Jump to content

For the People Act

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Generically Named (talk | contribs) at 01:21, 27 January 2021 (Removed duplicate "at least" under Gerrymandering section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

For The People Act
Great Seal of the United States
Long titleAn Act to expand Americans' access to the ballot box, reduce the influence of big money in politics, and strengthen ethics rules for public servants, and for other purposes.
Announced inthe 116th United States Congress
Number of co-sponsors225
Legislative history
  • Introduced in the House of Representatives as H.R. 1 by John Sarbanes (D–MD) on January 3, 2019
  • Committee consideration by House Administration, passed committee on February 6, 2019 (6–3)
  • Passed the House of Representatives on March 8, 2019 (234–193)
Senator Amy Klobuchar speaks on the Act from inside the Capitol Building

The For The People Act[1] (also known as HR 1) is a bill first introduced and passed in the United States House of Representatives in 2019 to expand voting rights, change campaign finance laws to reduce the influence of money in politics, limit partisan gerrymandering, and create new ethics rules for federal officeholders.[2][3][4][5] It was originally introduced by John Sarbanes on January 3, 2019, on behalf of the newly elected Democratic majority as the first official legislation of the 116th United States Congress.[4][6] The House passed the bill on March 8, 2019, by a party-line vote of 234–193.[7][8] It was not voted on in the then Republican-majority Senate.[9] House Democrats reintroduced the act in the 117th Congress; it was also introduced in the Senate as S.1.[10]

The bill was viewed as a comprehensive statement of the priorities of the Democratic House majority elected in 2018. The New York Times called it "the Democrats' signature piece of legislation".[11] Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said the bill was "not going to go anywhere in the Senate". In March 2019, he said he would not put the bill to a vote on the Senate floor.[12] Sarbanes, the legislation's drafter, argued that the bill's public popularity would ultimately lead to its passage.[13]

Key provisions

Voting rights

The bill would require states to offer same-day voter registration for federal elections[3][2] and to permit voters to make changes to their registration at the polls.[3] The bill would require states to hold early voting for at least 15 days and would establish automatic voter registration.[3][2] Under the automatic voter registration provision, eligible citizens who provide information to state agencies (including state departments of motor vehicles or public universities) would be automatically registered to vote unless they opt-out of doing so.[14] The bill would also expand opportunities to vote by mail and would make Election Day a federal holiday.[14] The bill would require states to offer online voter registration,[3][14] which has already been adopted in 39 states and the District of Columbia;[14] under the bill, states would be required to establish a system to allow applications to be electronically completed, submitted, and received by election officials, and and to allow registered voters to electronically update their voter registration information.[14] The bill would make it a criminal offense "to corruptly hinder, interfere with, or prevent another person from registering to vote" and would establish criminal penalties for such conduct; and would instruct the Election Assistance Commission to adopt recommendations for states on the prevention of interference with voter registration.[14]

The bill would also authorize 16- and 17-year-olds to pre-register to vote in advance of them becoming 18.[14][15] A proposal by Representative Ayanna Pressley to amend the bill to actually allow 16 year-olds to vote did not succeed.[2] The bill would also prohibit the practice of voter caging[14] and restrict the practicing of voter-roll purges[11] by limiting states' efforts to remove registered voters from the rolls[4] and setting conditions for when they could do so.[3] Specifically, the bill would require states to obtain certain information before removing voters from the rolls, and would prohibit voter purges from taking place less than six months before an election.[14] The bill would also require elections officials to timely notify any voter tagged for removal from the rolls and give them an opportunity to contest the removal or seek reinstatement of their registration.[14] The bill would also restore voting rights to felons who complete prison terms.[2][16]

The bill contains various provisions to promote voting access for individuals with disabilities.[14]

Election security

The bill contains election security provisions, including a voter verified paper ballot provision mandating the use of paper ballots that can be marked by voters either by hand or with a ballot marking device, and inspected by the voter to allow any errors to be corrected before the ballot is cast. The bill would also require state officials to preserve paper ballots for recounts or audits, and to conduct a hand-count of ballots for recounts and audits.[14] The bill would require the voting machines used for all federal elections to be manufactured in the U.S.[14]

Campaign finance reform

The bill would introduce voluntary public financing for campaigns, matching small donations at a 6:1 ratio.[11] It also incorporates campaign finance reform provisions from the DISCLOSE Act,[11][17] which would impose stricter limitations on foreign lobbying, require super PACs and other "dark money" organizations to disclose their donors, and restructure the Federal Election Commission to reduce partisan gridlock. The bill expresses support for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United, in which the Supreme Court held that limits on independent political expenditures by corporations, labor unions, and other associations are unconstitutional.[4][18]

Ethics

The bill would require the president and vice president, as well as presidential and vice-presidential candidates, to publicly disclose their previous 10 years of income tax returns. The bill would also eliminate the use of taxpayer money by members of Congress to settle employment discrimination claims, by requiring members of Congress to reimburse the Treasury for any such payments.[2][4][18][14][a] Another part of the bill would require the Judicial Conference to establish rules of ethics binding on the Supreme Court of the United States, which is currently the only court in the U.S. without a binding canon of judicial ethics.[14][2][4]

The legislation would also set new disclosure rules and limitations on presidential inaugural committees.[15] Inaugural committees would be barred from taking money from corporations; a contribution limit to inaugural committees of $50,000 per person would be imposed (under current law, there is no limit); contributions of more than $1,000 would have to be disclosed within one day; and the use of funds donated to inaugural committees would be restricted only to use for inaugural events and for charitable contributions.[14]

Statehood for the District of Columbia

The 2019 version of H.R. 1 made findings in support of admitting the District of Columbia as a state, affirming Congress's power (under the Constitution's Article IV) to create a new state in the populated area that is now D.C., while retaining a separate federal district comprising the Capitol Complex, White House, National Mall, and certain other federal areas.[14] In June 2020, the House approved H.R. 51, a separate piece of legislation that would make the populated portion of the District a state, on a nearly party-line vote; the measure was not taken up in the Republican-controlled Senate.[19]

Gerrymandering

The bill would thwart gerrymandering by requiring states to use independent commissions to draw congressional district lines,[20] except in the seven states with only one congressional district.[2] Partisan gerrymandering (creating a map that "unduly favor[s] or disfavor[s]" one political party over another) would be prohibited.[14] The legislation would require each commission to have fifteen members (five Democrats, five Republicans, and five independents) and would require proposed maps to achieve a majority vote to be accepted, with at least one vote in support from a Democrat, a Republican, and an independent. The bill would require the commissions to draw congressional district lines on a five-party criteria: "(1) population equality, (2) compliance with the Voting Rights Act, (3) compliance with additional racial requirements (no retrogression in, or dilution of, minorities’ electoral influence, including in coalition with other voters), (4) respect for political subdivisions and communities of interest, and (5) no undue advantage for any party."[20]

Number of Federal Election Commissioners

Under current law, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) has six members, no more than three of whom can be members of the same political party, with at least four votes required for any official FEC action. The complaint is that this has resulted in an impotent and gridlocked FEC, with important reforms left unaddressed, such as the updating of campaign finance law for the digital age[21] and the effective regulation of political donations.[22] Some advocates for reform have blamed the Republican FEC members for being unwilling either to investigate any potential violations or to impose tougher restrictions,[23] and for loosening restrictions simply by signaling what standards they are willing to enforce.[24]

The proposed bill would give the FEC five commissioners instead of six, reducing the likelihood of tie votes, and require that no more than two can be members of the same political party. It would set up a "Blue Ribbon Advisory Panel" consisting of an odd number of individuals selected by the president from retired federal judges, former law enforcement officials, or people with experience in election law, except anyone who holds any public office at the time of selection, but the president would not be required to choose from among those recommended by the panel. Some observers claim that there would be no built-in benefit for either party.[25]

Reactions and statements

On January 29, 2019, Senator Mitch McConnell issued a statement criticizing the bill as a "one-sided power grab" by the Democratic Party and opined that "It may pass the House, but not the Senate."[26] McConnell further criticized it for giving the federal government more power over elections, saying it would "[give] Washington D.C. politicians even more control over who gets to come here [Congress] in the first place."[26]

On March 6, 2019, McConnell told journalists that he would not allow the bill a vote on the Senate floor.[12] Representative Dan Crenshaw (R-TX-2) tweeted a false claim about the act in March, claiming that it would lead to the same type of fraud seen in North Carolina in 2018.[27]

The Wall Street Journal editorial board opposes the bill and said it was "designed to auto-enroll likely Democratic voters, enhance Democratic turnout, with no concern for ballot integrity."[28]

Many prominent progressive organizations, such as the League of Women Voters, League of Conservation Voters, and the members of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, have noted their support for the bill.[29][30][31] Additionally, a January 2021 poll conducted by Data for Progress found that two-thirds of those surveyed supported H.R. 1.[32]

See also

Notes

  1. ^ An obligation for members of Congress to reimburse the government for payments made to settle harassment claims was established by legislation enacted in 2018; the H.R. 1 proposal would be to extend this requirement to all forms of employment discrimination.[14]

References

  1. ^ "HR1 - The For The People Act of 2019". www.brennancenter.org. Retrieved January 22, 2019.
  2. ^ a b c d e f g h King, Ledyard (March 8, 2019). "Restores the people's faith': House passes a broad anti-corruption and voting rights bill". USA Today. Retrieved January 25, 2021.
  3. ^ a b c d e f "House Democrats and HR 1: Voting rights expansion or federal power grab?". PolitiFact. Retrieved January 25, 2021.
  4. ^ a b c d e f Overby, Peter (January 5, 2019). "House Democrats Introduce Anti-Corruption Bill As Symbolic 1st Act". National Public Radio. Retrieved January 6, 2019.
  5. ^ "With Control Of Congress, Democrats Aim To Address Voting Rights". Weekend Edition Sunday. NPR. January 24, 2017.
  6. ^ Sarbanes, John (January 3, 2019). "H.R.1 – 116th Congress (2019–2020): To expand Americans' access to the ballot box, reduce the influence of big money in politics, and strengthen ethics rules for public servants, and for other purposes". www.congress.gov. United States Congress. Archived from the original on January 7, 2019. Retrieved January 6, 2019.
  7. ^ Nilsen, Ella (March 8, 2019). "House Democrats just passed a slate of significant reforms to get money out of politics". Vox. Retrieved March 8, 2019.
  8. ^ "Final Vote Results For Roll Call 118".
  9. ^ "For the People Act of 2019 (H.R. 1)". GovTrack.us. Retrieved September 23, 2019.
  10. ^ Treene, Alayna. "House Democrats plan to reintroduce 9 key bills that died under the Trump administration". Axios. Retrieved January 8, 2021.
  11. ^ a b c d Edmondson, Catie (March 7, 2019). "House Democrats Will Vote on Sweeping Anti-Corruption Legislation. Here's What's in It. (Published 2019)". The New York Times. Retrieved January 26, 2021.
  12. ^ a b Levine, Marianne (March 6, 2019). "McConnell won't allow vote on election reform bill". Politico. Retrieved March 8, 2019.
  13. ^ Fandos, Nicholas (January 4, 2019). "Aiming at Trump, Democrats Lay Out Agenda for a Post-Shutdown Congress". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved January 4, 2019.
  14. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s Annotated Guide to H.R. 1, the For the People Act of 2019, Brennan Center for Justice, New York University School of Law (April 13, 2020).
  15. ^ a b McPherson, Lindsey; Ackley, Kate (March 6, 2019). "10 things you might not know about HR 1". Roll Call. Retrieved January 25, 2021.
  16. ^ McPherson, Lindsey (January 4, 2019). "House Democrats unveil first major legislative package of voting, campaign finance and ethics overhauls". Roll Call. Archived from the original on January 7, 2019. Retrieved January 11, 2019.
  17. ^ Kate Ruane & Sonia Gill, Congress, Let's Fix the Problems in H.R. 1 So We Can Enact the Bill's Much-Needed Reforms, American Civil Liberties Union (March 5, 2019).
  18. ^ a b Nilsen, Ella (January 4, 2019). "House Democrats officially unveil their first bill in the majority: a sweeping anti-corruption proposal". Vox. Retrieved January 6, 2019.
  19. ^ By Emily Cochrane, In Historic Vote, House Approves Statehood for the District of Columbia, New York Times (June 26, 2020).
  20. ^ a b Stephanopoulos, Nicholas (January 9, 2019). "H.R. 1 and Redistricting Commissions". Election Law Blog.
  21. ^ Smith, Paul (January 29, 2019). "H.R. 1 Would Fix – and Protect – Democracy in the U.S." U.S. News & World Report. www.usnews.com. Retrieved February 6, 2019.
  22. ^ Nilsen, Ella (January 29, 2019). "Lobbyists are already mounting an opposition strategy to Democrats' anti-corruption bill". Vox. Vox Media. Retrieved February 6, 2019.
  23. ^ "Reform the FEC to Ensure Fair and Vigorous Law Enforcement". Brennan Center. www.brennancenter.org. February 4, 2016. Retrieved February 6, 2019.
  24. ^ Confessore, Nicholas (August 25, 2014). "Election Panel Enacts Policies by Not Acting". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved February 6, 2019.
  25. ^ Stephanopoulos, Nicholas (January 18, 2019). "McConnell's Criticisms of H.R. 1". electionlawblog.org. Retrieved February 6, 2019.
  26. ^ a b McConnell, Mitch (January 29, 2019). "'The Democrat Politician Protection Act'". www.republicanleader.senate.gov. Retrieved March 8, 2019.
  27. ^ Specht, Paul. "Crenshaw wrong about HR1 'legalizing' NC-like election fraud". @politifact. Retrieved March 16, 2019.
  28. ^ "Opinion- Pelosi's Top Priority: Consolidating Power". Wall Street Journal. January 14, 2021. Retrieved January 25, 2021.
  29. ^ "League Affirms Support for the For the People Act in 117th Congress". League of Women Voters. Retrieved January 25, 2021.
  30. ^ "Re: Support Prioritizing the For the People Act (H.R.1)". League of Conservation Voters. Retrieved January 25, 2021.
  31. ^ "Support H.R. 1, the For the People Act". The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. Retrieved January 25, 2021.
  32. ^ "67% of Americans Support HR.1 For The People Act". Data For Progress. Retrieved January 25, 2021.

Further reading

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=For_the_People_Act&oldid=1003006347"