The following contains editorial content written by a retired Chief of Police and current staff writer for Law Enforcement Today.
WASHINGTON, DC- Article II, Section I, Clause II of the United States Constitution reads:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors.”
Read that again. Each state shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct…
Not governors…not judges…and certainly not Congress…Legislatures of Each State…period.
We have previously reported on H.R.1, which Democrats have cunningly called the “For the People Act of 2021.”
What it should be called is, “For Codifying All the Election Fraud of 2020 Act of 2021” or the “For Getting Democrats Elected in Perpetuity Act of 2021.” Because it is anything but “for the people.”
Tucker Carlson Tonight on Fox News did a dive into the bill:
Twenty attorneys general agree, and signed a letter addressed to House and Senate leaders asking them to oppose the bill, which was passed along party lines late Wednesday in the dark of night.
The twenty agree that the act is unconstitutional due to imposing a number of what they called “alarming mandates” which would lead to the federalization of state elections.
Breitbart is reporting that prior to the bill being passed, 20 attorneys general led by Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita (R) dispatched a letter addressed to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), Senate Majority Leader Chuckie Schumer (D-NY) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY).
According to the letter, 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, while detailing the above article of the Constitution, as well as the Electors Clause of Article II, which gives the states…not Congress…the primary role in conducting federal elections for House and Senate, with an even larger 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,” they wrote, while asking lawmakers to address the measure’s numerous “vulnerabilities.”
The chief state law enforcement officials continued that H.R. 1 “implicates the Electors Clause” by regulating elections for president and vice president.
They continued, focusing on the “severe constitutional hurdles” the proposed law 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.”
In identifying the proposal’s limitations on voter ID laws as ostensibly the most “egregious” portion of the act, while noting that a majority of states have some form of 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.”
They noted that “government-issued photo identification has been the global standard for documentary identification for decades,” noting that “nearly twenty years ago” the Help America Vote Act had required proof of identification for “first-time voters who register by mail without proof of identification.”
Do you want to join our private family of first responders and supporters? Get unprecedented access to some of the most powerful stories that the media refuses to show you. Proceeds get reinvested into having active, retired and wounded officers, their families and supporters tell more of these stories. Click to check it out.
The attorneys general also called attention to potential issues with automatic voter registration, limitations on how states manage voter rolls, as well as calls for states to “undertake congressional redistricting by way of so-called ‘independent’ commissions.”
“At least when legislatures draw boundary lines voters may punish egregious behavior at the next election; not so with government-by-commission, which trades accountability for mythical expertise and disinterest,” they wrote.
They continued that the reason for the proposal was to end so-called “political gerrymandering” while the real reason was the “incoherent supposition that drawing congressional districts is something other than a political act.”
Going further, they noted that “as with any legislation, the redrawing of congressional districts “requires officials to balance legitimate competing considerations, and in so doing advance some political interests over others.”
They also noted that the act “takes a one-sided approach to governing and usurps states’ authority over elections,” they wrote:
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.
In a statement to Fox News, Rokita said:
“This monstrosity of a bill betrays the Constitution, dangerously federalizes state elections, and undermines the integrity of the ballot box,” he wrote.
“As a former chief election officer, and now an Attorney General, I know this would be a disaster for election integrity and confidence in the processes that have been developed over time to instill confidence in the idea of ‘one person, one vote.’”
In the joint letter to congressional leaders, the attorneys general outlined the clear differences between Article I and Article II of the Constitution, calling attention to Article II which gives state legislatures the authority to determine how electors for president and vice president are selected.
Article I they wrote “says that both States and Congress have the power to regulate the ‘time, place and manner’ of congressional elections.”
“That distinction is not an accident of drafting,” they wrote. “After extensive debate, the Constitution’s Framers deliberately excluded Congress from deciding how presidential electors would be chosen in order to avoid presidential dependence on Congress for position and authority.”
The AGs also addressed an 1892 Supreme Court case, McPherson v. Blacker which “[upheld] a Michigan statute apportioning presidential electors by district.”
“The exclusivity of state power to ‘define the method’ of choosing presidential electors means that Congress may not force states to permit presidential voting by mail or curbside voting, for example,” they wrote.
They also noted a 2019 opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, in which he “noted with respect to congressional elections, the Framers ‘assign[ed] the issue to the state legislatures, expressly checked and balanced by the Federal Congress.” They then slammed the bill as using Congress not to act “as a check but is instead overreaching by seizing the role of principal election regulator.”
In essence what congressional Democrats are trying to do is to codify all of the weapons used in swing states such as Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan and others to influence last November’s election. What it would accomplish is it wound ensure Democrats would win national and Congressional elections in perpetuity.
If we actually had faith in the Supreme Court it would seem to be this is a no-brainer to be found unconstitutional. However the current court has not shown the intestinal fortitude to hold up this document.
This is the biggest threat on our freedom and liberty perhaps in American history.
Want to make sure you never miss a story from Law Enforcement Today? With so much “stuff” happening in the world on social media, it’s easy for things to get lost.