For the People Act of 2019

The For The People Act of 2019 (H.R. 1, 2019)[1][2] is a bill introduced and passed in the United States House of Representatives to expand voting rights, limit partisan gerrymandering, strengthen ethics rules, and limit the influence of private donor money in politics.[3] It was introduced by John Sarbanes (D-MD) on January 3, 2019, on behalf of the newly elected Democratic majority as the first official legislation of the 116th United States Congress.[3][4] The bill was passed by the House on March 8, 2019 by a vote of 234–193 along strict party lines.[5][6] As of August 2020, it has not been passed by the Senate.[7]

For The People Act of 2019
Full 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.
Introduced in116th United States Congress
Introduced onJan 3, 2019
Number of co-sponsors225
Legislative history
Senator Amy Klobuchar speaks on the Act from inside the Capitol Building

The bill's provisions fall into three major categories:[3][8]

  • Campaign finance reform. The bill would introduce voluntary public financing for campaigns, matching small donations at a 6:1 ratio.[9] It also incorporates campaign finance reform provisions from the DISCLOSE Act,[9][10] 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 also expresses support for a constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United decision, where the Supreme Court held that virtually unlimited political spending by corporations, labor unions, and other associations was a constitutional right.
  • Government ethics. The bill would require presidential and vice-presidential candidates to disclose their previous 10 years of income-tax returns, eliminate the use of taxpayer money by politicians to settle sexual harassment claims, and create a new ethics code for the U.S. Supreme Court, which is not subject to existing judicial codes of conduct.
  • Voting rights. The bill would create a national voter-registration program, make Election Day a federal holiday, replace partisan gerrymandering with non-partisan commissions to draw electoral districts, and limit efforts to purge voting rolls.

The bill was viewed as a comprehensive statement of the priorities of the Democratic House majority elected in 2018. The New York Times called the bill "the Democrats’ signature piece of legislation."[9] Mitch McConnell, the Republican Senate Majority Leader, pledged that the bill was "not going to go anywhere in the Senate." In March 2019, McConnell said he would not put the bill to a vote on the Senate floor.[11] Representative John Sarbanes, the drafter of the legislation, argued that the public popularity of the bill's provisions would ultimately lead to its passage.[12]

Voting rights for felons

The authority of the United States Congress over elections is extensive.[13][14] One feature of the proposed legislation is that convicted felons could not be denied the right to vote unless currently in prison.[15] Whether congressional authority extends this far is subject to disagreement,[16] with arguments being made for[17] and against.[18] Fourteen states have laws that indefinitely deny voting rights for some convicted felons, twenty-two do not restore voting rights until after parole and/or probation, and some states require payment of fines or restitution.[lower-alpha 1][19]

Supreme Court ethics

Another part of the proposed legislation instructs the Judicial Conference to establish rules of ethics binding on the Supreme Court. It is unclear whether Congress has the constitutional authority to impose ethics requirements on Supreme Court Justices, which is a question that the Court ultimately may have to decide.[20] In 2011, Chief Justice Roberts made it clear in his end-of-year report that he believed Congress did not have the constitutional power to impose conduct rules on the Supreme Court. The reason is that the Supreme Court was established by the Constitution, according to which the justices serve as long as they exhibit "good behavior," or face possible impeachment and removal for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."[21] Lower federal courts, by contrast, were created by Congress and are subject to the rules that Congress establishes. Because of this some suggest that the purpose of the proposed ethics rules would not be punishment or even enforcement, but rather only a promulgation of rules so that Supreme Court justices can be held accountable for their conduct in the court of public opinion. In addition, a documented ethics violation could be relevant to a potential impeachment proceeding.[22] Others argue that Congress has the authority to require the Supreme Court to write its own code of ethics.[23] In 1991 the Supreme Court adopted a resolution[24] that officers and employees of the Court will comply with the substance of the Judicial Conference Regulations,[25] subject to stated clarifications.

Statehood for the District of Columbia
Further information: Statehood movement in the District of Columbia

The proposed legislation also calls for statehood for the District of Columbia, arguing that the District has a larger population than two states, Wyoming and Vermont, and is close to the population of the seven states that have a population of under one million fully represented residents, and claiming that Congress has the authority to admit new States to the union through legislation. Others argue that a constitutional amendment would be required.[26] The question of admission of the District of Columbia as a state has a long history. Statehood for D.C. is expected to be opposed by Republicans, since it would almost certainly put more Democrats in Congress.[27] The one time the House voted on statehood, in 1993, the proposal failed 277 to 153, with support from 60 percent of Democrats and one Republican.[28]

Gerrymandering

Congressional redistricting occurs every 10 years as congressional boundaries are redrawn after the Census. Under Article One of the Constitution, the state legislature controls this process. In order to prevent gerrymandering, the proposed legislation would require states to use independent commissions to design their congressional districts. If they declined to do so, the federal government would set one up for them.[29]

The 2015 U.S. Supreme Court decision Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission affirmed that even though the Constitution calls for the legislature to draw the district lines, an independent commission could constitutionally be appointed (by the state) to perform this function. In the 2019 decisions Rucho v. Common Cause and Benisek v. Lamone the Supreme Court found that gerrymandering was a nonjusticiable political questions, leaving any solution to the other branches of government.

Number of Federal Election Commissioners

Under current law, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) is made up of six members, no more than three of whom can be members of the same political party, with at least four votes being required for any official FEC action. The complaint is that this has resulted in an impotent and gridlocked FEC, with important reforms being left unaddressed, such as the updating of campaign finance law for the digital age[30] and the effective regulation of political donations.[31] Some advocates for reform have blamed the Republican members of the FEC for being unwilling either to investigate any potential violations or to impose tougher restrictions,[32] and for loosening restrictions simply by signaling what standards they are willing to enforce.[33]

The proposed bill would give the FEC five commissioners instead of six, reducing the likelihood of tie votes, and would 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 individuals with experience in election law, except that the president could not select any individual to serve on the panel 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.[34]

Reactions and statements

On January 29, 2019, Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell issued a statement criticizing the Act as a "one-sided power grab" by the Democratic Party and assuring that "It may pass the House, but not the Senate".[35] He called the bill the "Democrat Politician Protection Act" in the statement.[35] He further criticized the bill 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."[35] On March 6, McConnell indicated to journalists that he would not allow the bill a vote on the Senate floor, even as he would allow a vote on the Green New Deal resolution.[11] Representative Dan Crenshaw (R-TX-2) tweeted criticism of the Act in March.[36]

See also
  • Senate Bill S. 949: For the People Act, introduced on Mar 28, 2019 by Senator Tom Udall of New Mexico. [37] [38]

Notes
  1. The 14 states include Maryland, where convictions for buying or selling votes can only be restored through pardon, and Florida, where those convicted of murder or a felony sexual offense must still petition the governor for restoration of voting rights on a case by case basis. Florida was also included in the 22 number since for other felonies voting rights are restored after parole/probation.

References
  1. "HR1 - The For The People Act of 2019". www.brennancenter.org. Retrieved January 22, 2019.
  2. 116th Congress (2019) (January 3, 2019). "H.R. 1 (116th)". Legislation. GovTrack.us. Retrieved March 7, 2019. For the People Act of 2019
  3. Overby, Peter (January 5, 2019). "House Democrats Introduce Anti-Corruption Bill As Symbolic 1st Act". National Public Radio. Retrieved January 6, 2019.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. "Final Vote Results For Roll Call 118".
  7. "For the People Act of 2019 (H.R. 1)". GovTrack.us. Retrieved September 23, 2019.
  8. 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.
  9. Catie Edmondson, House Democrats Will Vote on Sweeping Anti-Corruption Legislation. Here's What's in It., New York Times (March 7, 2019).
  10. 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).
  11. Levine, Marianne (March 6, 2019). "McConnell won't allow vote on election reform bill". Politico. Retrieved March 8, 2019.
  12. 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.
  13. Garret, R. Sam (September 4, 2018). "Federal Role in U.S. Campaigns and Elections: An Overview" (PDF). Federation of American Scientists. Congressional Research Service. Retrieved March 7, 2019.
  14. "Congressional Authority to Direct How States Administer Elections". www.everycrsreport.com. December 4, 2014. Archived from the original on June 9, 2018. Retrieved January 12, 2019.
  15. 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.
  16. "Does the US Congress Have Authority to Legislate Felon Enfranchisement in Federal Elections?". felonvoting.procon.org. February 4, 2009. Archived from the original on June 6, 2017. Retrieved January 11, 2019.
  17. "Legal Analysis of Congress' Constitutional Authority to Restore Voting Rights to People with Criminal Histories". www.brennancenter.org. August 3, 2009. Retrieved January 11, 2019.
  18. von Spakovsky, Hans; Clegg, Roger (February 11, 2015). "Felon Voting and Unconstitutional Congressional Overreach". www.heritage.org. The Heritage Foundation. Archived from the original on March 22, 2017. Retrieved January 11, 2019.
  19. "Felon Voting Rights". www.ncsl.org. December 21, 2018. Archived from the original on March 7, 2016. Retrieved January 12, 2019.
  20. Brown, Cynthia (August 20, 2018). "Calling Balls and Strikes: Ethics and Supreme Court Justices" (PDF). Federation of American Scientists. Congressional Research Service. Retrieved March 7, 2019.
  21. Bomboy, Scott (July 15, 2016). "Why the Supreme Court isn't compelled to follow a conduct code". National Constitution Center. Retrieved January 22, 2019.
  22. Lubet, Steven (August 20, 2018). "Why Won't John Roberts Accept an Ethics Code for Supreme Court Justices?". Slate Magazine. Retrieved January 22, 2019.
  23. Geyh, Charles; Gillers, Stephen (August 8, 2013). "SCOTUS needs a code of ethics". Politico. Retrieved January 22, 2019.
  24. "Resolution" (PDF). www.washingtonpost.com. 1991. Retrieved January 22, 2019.
  25. "Code of Conduct for United States Judges". United States Courts. www.uscourts.gov. Retrieved January 22, 2019.
  26. R., Hewitt (August 27, 1993). "D.C. Statehood: Not Without a Constitutional Amendment". The Heritage Foundation. www.heritage.org. Retrieved January 22, 2019.
  27. Opsahl, Robin; Opsahl, Robin (April 16, 2018). "Three Big Hurdles for D.C. as Advocates Lobby for Statehood". Roll Call. www.rollcall.com. Retrieved January 22, 2019.
  28. "What Democratic control of the House means for D.C. statehood". The Washington Post. www.washingtonpost.com. December 28, 2018. Retrieved January 22, 2019.
  29. Stephanopoulos, Nicholas (January 9, 2019). "H.R. 1 and Redistricting Commissions". electionlawblog.org. Retrieved January 22, 2019.
  30. 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.
  31. Nilsen, Ella (January 29, 2019). "Lobbyists are already mounting an opposition strategy to Democrats' anti-corruption bill". Vox. Vox Media. Retrieved February 6, 2019.
  32. "Reform the FEC to Ensure Fair and Vigorous Law Enforcement". Brennan Center. www.brennancenter.org. February 4, 2016. Retrieved February 6, 2019.
  33. Confessore, Nicholas (August 25, 2014). "Election Panel Enacts Policies by Not Acting". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved February 6, 2019.
  34. Stephanopoulos, Nicholas (January 18, 2019). "McConnell's Criticisms of H.R. 1". electionlawblog.org. Retrieved February 6, 2019.
  35. McConnell, Mitch (January 29, 2019). "'The Democrat Politician Protection Act' | Republican Leader". www.republicanleader.senate.gov. Retrieved March 8, 2019.
  36. Specht, Paul. "Crenshaw wrong about HR1 'legalizing' NC-like election fraud". @politifact. Retrieved March 16, 2019.
  37. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/s949#
  38. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/949

Further reading
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.