Federalism has been under attack since Alexander Hamilton first proposed the formation of a national bank in 1791. Politicians have been at work trying to grow the federal government ever since. Let’s look at how the “For the People Act” actually takes power from the people.
Wresting control of local elections seems to top the Democratic wish list in this bill. The bill seeks to penalize routine voter list maintenance, micromanage online registration and voting processes, dictate the use of no-fault absentee ballots, and neutralize the impact of voter ID laws.
Democrats justify this power grab with wild claims that states are deliberately attempting to suppress votes. But research from the left-wing Brennan Center for Justice at New York University contradicts that narrative. They report, “More broadly, 31 states have filed or pre-filed at least 230 bills that would expand voting access. That far surpasses the 14 states, at least, where lawmakers have filed or pre-filed at least 24 bills thus far that would restrict voting access.” The Brennan Center considers any bill that requires photo ID to be a bill that restricts voting access.
In reality, states are working hard to find solutions that expand ballot access without damaging election integrity. This is exactly the process by which such issues should be addressed. States have long been the laboratory of ideas in which new solutions can be tried and shared.
Democrats love to invoke the Fourteenth Amendment and the Voting Rights Act when trying to make the case that election security measures are equivalent to voter suppression. They seem to believe secure elections are a threat to them politically. But what about provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment that don’t cut their way at the ballot box? Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly grants to states the ability to abridge voting rights “for participation in rebellion, or other crime” as long as they do not discriminate. Yet this H.R. 1 legislation tries to do by statute what can only be done by constitutional amendment. It imposes a federal mandate restoring voting rights to all felons upon their release. This is not only unconstitutional, but it is a direct assault on states’ rights and in some cases, directly violates state constitutions. Why are Democrats so interested in forcing this policy from the top down?
Coincidentally, studies show that the vast majority of convicted felons identify as Democrats. A 2013 study published by professors from the University of Pennsylvania and Stanford University offered more recent confirmation of what earlier studies have often shown. Democrats benefit when felons vote. This massive pool of voters—about 2.5 percent of the national voting age population—overwhelmingly register as Democrats. In New York, the study found 61.5 percent register Democrat to 9 percent Republican. In swing state North Carolina, 54.6 percent register Democrat and 10.2 percent Republican.
Our policies on felon voting rights should not be dictated based on political fortunes. States retain the power to enact policies that reflect the will of their voters. Those voters have a great deal more influence at the state level than at the federal level. Thorny questions involving whether criminals should have voting rights restored, which criminals, and at what point are not federal decisions.
The priority bill for Democrats in the 116th Congress has absolutely no chance of becoming law so long as Donald Trump remains president of the United States. But it does provide a useful road map of the power grab Democrats have in mind when they do return to power. More important, it shows us the institutions that will be sacrificed. The FEC will never function objectively once Democrats are finished reorganizing it.
Infringements on free speech and federalism in this bill are just the beginning. H.R. 1 is just the first of ten priority bills Democrats will introduce—many of which follow the same formula of sacrificing long-term institutions, rights, and credibility for short-term political gains. Let’s look at what else is on the Democrats’ priority list. H.R. 3 addresses high prescription drugs prices by imposing market-distorting price controls on drugs, a move that will lower prices in the short term but cripple innovation in the long term, and put government bureaucrats in charge of health care. H.R. 4 addresses voting rights. It is expected to impose even more (politicized) federal control over local elections. H.R. 5, the Equality Act, imposes criminal penalties on religious dissent and overrides the rights of states to dictate who can be in the public restroom with our sons and daughters. H.R. 6, the DREAM Act, undermines the rule of law by doubling down on our system of rewarding citizenship to lawbreakers while continuing to penalize with long delays and high fees any who attempt to come here legally. The bill is anticipated to offer citizenship not only to a greatly expanded category of children of illegal immigrants, but to immigrants with Temporary Protected Status from El Salvador, Haiti, Nicaragua, Sudan, and Liberia at a minimum. H.R. 8, a background checks bill that further restricts Second Amendment rights, was passed by the House in February. H.R. 9 is expected to be a climate bill that will almost certainly restrict rights as well as markets.
The legislative agenda of House Democrats will undoubtedly go nowhere this time. But that won’t stop Democrats from attempting to insert various provisions into must-pass budget legislation. In the Senate, Minority Leader Schumer demanded that “election security” measures be added to the defense spending bill. This implies that Schumer wants to protect elections from Russian interference. But when he talks about election security measures, he isn’t talking about voter ID, voter list maintenance, or other measures that might potentially ferret out voter fraud. He’s talking about the provisions of H.R. 1, which do just the opposite.
Given the heavy reliance of Democrats on small-donor contributions from deep Blue states, we can likely expect legislative efforts to function as a marketing campaign to draw donations from the left’s wealthy coastal enclaves. Those donors don’t get excited by bipartisanship or problem solving. They open their checkbooks when they see their policy prescriptions imposed on everyone. But legislation is not the only way to draw the attention of potential donors. Newly won control of House committee chairmanships gives Democrats a new platform for stoking anger and raising funds for 2020 campaigns.
Democrats have shown that they have little regard for constitutional norms when short-term partisan wins are at stake. While Republican policy tracks closely to the things people actually want, Democrats are more concerned with preserving the conditions that have kept them in power. How do you recognize the swamp? The swamp always protects itself first.
Chapter 7
Oversight Without Government Reform
The transformation of congressional oversight from its function as a government watchdog to an anti-Trump opposition research function happened fast. Suddenly the imperative to root out waste, fraud, and abuse became an imperative to root out a sitting president. Democrats are not even trying to make a pretense of pursuing government reform. Instead of addressing government corruption, they are fully focused on politically motivated investigations into the president’s personal and professional life.
During each of the eight years Barack Obama was president, I was a member of the House Oversight Committee. Never once did we attempt to target the president personally. We certainly never went after his family. We never delved into his personal financial records or his or his family’s business dealings, never targeted his legal counsel or spiritual leaders, nor asked them to testify. Not because there were no scandals. But because we were there to identify and solve systemic executive branch problems.