Why Federalizing Elections with H.R.1 is a Bad Idea (and what we should do instead)

The following post expresses the opinions of its author, and is not indicative of the views of NU Political Union or its board.

You’ve probably heard about the bill voted down in the Senate a few weeks ago: H.R.1 or the so called “For the People Act.” You’ve probably heard some version of “our democracy is in crisis” from both Republican and Democratic lawmakers alike. When one hears that they probably assume that this bill would make voting easier, strengthen election integrity, and preserve our democracy, right? Unfortunately, while this bill has a nice catchy name, its passage would actually further undermine confidence in our elections and further centralize power, making authoritarian takeover by both parties more feasible, and take power away from those who should be wielding it: the people. 

First, I’ll briefly discuss what’s going well in our electoral process and why some of the recent state-level legislation  that you might have heard of isn't undermining democracy. Next, I’ll discuss the plethora of issues within H.R.1 and why it’s a good thing that it didn’t pass. Last, I’ll propose two measures that would accomplish much of what people on both sides claim to want: more accessible and more secure elections, without a complete overhaul of the way we have done elections for the last 250 years. 

Current State of Voting Rights 

While many have griped about voting restrictions in recent months and years, the good news is that there was more participation in the 2020 election than in the last 120 years. The increase was consistent across states, genders, races, and pretty much any other metric you can think to measure. This is important because it points out a very positive development. On average, people are becoming more engaged in the electoral process and increased participation results in better representation. 

Recently, there has been a lot of noise made about a series of bills passed in Republican-led states, most notably Georgia. Why am I talking about this specific state’s election bill? Because the proponents of H.R.1 are citing this and others as the impetus to pass the bill that would federalize our elections, arguing that without its passage, democracy will crumble. One of the main critiques of the bill is that it takes power away from the secretary of state and places it in “riskier” hands. While there is some merit to this claim, there is also merit to the idea that more than one elected official is needed to certify a state’s election, reducing the chance of impropriety by a single bad actor. Further, critics of the bill have argued that Georgia’s bill restricts voting rights with three other issues: the number of days of early voting, a provision that makes it illegal for non-election officials to serve food/drink within 150 feet of a polling place, and voter ID requirements. Let’s examine each of these measures one by one. 

First, the Georgia bill actually increases its early voting days to 17 days, including 2 Sundays for the “Souls to the Polls” initiatives that many in the African American community participate in. To be clear, this means that Georgian voters now have more days of early voting than those in President Biden’s home state of Delaware(10) or Senate Majority Leader Schumer’s home state of New York (9). 

As far as the food/drink restriction, the bill notes that this rule applies to non-election officials only. Meaning, the people who work the polls are more than able to provide water or anything else voters might need within 150 feet of the polling location. This measure simply aims to stop illicit electioneering: for example, a representative from a campaign bribing voters with a free pizza for voting for their preferred candidate. 

Lastly, the voter ID measure within the Georgia law actually broadens the ID options voters are able to use (including water bills, social security numbers, etc). It is important to note that voter ID is overwhelmingly popular with American voters of all races, increases confidence in elections, and any accessibility issues can be easily addressed as I’ll discuss later. 

I am not arguing in this post that lawmakers shouldn’t debate over measures relating to how their elections should be conducted. What I am arguing is that these debates should take place in the states, not the federal government. By having states control their elections it decentralizes power, thus making it much harder for either party to assert total control over the country. The main issue with the H.R.1 bill is it makes it much easier for the party in power to dominate election law nationally, and to their advantage. 

Issues with the Bill 

1. One-Size-Fits-All Approach Doesn’t work 

Centralizing election control is also a bad idea because it is a one size fits all approach that doesn’t work in certain areas. What may work to stop long lines in a major city might put an undue burden on a small rural township. For example, a requirement to keep every election site open for 3 weeks straight makes sense in Atlanta but not in a town with a population of 500 in rural Alaska, where all residents can vote on election day. 

2. Taxpayer Funded Election Campaigns 

This bill would use public funds to create a six-to-one match on political contributions up to $200. This measure effectively publicly funds elections, a practice that takes away the agency of individuals to choose whether or not they contribute to a particular political campaign. I have no desire to fund an election in Arizona, and I imagine the residents of Arizona have no desire to fund congressional elections in Illinois. While campaign finance reform is a worthwhile issue to discuss, it won’t be the focus of this post and in my view, taxpayer funded campaigns would further exacerbate the issues we see today. 

3. Vote By Mail Issues 

H.R.1 “usurps state authority by requiring that every state accept mail-in ballots ten days after the election.” As many of us remember from the 2020 election, we waited several days before a winner was called. The issue with this measure is that waiting after election day would likely become more commonplace, causing unnecessary speculation about the integrity of the result. Further, H.R.1 doesn’t require any standard of proof on the mailed in ballot, such as proof of residency, causing even more issues. 

4. Sabotaging State Voter ID Laws

H.R.1 would compel states to let voters simply sign a statement in which they claim to be who they say they are in lieu of providing photo ID. This would undermine many (39) states’ voter ID laws that are put in place to reduce issues of election fraud. This measure makes it very difficult to ensure secure elections and would make rare instances of fraud significantly more likely - the opposite of what we need in today’s hyper-partisan environment. 

5. The Pre-Clearance Measure 

H.R.1 would seek to centralize control of state elections by reinstating the “preclearance” measure that the Supreme Court struck down in Shelby v Holder. If there’s been any election-related legal dispute in the past 25 years in a given state, as there has been in most states, then any proposed change to election law would require preclearance. If a state is in preclearance then its state legislature cannot pass legislation on elections unless it receives permission from the US Department of Justice. So, the state legislature must answer to the Attorney General, whoever that person may be, which effectively gives them veto power over all state legislatures on election issues. (See Senator Lankford’s speech for more on this issue: James Lankford Speech, 11 mins in) 

As argued throughout this post, measures that seek to further centralize election control weaken the integrity of our elections. By aiming to reinstate the preclearance measure already struck down by the Supreme Court, the “For The People Act” takes power away from state legislatures, which are most accountable to the people. The Attorney General engaging in such behavior would be confusing for the states, create chaos through legal challenges, and most importantly undermine confidence in elections. Further, it is important to note that if a state legislature acts in bad faith by passing a law that someone feels violates the Voting Rights Act, they are still able to challenge said law in court without the reintroduction of preclearance. 

So What Should We Do Instead? 

1. Make Election Day A Federal Holiday 

This could be a very simple federal bill that makes voting on election day extremely accessible to people who might have to work that day. There is no reasonable opposition to this and a bill like this would have widespread bipartisan support. Election day being a federal holiday combined with most states having early voting means voting will be more accessible than ever before. 

2. Create either A National ID System or State ID system and Require this ID to vote 

Americans overwhelmingly support voter ID requirements (80%). Either Congress should pass a national voter ID bill that would provide free access to a national voting ID or all States should provide a state ID for free if they don’t already. This measure would allow all people to have easy access to an ID that guarantees their right to vote, while also strengthening election integrity, which are measures I think both sides can agree on. It is also worth pointing out most industrialized nations including most of Europe have voter ID requirements for just this reason.

Ultimately, ensuring everyone’s ballot is counted and verified finally puts to bed the issue we’ve had in the last several elections, where the losing side calls into question the integrity of the election. While Trump was wrong to do so in 2020, Democrats did a similar thing in 2016 when Hillary lost, creating the widely discredited, years-long Russian collusion debacle that weakened Democratic voters’ confidence in elections, similar to Trump’s weakening of Republican voter’s confidence. I believe these two widely supported, bipartisan measures could make elections both more accessible and more secure without overhauling our electoral process or putting too much power in the hands of the few.

"Vote!" by kgroovy is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0