Reply to New Election Security Bills Face a One-Man Roadblock: Mitch McConnell

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "New Election Security Bills Face a One-Man Roadblock: Mitch McConnell"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Perhaps because McConnell sees that this bill will do nothing to actually make our elections more secure.

[quote]Under the provisions of H.R. 1, all jurisdictions are compelled to use no-fault absentee ballots, which can be conveniently filled out and submitted from home. While convenient, they are hardly secure. They have given rise to a practice called ballot harvesting, in which activists track down voters, "help" them fill out their ballots, and then offer to submit them.

The breakdown in the chain of custody for such ballots enabled a North Carolina campaign operative to "lose" hundreds of ballots in the 2018 midterm elections. The same practice, which was illegal in North Carolina, is now legal in California, where late ballots submitted by harvesters broke inexplicably for Democrats and reversed election night outcomes.

How can the nationwide imposition of no-fault absentee ballots possibly be construed as an election security measure? Given the proven willingness of the Russian government to meddle in our elections, is it beyond the realm of possibility that those activists coming to collect your ballot could be paid by a foreign power?

Another provision essentially nullifies voter identification (ID) laws, which Democrats believe depress Democratic turnout in elections. If H.R. 1 becomes law, voters could bypass the ID requirement by simply signing a statement affirming that they are who they claim to be.

Once again, this provision has absolutely no relevance to election security. In fact, it makes elections less secure.

The bypassing of voter ID laws becomes even more concerning when you read what Democrats want to do about voter list maintenance. Their solution to outdated voter rolls is to prohibit states from comparing their voter rolls to the National Change of Address Database or to the databases of other states.

With this provision, voter identities used to vote in multiple states are less likely to be exposed. Now foreign powers could exploit our elections by simply getting people to use voter IDs that are valid in one state to vote in other states.[/quote]

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/jason-chaffetz-democrats-claim-they-want-election-security-they-really-want-to-secure-election-victories[/quote]

Well, then why is he the only one in the GOP blocking this? [/quote]

He isn't.  Don't let the NY Times misleading headline fool you.

Kevin McCarthy outlines why this is a ridiculous bill:

[quote]It’s Nancy Pelosi’s number one priority. In fact, the legislation is called “H.R. 1.” Here’s what it would do:

First: the bill sends your taxpayer dollars to fund political campaigns. Not to build roads or bridges but to add 600 percent of taxpayer money to every small dollar donated by Americans. So let’s say Mary from Michigan donates $200 to her preferred candidate. Well, now you—the taxpayer—have just chipped in another 1,200 bucks.

Second: H.R. 1 would legalize voting for convicted felons all over the country…even if they were convicted of election fraud. Does that make sense to you? Not only is this dangerous…it’s unconstitutional.

Third: H.R. 1 would weaken the security of our elections and make it harder to protect against voter fraud. Here’s how: It would automatically register voters from DMV and other government databases. Voting is a right, not a mandate. In most cases, this legislation would actually prevent officials from removing ineligible voters from the rolls and would make it much more difficult to verify the accuracy of voter information. So future voters might be underage or dead or illegal immigrants, or registered two or three times….Democrats just don’t care.

Democrats call H.R. 1 the “For the People Act.” But it’s really a “For the Politicians Act.”  It’s not designed to protect your vote. It’s designed to put a thumb on the scale of every election in America and keep the swamp swampy.[/quote]

https://www.republicanleader.gov/the-truth-behind-democrats-election-bill-h-r-1/[/quote]

The first bullet relates to Citizens United and attempts to counter the fact that corporations and large donors have a disproportionate voice in poitics via the money they throw around.  I would disagree with the proposed approach in the bill but ultimately Citizens United needs to be reversed.  I would suggest they should instead put serious restrictions on the sources of funding, strictly restrict contributions to individuals only, get rid of PACs, SuperPACs, prohibit any political spending outside of narrow and well defined channels with very serious penalties (felony, prison time, major fines) for any departures.  We need a serious rollback on campaign finance.

But again, why don't the Republicans propose an amendment to that part of the bill language instead of blocking it?

As for the other two points I think they are extremely disingenuous.  With 2. it's not "unconstitutional" for felons to have the right to vote.  Whether you like it or not, whether you agree or disagree there is no constitutional prohibition on felons voting.  3. They claim things like that dead people will get registered because of the motor voter act.  Seriously?  How many dead people apply for drivers licenses?  [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics