The Daily Signal - HR 4 ‘Gives Federal Bureaucrats Control’ Over State Election Laws, Expert Says

Episode Date: August 24, 2021

The House Rules Committee voted Monday on rules governing debate on election legislation known as HR 4, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. The controversial bill now goes to the House for a vote.  After Democrats failed to pass HR 1, a partisan piece of election law, they crafted HR 4, which Heritage Foundation senior legal fellow Hans von Spakovsky says is a danger to states' election rights. (The Daily Signal is the news outlet of The Heritage Foundation.) HR 4 “gives federal bureaucrats control over all these state [election] rules all over the country,” says von Spakovsky, a former member of the Federal Election Commission. “It is an unbelievable invasion of state sovereignty.”  The bill is likely to pass along party lines in the House, but faces a battle in the evenly divided Senate, he says.  Von Spakovsky joins “The Daily Signal Podcast” to explain why the left is advocating for federal control of elections, and how HR 4 would affect the nation if it were to become law.  We also cover these stories: The Food and Drug Administration formally approves the Pfizer coronavirus vaccine. The Pentagon plans to mandate that all U.S. military personnel be vaccinated. Monday was Andrew Cuomo's last day serving as governor of New York. Enjoy the show! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

At Desjardin, we speak business. We speak equipment modernization. We're fluent in data digitization and expansion into foreign markets. And we can talk all day about streamlining manufacturing processes. Because at Desjardin business, we speak the same language you do. Business. So join the more than 400,000 Canadian entrepreneurs who already count on us. And contact Desjardin today.

We'd love to talk, business. This is the Daily Signal podcast for Tuesday, August 24th. I'm Kate Trinco. And I'm Virginia Allen. The left is working to pass new voting legislation that would give more power to Washington to control election laws. Heritage Foundation Senior Legal Fellow Hans von Spakovsky joins the show to break down what HR4 is and how it would affect elections in your state.

He also explains the difference between HR4 and the partisan election legislation known as H.R. 1 or the For the People Act. And don't forget, if you enjoy this podcast, please be sure to leave a review or a five-star rating on Apple Podcasts, and please encourage others to subscribe. And now, on to today's top news. The Food and Drug Administration, months after greenlighting COVID vaccines under emergency use authorization, has formally approved the Pfizer vaccine, which will now be referred to is Comerity. The approval applies to the vaccine when distributed to those 16 or older, for those age 12 to 15, it remains under emergency use authorization. Acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, a doctor, said in a statement,

while this and other vaccines have met the FDA's rigorous scientific standards for emergency use authorization, as the first FDA approved COVID-19 vaccine, the public can be very confident. that this vaccine meets the high standards for safety, effectiveness, and manufacturing quality the FDA requires of an approved product. The Pentagon is soon going to mandate all U.S. military personnel be vaccinated. Following the Food and Drug Administration's approval of the Pfizer vaccine, Pentagon Press Secretary John Kirby said Defense Secretary Lord Austin is prepared to issue updated guidance requiring all service members to be vascular. vaccinated. A timeline will be released in the coming days for how quickly service members are

required to receive the vaccine. Kirby told the press that these efforts ensure the safety of our service members and promote the readiness of our force. New York City officials also announced Monday that they will require all of its teachers and staff to be at least partially vaccinated by September 27th. Previously, New York City teachers and staff were given the option to either be tested weekly or be vaccinated. At least 63% of all New York City School employees have already been vaccinated, but it is unclear what will happen to those who refuse the vaccine. The Capitol Police announced Monday that the findings of an internal investigation found no wrongdoing by the unnamed officer who shot Ashley Babett, a protester who entered the Capitol

on January 6th and died after being shot. A Capitol police, press release stated, the actions of the officer in this case potentially saved members and staff from serious injury and possible death from a large crowd of rioters who forced their way into the U.S. Capitol, and to the House chamber where members and staff were steps away. Capitol Police officers had barricaded the Speaker's lobby with furniture before a rioter shattered the glass door. If the doors were breached, the rioters would have immediate access to the House chambers. The officer's actions were consistent with the officer's training and Capitol Police policies and procedures. Monday was Andrew Cuomo's last day serving as

governor of New York. Two weeks ago, Cuomo announced he would be stepping down as governor amid multiple sexual harassment allegations. He used his farewell address on Monday to criticize New York Attorney General Letitia James' investigation into his sexual misconduct per CNBC. The Attorney General's report was designed to be a political firecracker on an explosive topic, and it worked. There was a political and media stampede, but the truth will out in time. Of that, I am confident. The New York State Assembly plans to release the findings of their own investigation into the sexual harassment allegations against Cuomo. Lieutenant Governor Kathy Hochol became the new governor of New York at midnight Tuesday morning.

Now stay tuned because up next I talk with Heritage Foundation Senior Legal Fellow Hans von Spikovsky as we break down how the election legislation HR4 would affect voting in your state. Are you looking for quick conservative policy solutions to current issues? Sign up for Heritage's weekly newsletter. the agenda. In the agenda, you will learn what issues Heritage Scholars on Capitol Hill are working on, what position conservatives are taking, and links to our in-depth research. The agenda also provides information on important events happening here at Heritage that you can watch online, as well as media interviews from our experts. Sign up for the agenda on heritage.org today. I am so pleased to be joined

by Heritage Foundation Senior Legal Fellow Hans von Spakovsky. Hans, thank you so much for being here. Sure, thanks for having me. Well, we are talking today about a very important piece of election legislation. For many of our listeners, they may remember that back in March, we were hearing a lot about a bill called HR1. And the House actually passed HR1 at the beginning of March. It was essentially a federal takeover of elections, and it was a very partisan piece of legislation. And so even though it passed in the House, it really floundered in the Senate because there was not, enough votes for it to overcome a Republican filibuster. But now what we're seeing is that House

Democrats have introduced a voting bill known as HR4. So Hans, if you would just explain what exactly the differences are between HR1 and HR4. And could HR4 be described as a federal takeover of elections in the same way that HR1 was? Yes, it could, essentially the same, even though they're different bills. Okay, HR1 was a 900-page monstrosity. And it, in essence, it was a federal takeover. It voided all kinds of state laws and rules, mostly those concerned with the security of the election process.

And then it put in a whole series of mandates. And a quick example of these is that it threw out all state voter ID laws. No state would be allowed to ask anyone for an ID when they, vote at the same time it required states to put in same-day voter registration that means they have to allow you to walk into a polling place on election day register and immediately vote well that means election officials have no time to actually verify you know any of the information you're providing when you register if they can't ask for an ID you could walk in to numerous polling places using false names false addresses and vote all day as many times as you want that that's how bad

HR1 was. Dave distilled this 900-page bill down now to a new one that's about 60 pages, that it doesn't have all of those bans and mandate in it, but it basically would accomplish the same thing, because what it does is, in essence, says federal bureaucrats will have the ability to veto any state election laws and rules they don't like. If a state legislature passes a voter ID requirement, it won't be effective until and unless they actually submit it to the U.S. Justice Department for review. So it gives federal bureaucrats control over all these state rules all over the country. It is an unbelievable invasion of state sovereignty, and it's very clear they are expecting the

very liberal career lawyers inside the Civil Rights Division, where I used to work, to basically take it upon themselves to reject and throw out all the laws they tried to ban outright in HR1. And I can tell you, that's exactly what would happen. So under HR4, what I'm hearing is not only does it take away a lot of states' rights, state's sovereignty, but it also creates a ton of red tape for those states that want to change their voting laws in any way. Is that pretty accurate? No, that is accurate. I mean, it even, goes down to the point where if you want to change a polling location and think about it, there are tens of thousands of polling places across the country. If you want to change a polling

location, you will have to get it approved by the U.S. Justice Department. I mean, it is, it's basically a way of saying to states and to the residents of each state, we are no longer are going to allow you to set up what the rules are for running elections in your state. So under current law, what do states have to do to update their election laws? Well, they simply pass a piece of legislation the way states have recently done, and they're just ended legislative session. You know, they can pass reforms. They can make other changes.

Now, the one thing they have to do is, of course, they can't put it in any kind of of election law that is racially discriminatory. You know, if you pass a law that where you deliberately intend to and has the effect of discriminating the basis of race, obviously you can't do that. But the way the system currently works, you know, that's prohibited under the Voting Rights Act. And if the Justice Department or a private group thinks that a law is discriminatory, what do they have to do? Well, they have to go to court and prove to a court that it's discriminatory. that would all be reversed under HR4 because in essence, the burden of proof would be on the state to prove their innocence with these federal bureaucrats. Wow. Wow. So let's say if a state like, you know, Iowa wanted to update their voter laws and if HR4 passed and was implemented into law, then there would be all sorts of hoops that that state, let's say Iowa would have to jump through in order to make.

make those simple changes. No, that's right. And for folks who think, well, this is okay because the career lawyers who work inside the Civil Rights Division, and that's the office that would get this veto authority, well, we're sure their objective, you know, nonpartisan federal civil servants, that couldn't be more wrong. I used to work there. And in 2013, the Inspector General of the Justice Department issued a report.

on that office talking about and describing all kinds of misbehavior, unethical and unprofessional behavior there. And they are very, very partisan. One of the criticisms was that when they were hiring new lawyers into the career slots, which are supposed to be non-political, they ignored the resumes of well-qualified professional lawyers because they only wanted to hire from five, radical left-wing advocacy organizations, including, by the way, the ACLU.

So this law, HR-4, if it passes, it's as if you gave the ACLU and other such organizations the ability to veto any state law anywhere in the country they don't like. And what do we know about the objectives of the left? I mean, if HR-R-4 passes, what follows? what are the kinds of, you know, of pieces of voting legislation, then they're going to either try to knock down or implement to really change how our elections work? They will get rid of and say that every voter ID law in the country is void. They will tell states that they can't do the kind of maintenance that needs to be down to voter registration list.

to make sure they're accurate. So, for example, if states want to check with other states to find people who are potentially registered in more than one state, and therefore might have the opportunity to illegally vote in more than one state, they're going to try to prevent them from doing that. In essence, they're going to arrange things so it's easy to cheat and easy to manipulate election results. And if people think I'm exaggerating about this,

during the Clinton administration, the Civil Rights Division was forced to pay out over $4 million in attorney's fees and costs to states and others who they had targeted claiming that those folks had engaged in discrimination in the voting context, and courts ruled against them saying that the claims they had made were frivolous. I want to talk a little bit more about voter ID laws because I think that's something that is so basic. And I think most Americans think that that's pretty basic to show an ID when you go to vote. We have to show an ID when we buy alcohol or, you know, when we were to plane. There's so many times when it's very normal and natural to be able to prove this is who I'm saying I am.

And if you look at the numbers, I mean, even during the pandemic in 2020, we had the highest voter turnout since 1900. So obviously, current voter ID laws, they're not hindering people from voting. And then in a new poll conducted by honest elections project action, they found that 78% of Hispanic voters support voter ID and 67% of Democratic voters support voter ID. So Hans, given these numbers, why do you think that we're seeing this push? from the left to make these broad changes to our election laws and to get rid of things like voter ID. Well, those polls really show the deep divide between ordinary Americans, no matter which political

party they are affiliated with or like to support. And frankly, the leadership and elected officials, for example, of the Democratic Party. If you speak to them or you read what they write or hear what they say. I mean, they think requiring an ID is the equivalent of Jim Crow. I mean, they think it's the equivalent of the terrible things the Ku Klux Klan was trying to do, which is, of course, absurd. But it's totally divorced from what their constituents think about this. Because the constituents think, you know, I have to show an ID for so many things every day, no matter what my race or ethnicity is. It's just not a big deal for voting. But you cannot convince them of that. Look, I testified at a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee, a subcommittee, just about a week ago.

And the witnesses for the Democrats there who were pushing HR4, I mean, from what they were saying, you'd think that it was 1875 in the U.S. You know, when Reconstruction ended, and that there was massive discrimination going on all over the country, which historically is just so completely wrong and so devoid. from the current conditions today, which is in the voting context, there is less discrimination going on today than in our ever before in our history. And when it happens, it is extremely rare. Yeah. Yeah. Well, Hans, you've been so consistently speaking out on this issue, really sharing facts, sharing data. You recently wrote a piece in the Washington Times titled the left's fight against election reforms is a Trojan horse. And in that piece, you say that the left is using election reforms as a Trojan horse to get something even bigger. What is that even, that's something even

bigger that the left is trying to get? Well, they want to override the ability of the minority in the Senate to filibuster a bill. And look, for folks to understand what that means, in order for a bill to get to a vote in the Senate, you have to end debate over the bill. And it takes 60 votes to end debate. And the point of the filibuster rule, which has been around for a long, long time, is to prevent the tyranny of the majority, something that the founders talked about at the beginning of our country. It's a good rule, because it means that bills that finally pass Congress are going to have bipartisan support. And that's very important to their legation. legitimacy and people complying with the law.

If it's just one party passing the rules and the laws, they're just not going to have the legitimacy and the mandate that's needed. And they want to get rid of the filibuster so that they can basically one party pass all of these other changes they want to do, everything from massive spending to the green new deal, which would probably wreck the economy, the United States, to all kinds of other just terrible changes. And they're using this supposed myth that there's all this voter suppression going on to say, oh, we've got to end a filibuster so we can pass these voting rights law amendments. So what happens next? I mean, the House Rules Committee voted on H.R. 4 Monday. Now the bill's

going to go to the House floor for a vote. What are you expecting to see from the House? Will this be a completely partisan vote on H.R. 4? Yeah, I think it will. That's exactly. who would happen with HR1. It was a party-line vote on HR-1, with the exception of one single Democrat from Mississippi who crossed the line to vote against HR-1. And I expect the same thing on HR-4. Look, they are in such a hurry to get this bill through

that they only introduced the language of the bill and the language of the bill last week. And they're already scheduled a vote on it so quickly because they want to get it through as fast as possible. And if it does pass the House, what do you anticipate seeing in the Senate? Well, I'm hopeful that Republicans

will once again recognize just how dangerous this bill. And look, this really shouldn't be a partisan issue. I'm hoping Republicans will filibuster and stop it because the reason I say it shouldn't be a partisan issue is because, look, if you're a state legislator, I don't care which party you are with. you should not support the federal government taking away from you and the voters of your state,

the ability to determine what the rules are going to be for elections in your state. And if you vote, if you vote for HR4, that's exactly what you're doing. You're showing your contempt for the voters in your state. Hans, any final thoughts before we let you go? I just think it's unbelievable that they're bringing up this bill, an unneeded bill, a dangerous bill, when we are in the midst of these terrible other crises, everything from, you know, what seems to be a resurgence of COVID to the disaster in Afghanistan. And yet what is their priority, this bill?

Heritage Foundation, senior legal fellow Hans von Spakoski. If you want to read more of his work, you can visit the Heritage Foundation website or the Daily Signal website. And you can read more of Hans pieces there. But Hans, we really appreciate your time today. Thank you so much. Sure. Thanks for having me. And that'll do it for today's episode.

Thanks for listening to The Daily Signal Podcast. You can find the Daily Signal podcast on Google Play, Apple Podcast, Spotify, and IHeart Radio. Please be sure to leave us a review and a five-star rating on Apple Podcast and encourage others to subscribe. Thanks again for listening and we'll see you again tomorrow. The Daily Signal Podcast. is brought to you by more than half a million members of the Heritage Foundation. It is executive produced by Virginia Allen and Kate Trinco,

sound designed by Lauren Evans, Mark Geinney, and John Pop. For more information, please visit DailySignal.com.