, 21st-century system of citizen-owned elections will break the stranglehold of special interests on Congress and lay the groundwork for an agenda that meets the needs of the American people. The voluntary multiple matching system will be completely paid for by a new surcharge on corporate law breakers and wealthy tax cheats. That way, the individuals and corporations who break the public trust – like Wells Fargo, which created fake bank accounts for unwitting customers, or Volkswagen, which lied about harmful carbon emissions from its vehicles, or Facebook, which violates Americans’ privacy, or Purdue Pharma, which fueled the opioid crisis – bear the cost of building a more just and equitable democracy. H.R. 1 also reaffirms Congress’ authority to regulate money in politics, pushing back on the Supreme Court’s wrong-headed Citizens United decision.

Strengthen Oversight – H.R. 1 ensures that there are cops on the campaign finance beat that will enforce the laws on the books. H.R. 1 tightens rules on super PACs and restructures the Federal Election Commission to break the gridlock and enhance its enforcement mechanisms. It also repeals Mitch McConnell’s riders that prevent government agencies from requiring commonsense disclosure of political spending.

ENSURE PUBLIC SERVANTS WORK FOR THE PUBLIC INTEREST

Fortify Ethics Law – H.R. 1 breaks the influence economy in Washington and increases accountability by expanding conflict of interest law and divestment requirements, slowing the revolving door, preventing Members of Congress from serving on corporate boards and requiring presidents to disclose their tax returns.

Impose Greater Ethics Enforcement – H.R. 1 gives teeth to federal ethics oversight by overhauling the Office of Government Ethics, closing loopholes for lobbyists and foreign agents, ensuring watchdogs have sufficient resources to enforce the law and creating a code of ethics for the Supreme Court.

HR1, the For the People Act

sarbanes.house.gov

.

bigger question is why are democrats for it???

it basically takes away a lot of individual freedom and increases the power of government...

Not to mention of course, that it takes much of the power of the individual sate and transfers it to the federal government which flies directly in the face of the Constitution.

What powers is it taking from the state?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Why are republicans opposed to HR1?

It's seems to me there is nothing but good in this bill. Someone please explain why the republicans hate it.

H.R. 1 FACT SHEET

CLEAN AND FAIR ELECTIONS

Improve Access – H.R. 1 expands access to the ballot box by taking aim at institutional barriers to voting, including cumbersome voter registration systems, disenfranchisement and limited voting hours. H.R. 1 will create automatic voter registration across the country, ensure that individuals who have completed felony sentences have their full voting rights restored, expand early voting and enhance absentee voting, simplify voting by mail, reduce long lines and wait times for voters and modernize America’s voting system.

Promote Integrity – H.R. 1 commits Congress to build the record necessary to restore the Voting Rights Act, as embodied by the House-passed H.R. 4. It also commits Congress to deliver full congressional voting rights and self-government for the residents of the District of Columbia, which only statehood can provide, prohibits voter roll purges like those seen in Ohio, Georgia and elsewhere and ends partisan gerrymandering to prevent politicians from picking their voters.

Ensure Security – H.R. 1 ensures that American elections are decided by American voters, without interference, by enhancing federal support for voting system security, particularly with paper ballots and also by increasing oversight of election system vendors and by requiring the development of a national strategy to protect U.S. democratic institutions.

END THE DOMINANCE OF BIG MONEY IN OUR POLITICS

Guarantee Disclosure – H.R. 1 shines a light on dark money in politics by upgrading online political ad disclosure and requiring all organizations involved in political activity to disclose their large donors. H.R. 1 also breaks the so-called ‘nesting-doll’ sham that allows big-money contributors and special interests to hide the true funding source of their political spending.

Empower Citizens – H.R. 1 strengthens the political power of hardworking Americans by creating a multiple matching system for small donations. This innovative, 21st-century system of citizen-owned elections will break the stranglehold of special interests on Congress and lay the groundwork for an agenda that meets the needs of the American people. The voluntary multiple matching system will be completely paid for by a new surcharge on corporate law breakers and wealthy tax cheats. That way, the individuals and corporations who break the public trust – like Wells Fargo, which created fake bank accounts for unwitting customers, or Volkswagen, which lied about harmful carbon emissions from its vehicles, or Facebook, which violates Americans’ privacy, or Purdue Pharma, which fueled the opioid crisis – bear the cost of building a more just and equitable democracy. H.R. 1 also reaffirms Congress’ authority to regulate money in politics, pushing back on the Supreme Court’s wrong-headed Citizens United decision.

Strengthen Oversight – H.R. 1 ensures that there are cops on the campaign finance beat that will enforce the laws on the books. H.R. 1 tightens rules on super PACs and restructures the Federal Election Commission to break the gridlock and enhance its enforcement mechanisms. It also repeals Mitch McConnell’s riders that prevent government agencies from requiring commonsense disclosure of political spending.

ENSURE PUBLIC SERVANTS WORK FOR THE PUBLIC INTEREST

Fortify Ethics Law – H.R. 1 breaks the influence economy in Washington and increases accountability by expanding conflict of interest law and divestment requirements, slowing the revolving door, preventing Members of Congress from serving on corporate boards and requiring presidents to disclose their tax returns.

Impose Greater Ethics Enforcement – H.R. 1 gives teeth to federal ethics oversight by overhauling the Office of Government Ethics, closing loopholes for lobbyists and foreign agents, ensuring watchdogs have sufficient resources to enforce the law and creating a code of ethics for the Supreme Court.

HR1, the For the People Act

sarbanes.house.gov

.

bigger question is why are democrats for it???

it basically takes away a lot of individual freedom and increases the power of government...

Not to mention of course, that it takes much of the power of the individual sate and transfers it to the federal government which flies directly in the face of the Constitution.

What powers is it taking from the state?

Lots, for example all but California ban harvesting

 

[Crepitus]

Because?

Why are republicans opposed to HR1?

It's seems to me there is nothing but good in this bill. Someone please explain why the republicans hate it.

H.R. 1 FACT SHEET

CLEAN AND FAIR ELECTIONS

Improve Access – H.R. 1 expands access to the ballot box by taking aim at institutional barriers to voting, including cumbersome voter registration systems, disenfranchisement and limited voting hours. H.R. 1 will create automatic voter registration across the country, ensure that individuals who have completed felony sentences have their full voting rights restored, expand early voting and enhance absentee voting, simplify voting by mail, reduce long lines and wait times for voters and modernize America’s voting system.

Promote Integrity – H.R. 1 commits Congress to build the record necessary to restore the Voting Rights Act, as embodied by the House-passed H.R. 4. It also commits Congress to deliver full congressional voting rights and self-government for the residents of the District of Columbia, which only statehood can provide, prohibits voter roll purges like those seen in Ohio, Georgia and elsewhere and ends partisan gerrymandering to prevent politicians from picking their voters.

Ensure Security – H.R. 1 ensures that American elections are decided by American voters, without interference, by enhancing federal support for voting system security, particularly with paper ballots and also by increasing oversight of election system vendors and by requiring the development of a national strategy to protect U.S. democratic institutions.

END THE DOMINANCE OF BIG MONEY IN OUR POLITICS

Guarantee Disclosure – H.R. 1 shines a light on dark money in politics by upgrading online political ad disclosure and requiring all organizations involved in political activity to disclose their large donors. H.R. 1 also breaks the so-called ‘nesting-doll’ sham that allows big-money contributors and special interests to hide the true funding source of their political spending.

Empower Citizens – H.R. 1 strengthens the political power of hardworking Americans by creating a multiple matching system for small donations. This innovative, 21st-century system of citizen-owned elections will break the stranglehold of special interests on Congress and lay the groundwork for an agenda that meets the needs of the American people. The voluntary multiple matching system will be completely paid for by a new surcharge on corporate law breakers and wealthy tax cheats. That way, the individuals and corporations who break the public trust – like Wells Fargo, which created fake bank accounts for unwitting customers, or Volkswagen, which lied about harmful carbon emissions from its vehicles, or Facebook, which violates Americans’ privacy, or Purdue Pharma, which fueled the opioid crisis – bear the cost of building a more just and equitable democracy. H.R. 1 also reaffirms Congress’ authority to regulate money in politics, pushing back on the Supreme Court’s wrong-headed Citizens United decision.

Strengthen Oversight – H.R. 1 ensures that there are cops on the campaign finance beat that will enforce the laws on the books. H.R. 1 tightens rules on super PACs and restructures the Federal Election Commission to break the gridlock and enhance its enforcement mechanisms. It also repeals Mitch McConnell’s riders that prevent government agencies from requiring commonsense disclosure of political spending.

ENSURE PUBLIC SERVANTS WORK FOR THE PUBLIC INTEREST

Fortify Ethics Law – H.R. 1 breaks the influence economy in Washington and increases accountability by expanding conflict of interest law and divestment requirements, slowing the revolving door, preventing Members of Congress from serving on corporate boards and requiring presidents to disclose their tax returns.

Impose Greater Ethics Enforcement – H.R. 1 gives teeth to federal ethics oversight by overhauling the Office of Government Ethics, closing loopholes for lobbyists and foreign agents, ensuring watchdogs have sufficient resources to enforce the law and creating a code of ethics for the Supreme Court.

HR1, the For the People Act

sarbanes.house.gov

.

bigger question is why are democrats for it???

it basically takes away a lot of individual freedom and increases the power of government...

Not to mention of course, that it takes much of the power of the individual sate and transfers it to the federal government which flies directly in the face of the Constitution.

What powers is it taking from the state?

Lots, for example all but California ban harvesting