"House Passes "Permanent Democrat Rule Act" in an Effort to Create a One-Party Government"
""On Thursday night the House Democrats passed by a vote of 220-210, “HR1” introduced by the Nancy Pelosi-led Democrats in the House -- a power grab dressed up as “election reform,” the provisions of which are all intended to create more Democrat candidate votes in upcoming elections in order to secure a permanent Democrat Party control of Congress and the White House.
... HR1 is a collection of election law “reforms” meant to dictate to states the manner by which all states shall conduct their elections in the future, mandating certain voting practices be followed while making other voting practices illegal.
1) changes in voting processes and procedures that are designed to increase the gross total of votes cast in each election; and
2) changes in voting practices and procedures designed to eliminate any effort to improve or protect ballot integrity.
Here is a general summary of the key provisions with regard to voting procedures mandated and prohibited:
Mandated:
“No excuse” mail-in voting for all voters in all states.
15 days of early voting for any election including federal offices.
Automatic voter registration — unless the individual opts out — upon the submission of personal information (name, address) to any state agency for any purpose.
Online voter registration up to and including on election day.
Automatic restoration of voting rights to felons.
Allowing “ballot harvesting” by third parties.
Counting of illegal aliens among state populations fo purpose of determining number of congressional districts in each state.
Public financing by creating “$6 to $1” match of federal funds against small-donor campaign contributions of $200 or less.
Prohibited:
No voter ID requirements.
No purging of voter rolls.
No signature matching for mail-in ballots.
No redistricting by legislative bodies in the States — only by non-partisan commissions.
No disqualification of ballots for “out of precinct” voting.
... The legislation now goes to the Senate.
Because this legislation must get through the Senate under its normal rules, it will need 60 votes to end debate and proceed to a vote.
Similar legislation was passed by the House in 2019 after the Democrats took control of the House, but it was never considered in the GOP-controlled Senate.
Even though the Democrats now control the Senate, there is no chance that 10 GOP Senators will agree to allow this legislation to come up for a vote.
The only path to passage will be to end the “filibuster” rule.
The “filibuster” rule is a procedural rule in the Senate; it is not a statute or part of the Constitution.
Several years ago, Harry Reid, as Senate Majority Leader, established the precedent that Senate Rules could be amended during a legislative session by majority vote.
In order to get HR1 brought to a vote in the Senate, Majority Leader Schumer will need to amend the legislative “filibuster” rule to eliminate the 60 vote requirement to end debate — that change would take only 51 votes.
VP Harris could break a 50-50 tie and cast the 51st vote to amend the rules and eliminate the filibuster, and that would potentially allow passage of HR1 on a party-line vote — in both Houses of Congress.
Democratic Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema have expressed opposition to eliminating the filibuster, with Manchin being the most adamant in his position.
Earlier this week, he was again asked by members of the media about his prior position that he would “never” change his mind about ending the filibuster.
“Never! Jesus Christ! What don’t you understand about never?” Manchin said.
Manchin has insisted that his position is based on the principle that for legislation to pass in the Senate — even on a party-line vote — there must be meaningful bi-partisan involvement by members of both parties.
... What is also true, however, is that Manchin understands that he is the Senate Majority Leader right now.
With the filibuster in place, no legislation has any chance of advancing to a vote without his support.
The moment “50” votes become all that is needed, his vote is no more meaningful than one of the Senate RINOs who might be persuaded to support Democrat-backed legislation that Manchin opposes.
The White House and Majority Leader Schumer can play “Let’s Make a Deal” with Sen. Murkowski, Sen. Collins, or Sen. Romney in an effort to “buy” their support for any piece of legislation by offering “goodies” for their states.
... HR1 reflects the dreams of the Democrats — federally mandated elections at the state level which create avenues by which massive vote fraud efforts can be orchestrated by Democrat Party interest groups even in states with significant GOP electoral majorities."
"House Democrats Pass H.R. 1 Election Reform Bill in Tight Vote"
"... H.R. 1, also called the For the People Act, passed the Democrat-controlled House on a largely party-line vote of 220-210.
All Republicans voted against the bill.
They were joined by Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), the only House Democrat who voted against the bill.
... A previous version of the bill had passed the Democrat-controlled House 234-193 at the beginning of the 116th Congress in 2019 but ultimately did not get taken up in the Republican-controlled Senate.
The controversial bill, which spans nearly 800 pages, would impose requirements on voting procedures across the entire country.
... The bill also requires disclosure of donors to religious and nonprofit advocacy groups, and enables incumbent congressmen and their challengers to receive a salary from campaign funds.
... For mail-in ballots, states must count ballots if they are received within 10 days after Election Day, according to the bill.
... Under the bill, felons would be able to vote after they have completed their sentences."
"HR 1, For the People Act, Makes it Easier to Commit Voter Fraud, Promote Chaos at Polls"
"The progressive For the People Act (H.R. 1) ... would undermine state authority when it comes to voting, make it easier to commit voter fraud, and promote chaos at the polls, according to the conservative Heritage Foundation in its report on the bill.
Former Vice President Mike Pence ... said the 800-page election overhaul bill would “increase opportunities for election fraud, trample the First Amendment, further erode confidence in our elections, and forever dilute the votes of legally qualified eligible voters.”
... Heritage said the bill “would federalize and micromanage the election process administered by the states, imposing unnecessary, unwise, and unconstitutional mandates on the states and reversing the decentralization of the American election process—which is essential to the protection of our liberty and freedom.”
The legislation, according to Heritage, would do so by implementing the following:
Seize the authority of states to regulate voter registration and the voting process by forcing states to implement early voting, automatic voter registration, same-day registration, online voter registration, and no-fault absentee balloting.
Make it easier to commit fraud and promote chaos at the polls through same-day registration, as election officials would have no time to verify the accuracy of voter registration information and the eligibility of an individual to vote and could not anticipate the number of ballots and precinct workers that would be needed at specific polling locations.
Degrade the accuracy of registration lists by requiring states to automatically register all individuals (as opposed to “citizens”) from state and federal databases, such as state Departments of Motor Vehicles, corrections and welfare offices, ,,,
... This would register large numbers of ineligible voters, including aliens, and cause multiple or duplicate registrations of the same individuals and put federal agencies in charge of determining a person’s domicile for voting purposes (as well as that individual’s taxing state).
... Mandate no-fault absentee ballots, which are the tool of choice for vote thieves.
It would ban witness signature or notarization requirements for absentee ballots; force states to accept absentee ballots received up to 10 days after Election Day as long as they are postmarked by Election Day; and require states to allow vote trafficking (vote harvesting) so that any third parties—including campaign staffers and political consultants—can pick up and deliver absentee ballots.
Ban state voter ID laws by forcing states to allow individuals to vote without an ID and merely signing a statement in which they claim they are who they say they are.
Reduce the number of Federal Election Commission members from six to five, allowing the political party with three commission seats to control the commission and engage in partisan enforcement activities."
Require states to restore the ability of felons to vote the moment they are out of prison regardless of uncompleted parole, probation, or restitution requirements.
Authorize the Internal Revenue Service to engage in partisan activity.
H.R. 1 would permit the IRS to investigate and consider the political and policy positions of nonprofit organizations before granting tax-exempt status.
Commenting on the bill, Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) tweeted, “If you liked the way the 2020 elections were run, you will love HR 1.”
"20 Attorneys General Deem H.R. 1 Unconstitutional"
"Twenty attorneys general signed a letter addressed to House and Senate leaders pleading against H.R. 1, which the Democrat-led House passed on party lines late Wednesday evening, deeming it unconstitutional as it sets what they described as “alarming mandates,” leading to the federalization of state elections.
... Hours prior to its passage, 20 attorneys general, led by Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita (R), sent a letter addressed to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY). H.R. 1 “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,” they wrote, detailing the Elections Clause of Article I of the Constitution and the Electors Clause of Article II, which gives states the primary role in conducting federal elections for House and Senate, and an even bigger role in presidential 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,” the attorneys general wrote, asking lawmakers to consider the measure’s many “vulnerabilities.”
... The state leaders also highlighted the “severe constitutional hurdles” the measure faces due to its “regulation of congressional elections, including by mandating mail-in voting, requiring states to accept late ballots, overriding state voter identification (“ID”) laws, and mandating that states conduct redistricting through unelected commissions.”
The attorneys general identified the measure’s limitations on voter ID laws as, perhaps, the most “egregious” portion of the act, noting that a majority of states have some form of a voter ID law:
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.
Before the advent of voter ID laws, partisans stationed at polling places could challenge voters based only on suspicions about identity, a process that prompted concerns about voter intimidation.
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.
... Overall, the act “takes a one-sided approach to governing and usurps states’ authority over elections,” the letter read:
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.
Signers include the attorney general from several states, including
Indiana,
Alabama,
Arkansas,
Florida,
Georgia,
Idaho,
Kentucky,
Louisiana,
Mississippi,
Missouri,
Montana,
Nebraska,
Ohio,
Oklahoma,
South Carolina,
South Dakota,
Tennessee,
Texas,
Utah, and
West Virginia"
