Federal Election Integrity Act of 2010

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry that after the wonderful bipartisanship on the last vote today I have to rise in opposition to H.R. 512.

When I heard the gentlelady talking about the analogy to a football referee having a conflict with a team playing, I was reminded of the game I saw this last weekend where unfortunately my alma mater, Notre Dame, didn't do too well against a Pac-10 team with Pac-10 referees. As a matter of fact, there was one case where it was clear that the fullback for Stanford didn't even come close to making a first down, and yet with some myopic vision, they were given a first down. But I would not suggest there was a conflict there. The way we played, we would have lost anyway.

I would just say that we should proceed with great caution before depriving any individual State official or non-State official of their full rights as citizens to participate in the electoral process. Unfortunately, I feel the majority has preceded with H.R. 512 without adequate justification. The bill does prohibit the chief State election administrator from taking an active role in a political campaign of any Federal office.

And while this bill places significant restrictions on the ability of secretaries of State to participate in the political process, it does so, in my judgment, without producing any justification why such a drastic action is warranted. Restricting secretaries of State from their First Amendment right to speak without any history of abuse is a dangerous precedent this House should not undertake.

I notice that in the bill before us, we have exceptions. That is, if the secretary of State is himself or herself running for Federal office, they continue to be the secretary of State and the chief election officer. The analogy that was drawn between this situation and a Federal judge is an inept analogy because, I believe, under the canons of ethics a Federal judge cannot run for another Federal office while still occupying the position of Federal judge. Also, if an immediate family member is running for Federal office, the election officer of the State is not prohibited.

It would seem to me that if you are going to argue for this bill on the basis of a conflict of interest, why do you exempt the greatest conflict of interest that there would be? That is, if the election officer is running for a Federal office, she is allowed to do so and continue to be the chief election officer. If one of her immediate family members is running, she--or he--is allowed to continue to participate fully in all of that election process.

Now, if, in fact, the concern of the majority is that there is a conflict of interest, it is interesting that what most people would consider to be the greatest example of a conflict of interest is not covered here. Now I will listen to the majority as they tell us why that happens. Perhaps it is what we call that difficult truth. The Constitution might come into play here. But I would just wonder why, if they are going to say this is absolutely necessary and that any of us vote against it must want conflicts of interest, must wish that we have this cloud over our elections to exist, why those situations which would seem to be the greatest opportunity for that concern are specifically exempted under the terms of this bill.

We can all agree that if someone is breaking the law and abusing their power to try to skew elections, they should be prosecuted accordingly. If, for instance, someone is standing outside a polling place with a billy club in his hand and is making threatening gestures to people as they come before him, have to pass by him to vote, and this person has had a record of saying that ``crackers' babies ought to be killed'' and stands on the street corner condemning racially mixed couples, but yet we have a Justice Department which says that that doesn't violate any laws.

Maybe I would be a little more concerned about the bill before us if I found any evidence whatsoever of the other side being concerned about the New Black Panther Party standing there all dressed in black with a billy club as people come forward, and one of the two individuals is known as someone who has made those kinds of threats against somebody else merely because they are of another race.

Now if we want to bring that forward, I think we could get a strong vote of support here. But we can't even get a hearing on that. We haven't heard a thing from our Judiciary Committee. It's more important to bring Steve Colbert to testify before our committee, for him to remain in character. Maybe we ought to bring one of those New Black Panthers to our committee and have him in character, as he was on the day of election. Maybe then we would be getting down to our concern for equal treatment of each and every voter in America.

But when you have a Justice Department which decides they are not going to treat people equally based on their race, as was testified to last week, last Friday at the same time on the same day as Mr. Colbert was gracing us with his presence in our Judiciary Committee, and where we had this rush, this tremendous rush of cameras to cover him, yet we have very little coverage of the amazingly cogent testimony about terrible decisions that were made in the Justice Department in the voting rights section of the Civil Rights Division. That ought to be what we take our time discussing here.

I'm not trying to denigrate the gentlelady's efforts here. I understand her sincerity in this bill. We have a dispute over whether this bill is the proper response to the situation she sees. But I find it very, very interesting that we can find time to bring comedians to Washington, D.C., to testify before committees, but we can't find the time with the committees of jurisdiction to investigate what appears to be an absolute disgrace with respect to the protection of individuals.

I would just ask this question: If instead of the New Black Panther Party you had had there, you had had the New Klux Klan party dressed in white robes with billy clubs, standing in front of a voting place with both blacks and whites coming in, whether we would not have raised our voices in protest against that and demanded that the full extent of the law be brought against those people.

But, no, we find ourselves too busy doing other things, too busy doing other things, bringing comedians to Washington, DC and forgetting about something taking place at that exact moment, where a career attorney in the Justice Department, who has been banished to some hinterland--I don't mean to say that. That might be someone's State that someone here represents. I apologize--who has been sent a way from main Justice and the basic responsibility he has had for protecting the rights of citizens and their votes, where he has testified, and yet we couldn't spend the time to pay attention to him, nor have we scheduled any hearings whatsoever in this Congress. Something is wrong.

So I don't in any way suggest the gentlelady had anything to do with that or that this bill interferes with it. I am trying to show the contrast of what I happen to think is an immediate problem, as opposed to the potential problem that the gentlelady here has spoken about.

It is an immediate problem when you have a situation with people with billy clubs standing in front of a voting poll with a reputation for having talked about the fact that people need to kill babies for the very reason that they happen to be of another race. That ought to outrage Americans. It ought to outrage every one of us here, and it ought to outrage everybody at the Justice Department, but thus far it has not.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 512) to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to prohibit certain State election administration officials from actively participating in electoral campaigns, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks in the Record and to include extraneous matter on this legislation.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 512 offers each Member of this body the opportunity to help Americans feel confident that their electoral process is fair and their interests are protected. This legislation that we're considering today would take the long overdue step of prohibiting chief election officials from playing a leadership role in the political campaigns of Federal candidates and elections over which they have supervisory authority, and that includes using their name, serving on a campaign committee, fundraising, or using their official office to interfere or affect the results of an election.

When I introduced this in the last Congress, they gave us the number H.R. 101. Well, I thought that was pretty fitting because this bill is so basic you could call it Election Officiating 101, and as any novice knows, when the outcome of a contest is determined by judges, steps are taken to ensure that the judging is impartial so that everyone involved knows that the contest is fair, that they have confidence in the results, and that they want to participate. To actively support one side and to be a judge is unthinkable in every kind of competition I can think of, except, Mr. Speaker, one, our elections, the most important contest in our country.

It's right. Under current law--people probably are surprised by this. Under current law, the chief election official, the person who actually is certifying the final validity of the results, can be actively backing a side by giving a candidate money or other support. It is the equivalent of a person being a player and referee at the same time. In sports, everyone knows who the refs are because they wear the stripes. In elections, the officials can actually run plays on the field and blow the whistle, all while wearing team jerseys and being head of the booster club.

The election official may be and probably is--I would suspect mostly is making the right calls. But it doesn't look unbiased, and it certainly doesn't inspire confidence in the system and in the results.

As a former president of the League of Women Voters in San Diego and a proud American voter myself, I know that election officials are entrusted with a crucial responsibility for our democracy. Their only allegiance must be to the will of the voters, not to partisan political agendas or special interests.

Americans are craving good government solutions to problems facing our country, and this legislation is just that. Congress should not wait for another Florida or Ohio before passing a bill that should not be a partisan fight. In fact, this isn't a partisan issue. It's an issue of preserving the American people's faith and the integrity of our democracy. This bill will finally close the door on inherent conflict of interest. It certainly won't solve everything, but it will help prevent future controversies.

Those who want to oppose this bill can come up with all kinds of excuses for their position. But let's be clear: A vote against this bill is a vote for allowing those who certify our elections to fund- raise and rally for candidates of their choice. If you want our elections to appear tainted, then go ahead and vote against this bill. But if you think election officials should join Federal judges in restraining from political activity, then I hope my colleagues will join me in voting for this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is really interesting to me because one of the first things I think my colleague said was that this was somehow drastic legislation. And yet he went on to go out and think about how he might expand it.

Well, I appreciate the issues that he is referring to. Those are issues that, in fact, the Justice Department is looking at, a number of allegations that they are looking at.

But that is not part of this bill. And I go back and I ask my colleague, please read the bill. The bill talks about an active part that a chief State election official might take in political management or in a political campaign, which means serving as a member of an authorized committee of a candidate for Federal office, or the use of official authority, official authority to influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election for Federal office.

That is a very different situation than what my colleague is referring to. And he seems to be concerned about the Secretaries of State. I respect them greatly. A lot of them support this bill. Some of them don't. I am not sure I understand why they don't, because what we are doing here is talking about not them so much as the voters. It is about the voters. And the most important thing is that voters trust that elections are fair.

And my colleague would suggest that maybe there shouldn't be any rules; but I think we do have some rules, and it is important that we have them. We have them for judges as well.

So I think we need to understand what is in this bill. It is not solving all the problems that have been raised, but it is solving a very important one for voters. And they do need to feel, and we saw it happen in our history, in our pretty recent history, that it is an issue for people. It should be.

Why shouldn't people be concerned that their State official person who is overseeing, who is supervising elections doesn't have a bias that is quite clear?

Mr. Speaker, many years ago I was very active with the League of Women Voters. And one of the rules is, if you are a key official, a vice president overseeing the election process for that organization, for the community, or a president, that you don't get involved in political activity. That is one of the rules. I thought it was a great rule, and I was very happy to adhere to it.

This gets to be serious business because we have people out in the streets and we know that because they were concerned about this issue. So I think this is important. It is very narrowly drawn, of course, and it should be. And I would certainly hope that my colleagues would really take a serious look at this because we need to ensure that voters trust the election. That is what this is about. And I believe that they have every right, and we have every right to make certain that that judgment is there, and that there is nothing that gets in the way between the voters and the political process.

Remember, these are Federal elections. And article I, section 4 of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to makes laws governing the time, the place and the manner of holding Federal elections. This is in our purview. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.