For the People Act of 2019 - HR 1
KEEP THE EYES ON THE PRIZE
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 House passed the bill on March 8, 2019 by a vote of 234–193 along strict party lines.[5][6] As of January 2021, which also marks the end of the 116th United States Congress, it has not been passed by the Senate.[7] House Democrats are expected to reintroduce the Act in the 117th United States Congress.[8]
The bill's provisions fall into three major categories:[3][9]
Campaign finance reform. The bill would introduce voluntary public financing for campaigns, matching small donations at a 6:1 ratio.[10] It also incorporates campaign finance reform provisions from the DISCLOSE Act,[10][11] 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 independent political expenditures 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 nonpartisan 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".[10] 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.[12] Sarbanes, the legislation's drafter, argued that the bill's public popularity would ultimately lead to its passage
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_the_People_Act_of_2019
Voting rights for felons
The authority of the United States Congress over elections is extensive.[14][15] One feature of the proposed legislation is that convicted felons could not be denied the right to vote unless currently in prison.[16] Whether congressional authority extends this far is subject to disagreement,[17] with arguments being made for[18] and against.[19] 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.[a][20]
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, a question the Court may have to decide.[21] In 2011, Chief Justice John Roberts made clear in his end-of-year report that he believed Congress does not have the power to impose conduct rules on the Supreme Court, because 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".[22] Lower federal courts, by contrast, were created by Congress and are subject to rules Congress establishes. Because of this, some suggest that the purpose of the proposed ethics rules would not be punishment or even enforcement, but 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.[23] Others argue that Congress has the authority to require the Supreme Court to write its own code of ethics.[24] In 1991, the Supreme Court adopted a resolution[25] that its officers and employees will comply with the substance of the Judicial Conference Regulations,[26] 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.[27] 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.[28] The House approved H.R. 51, which would make the populated portion of the District a state, in June 2020, on a near-uniform party line vote; the measure was not taken up in the Republican-controlled Senate.[29]
Gerrymandering
Congressional redistricting occurs every 10 years as congressional boundaries are redrawn after the Census. Article One of the Constitution states that "the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations." Currently, the process of drawing congressional districts is for the most part under state control, although the Voting Rights Act places some restrictions.[30]
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 question, leaving any solution to the other branches of government. In order to prevent gerrymandering, H.R. 1 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.[31]
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[32] and the effective regulation of political donations.[33] 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,[34] and for loosening restrictions simply by signaling what standards they are willing to enforce.[35]
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.[36]
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".[37] He called the bill the "Democrat Politician Protection Act" in the statement.[37] 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."[37] 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.[12] Representative Dan Crenshaw (R-TX-2) tweeted a false claim about the Act in March.[38]
= new reply since forum marked as read
