For the People Act of 2021 AKA .......

HR1, “For the People Act of 2021,” should be appropriately named “Institute Democrat Party Permanence in Elections and Get Trump Act.” While there are a couple of reasonable desirable items in HR1 – maybe for cover, I dunno – the main thrust is a likely unconstitutional federal takeover of the election process to institutionalize Democrat victories at the cost of free and fair elections. Pelosi et al see a great opportunity to maybe throw the Constitution under the bus and establish a permanent oligarchy under Democrat Party control. Here are some of the key items.

• Transfers the authority to manage elections to the federal government and require states to get federal approval of any voting administrative changes. This flies in the face of Article I, Section 4, “The times, places and manner of holding elections ….. shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof….” even though they try to sneak through what they assert is a loophole.
• Mandates automatic voter registration at DMVs, public universities, and other state social service agencies.
• Mandates same-day and online registration.
• Ensures illegals (read undocumented Democrats) can more easily vote. Shields illegals from prosecution if they registered automatically.
• Prohibits state election officials from removing ineligible voters from registries or confirming the eligibility or qualifications of voters. For example, officials cannot verify the address or citizenship of a registrant cannot cross-check with other states like Obama ordered a few years back, and presumably cannot check for multiple votes.
• Bans voter ID requirements. All voters have to do is sign a statement that they are who they say they are.
• Bans requirement for witness signatures or notarization on absentee ballots
• Mandates early voting
• States must allow ballot harvesting, the collection of ballots by third parties.
• Nationwide vote by mail with no requirement for any ID documentation.
• Counting ballots received within 10 days of election day. However, it doesn’t stop checking signatures on mail-in or absentee ballots or checking postmarks like they did in PA. I presume this just got past them in their haste.
• Criminalizes the publication of any “misleading” information about elections. So much for the 1st amendment.
• Prohibits campaign ads on the internet. More 1st amendment piling on.
• Requires president and vice president candidates to divest of any financial holdings that pose a conflict of interest for the candidate, their family, or anyone wanting to work in an administration. So much for Article II, Section 1. Notice this does not apply to senators or representatives.
• Requires president and vice president to provide 10 years of tax returns. This kicks Article II, Section 1 when it is down, just for good measure. Again, senators or representatives get a pass.
• Requires states to set up “independent” [wink, wink] commissions to establish congressional district boundaries thus removing state legislature authority and power.
• Greatly restricts anyone from filing suit against any provision in HR1. This is reminiscent of Obama’s ACA prohibiting any suit against decisions of the IPAB aka Death Panel.

Besides being blatantly unconstitutional, this Act, with its items clearly targeted at Trump, gets fairly close to a bill of attainder.

 

It's closer to "Prevent Repubs From Stealing Elections Act."

https://www.politifact.com/article/2021/mar/05/fact-checking-misleading-attacks-hr-1-voting-right/

 

Trump's main complaint was that states were not following the proper procedures regarding the elections (I'm still unclear on why he only challenges the states where he lost, but that's a different topic).

What do you think needs to be changed/fixed in order to avoid a similar problem in future elections?

 

I believe we need to conduct an intensive investigation of all states and find out what worked and what did not work. We have nearly four years to complete that investigation.

 

Almost the same. Just needs one little word change: Prevent Repubs From Winning Elections Act.

 

Not really. We will need time to implement new policies, train election workers, clean up the voter registries and procure equipment for each state. It probably won't be in place for the midterms and it might be a tall task for the next Presidential election.

 

Republicans can easily win elections if they become more inclusive and less fractious on abortion and environmental science.
The trick is getting the Independent vote - not swinging the Democrat vote to Republican. If people enjoy voting from home,
then embrace it and make it part of your winning formula. Nobody wants to stand in line for 5 hours waiting to vote.

If 150 million people had all shown up on Election Day at voting booths, we would
have had lines for 24 hrs straight. We don't have the infrastructure for
one day voting or all in-person voting.

 

After all the discussion about election fraud, you think there are no issues to resolve?

 

When did I say that? Can you quote me?

 

To sum up:

 

Trump challenged the states that had obvious reasonably suspicious procedures and state(s) that had self-evident illegalities. He did not bother states that had just nefarious procedures, like CA, AFAIK.

I have some specific ideas on changing the procedures, but I'll simply go back to the basics. Free and fair democratic elections means one vote on one day at one place for one eligible voter. I think there are legitimate exceptions such as absentee or handicapped voting, but, since the whole world is aware of the greater potential for fraud and abuse, this has to be tightly controlled and regulated. To be a little more specific, for starters I'd kill probably 95% of HR1.

Secondly I would revert to following the constitution which is explicitly clear that the state legislatures and only the state legislatures prescribe "The times, places and manner of holding elections....." except for the electoral college process for presidents and vice presidents that are also spelled out in the Constitution. This, for instance, was openly, blatantly, and self-evidently violated in Pennsylvania and IIRC in a couple of other states.

 

Apparently you do not want an investigation.

 

I guess that's only apparent to you. I never said that.

 

Congress’s authority to regulate a particular type of election may vary depending on whether that election is for the Presidency, the House, the Senate, or for state and local positions. Further, there may be variations in what aspects of elections are amenable to regulation. Consequently, evaluating Congress’s authority to establish election procedures requires an examination of a variety of different proposals and scenarios.

Although the Constitution is silent on various aspects of the voting process, it seems to anticipate that states would be primarily responsible for establishing election procedures. Federal authority to regulate federal elections, however, is specifically provided for in the Constitution. There are two main provisions at issue—Article I, Section 4, cl. 1, which provides Congress the authority to set the “Times, Places and Manner” of congressional elections, and Article II, Section 1, cl. 4, which provides that Congress may designate the “Time” for the choosing of Presidential Electors.

Congressional Authority to Direct How States Administer Elections
In the United States, states have primary responsibility for the administration of federal elections. The federal government, however,...
www.everycrsreport.com

 

HR 1 was designed to stop the nationwide efforts of Repubs to suppress votes of those demographic groups who typically vote for Dems.

 

Obvious only to Trump supporters after they lost.
Suspicious only to Trump supporters after they lost.
Self evident only to Trump supporters after they lost.

“Nefarious procedures “ like Tejas being gerrymandered to deliver all their votes to Republicans?

 

HR 1, among other things, is designed to stop Repub gerrymandering like this.

North Carolina cannot use the existing maps for its congressional districts in next year's elections, a state court ruled late Monday, declaring them to be invalid partisan gerrymanders.

The ruling was a victory for state Democrats who lost a battle when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled earlier this year that such challenges were beyond the authority of federal courts to referee. So the fight resumed in state court, citing violations of North Carolina's constitution.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/el...rolina-s-congressional-district-maps-n1073081

 

H.R. 1 would "prevent removal of ineligible voters from registration rolls." — U.S. Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y.

This rates False.

No section of the bill prevents an election official from removing an ineligible person on the voting rolls. One section of H.R. 1 details rules that states must follow for removing ineligible voters, including that they must notify the registrants.

https://www.politifact.com/factchec...wmaker-misleads-about-hr-1-and-removal-ineli/

 

Why does the GOP constantly try to minimize and constrict the number of American citizens who can legally vote??? How in any way is that practicing democracy. ?

 

After I said we should have an extensive investigation, you said "Not really. We will need time to implement new policies, train election workers, clean up the voter registries and procure equipment for each state. It probably won't be in place for the midterms and it might be a tall task for the next Presidential election."

 

HR1 was designed to bring us closer to a Stalin-level government where you could vote for X or Y, but just know that both X and Y are against your interests.

 

Partially overstated and partially true.. It is true that states are technically permitted to remove ineligible voters from the registration rolls, but they have to crawl through cumbersome bureaucratic process and get past many bureaucratic roadblocks

Partially overstated and partially true.. It is true that states are technically permitted to remove ineligible voters from the registration rolls, but they are limited and have to crawl through cumbersome bureaucratic process and get past many bureaucratic roadblocks. So, yes, they can do it, but it ain't easy.

BTW, Politifact has proven over the past years to not always be credible.

 

Why do you keep beating your wife???

 

~ If this were true Biden would not be president.

~ True. Who checks the "fact checkers " ?

 

Sorry, computer acted up and PF stopped responding while I was trying to post this.