The left’s continued push to pass the “voting rights” bill (H.R. 1) with only the barest majority in the Senate – and that only with the assistance of the Vice President to break a tie – should be concerning to most Americans. Why the push to federalize our elections, and what do they hope to gain? Why is their legislation hell-bent on eliminating voter ID laws when 75 to 80% of Americans are for them? Will the contents of this bill be so beneficial to future Democratic campaigns that they would be willing to risk the use of another “nuclear option”, given how poorly these have worked out for them in the past? Let’s take a look at H.R. 1 and see if we can answer some of these questions. Because it’s an 886 page behemoth, we’ll only be looking at the portion of the bill associated with voting “rights”.
Note: While the election regulations are generally “…prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof…”, Congress may “…at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations…”. So, like it or not, Congress does have the power to prescribe the process for state elections of federal offices. And their power to regulate such elections is broad. If anyone invents a time machine, please go back and kick the framers in the ass for that one.
Some issues I have with specific sections of H.R. 1:
Sect. 1003 (a)(1)(c) allows for a voter to receive voter registration and other information via email only, rather than via email and postal mail. This would allow voter registrations to by hijacked, diverting mail-in ballots to the hijacker alone. Since no further notices would be sent via postal mail to the actual registered voter’s postal address, they would be none the wiser.
This section would also make it possible for voters to continue to vote in a district where they no longer live; this might be advantageous when their vote is not useful in their new district (either because their preferred candidate cannot win, or is guaranteed to win), but is useful to their preferred candidate in their old district. Because there is no centralized national voter database requirement in H.R. 1, which would would prevent a voter from voting in multiple states, it would also make it possible for people to vote at previous AND current addresses so long as each was in a separate state. This is already a concern with college students whose home address is in a different state; what’s to prevent them from voting in both elections, or from having someone at their home address complete their mail-in ballot for them (known or otherwise)? Finally, it would enable voters to vote in an election at a location where they do not reside since there would be no mail confirmation of their residence status. Mail confirmation of residence is an integral part of determining voter eligibility and should not be discarded as has been done in H.R. 1.
Sect.1012 (c)(2) requires that all eligible residents for whom the state has information should automatically be registered to vote. However, while the system is voluntary “…if the individual does not decline registration, the individual will be registered to vote.” But what if the resident is actually ineligible to vote? What if the person did not respond because they are no longer a resident? What if they moved out of state, unbeknownst to the registrar? Would their mail-in ballot be sent to their old address anyway, to be misused by any who might come into its possession? Confirmation of residence in the state/district should be an integral component of any voter registration system meant to insure a secure and legitimate election. In addition, confirmation of eligibility to vote should require an affirmative response.
Sect. 1013(b)(2) calls out the requirements for automatic registration. But what about automatic de-registration? If you’re being registered someplace new, doesn’t that mean you are no longer eligible to vote where you were before? Since there is no centralized national database of registered voters, and since states do not necessarily communicate their voter roles to each other, what can we do about duplicate registrations from every location you have ever lived? With automatic annual registration renewal for absentee voters, what will become of the ballots sent to your old address? And with the lack of a national database, if someone used the ballot from your old location how would anyone ever know? If Congress were serious about maintaining vote security while establishing automatic registration then they musty also consider automatic de-registration. However, the only way to enable both is with a national database of voters – a very good idea that no one seems willing to propose in legislation.
Sect 1013(f) states that institutes of higher education are “contributing agencies”, meaning that they will send information to the state for the automatic voter registration of students. However, subsection (c) also states that “Nothing in this part may be construed to require an institution of higher education to request each student to affirm whether or not the student is a United States citizen or otherwise collect information with respect to citizenship.” This means that the automatic registration will not be based on citizenship, but rather on the student’s failure to deny citizenship. If the student does not reply to the voter registration notice, under Sect. 1013(b)(1)(a) the student would be registered to vote regardless of their citizenship status. I am concerned that this will result in registrations that could be abused, either by the students or 3rd parties. This shows the need for a positive affirmation of the citizenship and the right to vote prior to registering any individual, student or other.
Sect. 1015 puts to rest any and all claims that no one would fraudulently register to vote because it’s a felony carrying a term of imprisonment. Why? Because any individual automatically registered to vote “… shall not be prosecuted under any Federal or State law…”. What’s more, this section states that the sole evidence of whether or not a person fraudulently allowed the automatic registration to go forward will be their individual testimony alone. What this means is that there is no incentive to respond to the automatic registration notification if you are in fact ineligible to vote, and every incentive to ignore it if you are in fact a fraudster. Even if some innocently ignore the automatic registration request, it will still leave thousands if not millions of eligible ballots or voter registrations that could be misused or hijacked. One more very good reason to require a positive affirmation before “automatically” registering students (or others) to vote. Otherwise we will have no legal recourse against those who misuse this system.
Section 1016 allows for instantaneous update of voter information – including their name (?!?) – at any polling location, and that they then be allowed to vote with a non-provisional, regular ballot. If they have updated their address, they will be allowed to cast a ballot appropriate for their new location immediately, without having to provide any proof whatsoever of their change in address. Do you see the problem here? Or have you forgotten when Democrats suggested that people temporarily move to Georgia to impact the election there? What if you live in a House district where your candidate cannot win, but in the neighboring district your vote might help? All you would have to do is go there, claim you’ve moved (without ANY proof), and cast a ballot. this is an incredibly dangerous provision that makes votes “portable” to where they might do the most good for your preferred party. Another reason for voter ID: the proof of identity would necessarily provide a proof of residence as well.
Sect.1031 allows for same-day registration and voting. So what’s to prevent someone from registering to vote somewhere where they don’t live simply because it will benefit their political party? Think of it this way (why not – Silicon Valley already has) – a senator is a senator. If you cannot get your party’s senator elected in your own state, what if you could instead help get a sympathetic senator elected in a different state? Both senators have one vote; does it really matter whether or not they live in your state? This provision would allow the same kind of abuse as section 1016 noted above.
Sect. 1041 severely limits the ability of a state to remove ineligible voters from their voting rolls when checking their database with that of other states (why there is no national voter registry for national elections is beyond me).
Sect. 1054 provides grants to encourage those under 18 to participate in public election activities, including pre-registration for upcoming elections. Since this group is well-indoctrinated by the left-leaning education system, you can guess how this will impact elections.
Sect. 1057 essentially ensures that Section 8 housing recipients are offered a chance to register to vote with their application and/or lease agreement. I wonder why the Democrats would include such a specific provision… (no, I don’t).
Sect. 1091 established funds for providing registration information to 12th grade students, but prioritizes funds for Title 1 schools (low income). I wonder why the Democrats would include such a specific provision… (no, I don’t).
Sect. 1201 makes it nearly impossible for a state to prevent an ineligible voter from voting, or from having a third party challenge a voter’s eligibility. It basically neuters any state program to remove ineligible voter from their database, or to prevent their casting a ballot regardless of their voter eligibility. It punishes the accuser rather than the ineligible voter, and allows civil actions against them. Wow! Way to prevent voter fraud… not!
Sect. 1303 requires the Attorney General to communicate “accurate information” to voters in the event false or misleading information about a candidate or issues have been communicated by others. My problem with this section should be obvious: who gets to decide what is false or misleading? We’re already see the impact of such policies by social media companies of left-wing causes – in particular when their claims of “misinformation” turn out top be wrong. The government (nor social media companies) should not in any way be involved in determining what is true or false! I am very concerned with this aspect of H.R. 1.
Sect. 1403 essential says that any criminal can vote unless they are in prison for a felony. Even if they are out on parole (essentially considered still in custody), they can vote. They do not need to complete their sentence, parole or probation, or even pay restitution for their crime(s); they will be able to immediately vote upon passing of H.R. 1. Note that this also implies that a prisoner in jail or prison for a misdemeanor crime will be eligible to vote while in prison. Really; you can’t make this shit up!
Sect 1621 includes the following:
(A) PROHIBITING IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENT AS CONDITION OF OBTAINING BALLOT.
— A State may not require an individual to provide any form of identification as a condition of obtaining an absentee ballot, except that nothing in this paragraph may be construed to prevent a State from requiring a signature of the individual or similar affirmation as a condition of obtaining an absentee ballot.
So – no voter ID for absentee ballots. I guess if there is no way to determine fraud then fraud isn’t occurring? I am very leery that H.R. 1 wants to subvert a state’s preferred method of preventing fraud with respect to mail-in ballots. You should be, too.
Note that if the absentee ballot requester is a first-time voter they may still be required to provide identification. However, according to Sec. 303b of the Help America Vote act of 2002, that can be something as generic as a utility bill. I have utility bills in my name, and have not had to provide the utility any identification information whatsoever – all I had to do was pay a deposit (which I have since had returned). I pay a deposit for utility service so that I don’t have to provide personal information to the utility (I have no confidence in the security of their database); all they need with a deposit is whatever name I choose to give. Why a utility bill is sufficient proof of identity is beyond me…
Section 1621 includes this little bit of wisdom regarding ballot harvesting:
“(B) may not put any limit on how many voted and sealed absentee ballots any designated person can return to the post office, a ballot drop off location, tribally designated building, or election office.”
In short, unlimited and untraceable ballot harvesting by political operatives. Coupled with my note below on what are considered “on-time” ballots, this gives corrupt operatives 10 full days to phony-up enough ballots to win the election. Handy, because by then they’ll know exactly how many they’ll need.
This same section (1621) also includes the following:
“(1) DISTRIBUTION OF ABSENTEE BALLOT APPLICATIONS BY THIRD PARTIES.—A State may not prohibit any person from providing an application for an absentee ballot in the election to any individual who is eligible to vote in the election.”
What this means is that ballot harvesters can roam the street handing out applications for absentee ballots – that also means they’ll know where to go to collect the absentee ballots as well. Tracking and collecting absentee ballots will become a commercial endeavor funded by political parties using the same operatives for ballot harvesting under the guise of “get out the vote” efforts. Am I the only one who sees the potential for corruption here? For example, what’s to stop Democrat operatives form pretending to be Republican operatives, tracking and collecting absentee ballots from Republican-leaning areas and then just destroying them? Remember, there is no way to track ballot harvesters; there will be no paper (or digital) trail whatsoever of who collected the ballots or their final disposition. As another example, what’s to stop political operatives from completing a stack of absentee ballot requests for people who generally don’t vote (think homeless people or drug addicts), and having them sent to a centralized location where teams of operatives complete them “on behalf” of the disenfranchised? Talk about a ballot security concern – now the chain of custody will be broken even before the ballot is sent out!
There are a whole bunch of other issues with H.R. 1, but I’m too tired to go into detail. But here are a few snippets:
H.R. 1 will apply to the November 2022 election (Gee, I wonder why? No, I don’t…).
If the post office says the ballot was received by the due date, postmarked or not, it is considered received in time.
If the voter dated their mail-in ballot on or before the election, regardless of its postmark, it is considered received in time. (I wonder if that will work when I write checks for bills? Probably not…).
Anyway, as you can see this bill is a political boondoggle that will seriously degrade the security of our elections. You think we’re a laughing stock now? We’ll be borderline “banana republic” with H.R. 1.