H.R. 1: Why did GOP even debate this? It's unconstitutional

Several days ago, the House of Representatives voted on H.R. 1 – a bill that would entirely change the way America does elections.

The result of the vote was approval, entirely partisan – and unconstitutional.

With the problems inherent in the 2020 elections, the Democrats, with the full backing of the Censorship Cartel, approved massive voting changes designed to ensure they win every ballot – starting in less than two years.

In short, voting rules would be determined by one party – the Democrats.

I don’t know why Republicans participated in this farce. It seem appropriate that they would have done better to boycott the vote rather than take part.

Some 20 Republican state attorneys general signed a letter denouncing the House Democrats’ controversial election reform bill as unconstitutional for a slew of reasons just hours before the measure was voted on.

The letter – led by Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita – tore into H.R. 1, euphemistically called the “For the People Act.”

“This monstrosity of a bill betrays the Constitution, dangerously federalizes state elections, and undermines the integrity of the ballot box,” Rokita said in a statement to Fox News. “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.'”

The attorneys general said the bill “betrays several constitutional deficiencies and alarming mandates” that would “federalize” statewide elections across America and that “states have principal – and with presidential elections, exclusive – responsibility to safeguard” how they hold elections under the Constitution.

“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,” the attorneys general wrote.

They then warned lawmakers that they “may wish to consider the Act’s constitutional vulnerabilities as well as the policy critiques of state officials.”

In other words, this wasn’t your average unconstitutional bill – it was way over the top, even for Democratic standards. Since Republicans couldn’t defeat it, they should have boycotted it. Drawing a line to the partisan nature of the bill as well as the unconstitutionality of it.


The 20 attorneys general drove this point home in their letter, arguing that the For the People Act “implicates the Electors Clause” of the Constitution. The Electors Clause guarantees each state legislature the right to “direct allotment of presidential electors, and separately affords Congress only the more limited power to ‘determine the Time of chusing the Electors.'”

The attorneys general argued that this “exclusive division of power” outlined in the Constitution “differs markedly” from the Election Clause in Article I of the Constitution, “which 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,” wrote the multi-state legal team. “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 group then pointed to the 1892 Supreme Court case McPherson v. Blacker that “[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,” the group wrote.

I guess those fellows who drew up the Constitution knew what they were doing.

The letter took aim at the For the People Act’s “limitations” on voter identification laws, roasting the act as doing “little to ensure voters say who they are” and pointing out that “requiring” a government ID to vote in an election “represents nothing more than a best practice for election administration.”

“Government-issued photo identification has been the global standard for documentary identification for decades,” the lawyers wrote, saying that “nearly 20 years ago” the Help America Vote Act required proof of identification for “first-time voters who register by mail without proof of identification.”

They continued on to say that the Help America Vote Act “required” said voters to “present identification either to the county voter-registration office or at the polls.”

H.R. 1 “vitiates the capacity of voter ID requirements to protect against improper interference with voting rights,” the letter reads. The attorneys general went on to say the act was “not a fair election law” as it does not “treat all voters equally.”

To round off their letter calling on Congress to rethink H.R. 1, the attorneys general blasted the bill’s “requirement that political speakers disclose their donor lists.” The group said the bill “reflects an objective to name, shame, and blacklist” those who have “different or minority viewpoints.”

“In other words, the goal is to censor those with whom the authors of the bill disagree,” wrote the attorneys general.

“In the American tradition, the antidote for bad speech is more speech, not less,” they continued. “When people and organizations carry their chosen messages into the public arena, government should not cater to those who would intimidate or disrupt that same speech.”

The group of attorneys general finished the letter promising that, should the For the People Act become law, they would “seek legal remedies to protect the Constitution, the sovereignty of all states, our elections, and the rights of our citizens.”

What were the Republicans thinking? They must have known the outcome of the vote was predetermined. Did they not think a boycott of the vote would have been more effective?

And should the bill become law, will the Supreme Court indeed take on the constitutional challenge, having not done so with the election case in 2020?

This bill is not only unconstitutional, it represents a genuine existential threat to freedom in America.

Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].

This article was originally published by the WND News Center.

Related Posts