Election Security

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, about 1 year ago today, Congress was in the midst of a debate about the most effective way to respond to COVID- 19. On a call with his colleagues, the House majority whip, Mr. Clyburn, reportedly laid out his vision about how his caucus in the House should proceed. He said, it is reported: This is a tremendous opportunity to restructure things to fit our vision.

For American families, this pandemic has been an unmistakable tragedy, one characterized by lost lives and lost livelihoods, but, apparently, for some, it is viewed as a tremendous opportunity.

The partisan $1.9 trillion bill that was signed into law last week is proof that, apparently, the Democrats in Congress and in the White House agree. After all, this legislation includes a long list of non- COVID-related priorities, again, completely unrelated to the crisis at hand: blank checks for mismanaged union pension funds, funding for climate justice, backdoor money for Planned Parenthood, an exclusive paid leave program for government bureaucrats, and the list goes on and on.

Before the bill was even signed into law, folks from the other side of the aisle started advocating making many of the provisions permanent. This is an emergency measure, supposedly, but folks advocated making those temporary provisions permanent, further proof that this is more than just a pandemic relief response; this is about, in the words of Mr. Clyburn, restructuring government as we know it.

But it doesn't stop there. Now our Democratic colleagues in the House and some in the Senate apparently want to hijack the State and Federal election system, starting with making temporary pandemic election responses permanent. Of course, our elections are run at the State and local level. As a matter of fact, I recall, given the efforts of the Russian intelligence services to interfere with our election in 2016, one of the strengths of our system was its dispersed nature, suggesting, in other words, that if it had been a single system, it would have been much easier for our adversaries to interfere--and particularly in the cyber realm.

But we know, as a result of the pandemic, States made provisional changes to their 2020 election processes to make sure that people could safely exercise their right to vote. In my State, we extended early voting. We allowed voters to submit mail-in ballots in designated drop boxes.

Several States, of course, expanded eligibility for mail-in voting. Some, like California, took things even further and sent mail-in ballots to every registered voter. At the time, these changes were billed as temporary, given the unique and extraordinary nature of the challenges presented by the pandemic, but as the House minority whip has said, this pandemic, apparently, is viewed as a tremendous opportunity to restructure the way we run and conduct elections.

House Democrats have passed legislation to make many of the temporary changes in the 2020 elections permanent and add a list of other so- called reforms in order to federalize our State- and local-run elections. This is in the face of article I of the Constitution that explicitly gives the States the power to regulate the times, places, and manner of holding elections.

Yet this 791-page document creates a one-size-fits-all mandate for all States. It actually preempts State law, starting with mail-in balloting. Any person in any State could request a mail-in ballot for any reason. There is no need to say why you can't vote in person, which is the current policy in most States.

Those ballots would not, under this bill, even have to be mailed in by the voter or dropped in a State-sanctioned ballot box because this legislation legalizes ballot harvesting, which means that mail-in ballots could be collected by paid activists or campaign staffers or anyone who has a stake in the outcome of the election

It goes so far as to specify that States may not put any limit on how many voted and sealed absentee ballots any designated person can return. It really sounds like an invitation to fraud, and you can see how this could go badly pretty quickly. Maybe the ballot gets turned in with thousands of others. Maybe it is altered. Maybe it ends up in the trash. It is hard to say.

That gets to one of the root problems with this legislation is it does create limitless opportunities for fraud. Every single ballot cast illegally or due to fraud undercuts and neutralizes every legally cast ballot.

One way this bill removes some of the most basic requirements of most States' ballot integrity safeguards against election fraud is by removing any requirement of identification. This was, we should recall, one of the main recommendations of the bipartisan 2005 Commission on Federal Election Reform, cochaired by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker III. The Commission recommended that voters should be required to present photo ID cards and that States should provide free cards to voters who did not have a driver's license.

In order to vote in person, most States require voters to produce some valid form of identification. I know mine does. In Texas, there are three options--actually, several options: a driver's license, a passport, a military ID, a citizenship certificate, and other forms of government-issued ID. If, for some reason, you can't obtain one of these forms of ID, there is still a process in place to allow a person to vote by presenting other documents, making sure that they identify the person casting the ballot.

Matching the name of an eligible voter with the name on a valid form of ID is a commonsense safeguard against fraud but one which this legislation seeks to eliminate. If you go to a convenience store and want to buy a six-pack of beer or if you want to buy cigarettes or you want to get on an airplane, you have to present an ID card, but this bill eliminates that requirement when it comes to the most sacred duty and privilege that we have as citizens, and that is to vote.

This legislation stops States from requiring voters to provide proof of identification. Just sign a piece of paper saying you are who you are, and no one can ask any questions. On top of that, this bill would require the States to automatically register anyone in their databases, for everything from DMV to public assistance programs. Well, we know these databases are not limited to registered voters or even eligible voters. That could include people illegally present in the country because some States allow a driver's license to be issued to noncitizens who are not legally present in the country. These databases include other noncitizens and others not eligible to vote, not to mention the fact that those who are already registered to vote could be registered again and again.

And even if there are duplicate registrations or if someone passes away or moves, States would not be allowed to clean up the voter rolls within 6 months of an election. Just when you think things can't get any crazier, they do.

Our Democratic colleagues are proposing that the taxpayers fund their elections. A lot of companies have a match program for charitable giving. If an employee donates to a charity of their choice, then the company will match that donation dollar for dollar. The same principle applies except, instead of a charity getting the money, under this proposed legislation, it is now a political candidate. Instead of a company footing the bill, it is the taxpayers, and instead of an exact match, it is up to $6 for every $1 donated. That means if someone donates 200 bucks to their preferred candidate, Federal taxpayers will wind up coughing up $1,200.

Well, I think there are a lot of better uses for government tax dollars. They can go to support crime victims or support the response to the humanitarian crisis at the border, which we are experiencing right now. But, no, the proposal in this legislation is, let's use it to elect them.

Then there are the campaign vouchers. This bill creates a new program that provides eligible voters with a $25 voucher to donate to the campaign of their choosing--again, more government, taxpayer-funded election activities.

I could go on and on.

This legislation also alters the fundamental structure of the Federal Election Commission to remove any need for bipartisanship or consensus building. It undermines trust and accountability in elections. It implements a new financial disclosure policy that even the American Civil Liberties Union says ``could directly interfere with the ability of many to engage in political speech about causes that they care about.'' That is the ACLU.

Above all, this bill amounts to nothing more than a Federal hijacking of State elections. I can promise you, folks in my State don't want Speaker Pelosi or Majority Leader Schumer to determine how elections are run in our State. They want accountable leaders in our State, elected by and accountable to them, to determine the best way to conduct free and fair elections.

Following the last two Presidential campaigns, the side that lost had expressed concerns about election security. A partisan attempt to overhaul our entire election system is hardly a confidence-building exercise. This bill is not a serious attempt to improve security and accountability in our elections; rather, it is a partisan power grab that will do serious damage to our Republic.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source