[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 132 (Tuesday, September 28, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H7145-H7148]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FEDERAL ELECTION INTEGRITY ACT OF 2010
Mrs. DAVIS of California. 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.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 512
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Election Integrity
Act of 2010''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) chief State election administration officials have
served on political campaigns for Federal candidates whose
elections those officials will supervise;
(2) such partisan activity by the chief State election
administration official, an individual charged with
certifying the validity of an election, represents a
fundamental conflict of interest that may prevent the
official from ensuring a fair and accurate election;
(3) this conflict impedes the legal duty of chief State
election administration officials to supervise Federal
elections, undermines the integrity of Federal elections, and
diminishes the people's confidence in our electoral system by
casting doubt on the results of Federal elections;
(4) the Supreme Court has long recognized that Congress's
power to regulate Congressional elections under Article I,
Section 4, Clause 1 of the Constitution is both plenary and
powerful; and
(5) the Supreme Court and numerous appellate courts have
recognized that the broad power given to Congress over
Congressional elections extends to Presidential elections.
SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES BY CHIEF STATE
ELECTION ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS.
(a) In General.--Title III of the Federal Election Campaign
Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) is amended by inserting
after section 319 the following new section:
``campaign activities by chief state election administration officials
``Sec. 319A. (a) Prohibition.--It shall be unlawful for a
chief State election administration official to take an
active part in political management or in a political
campaign with respect to any election for Federal office over
which such official has supervisory authority.
``(b) Chief State Election Administration Official.--The
term `chief State election administration official' means the
highest State official with responsibility for the
administration of Federal elections under State law.
``(c) Active Part in Political Management or in a Political
Campaign.--The term `active part in political management or
in a political campaign' means--
``(1) serving as a member of an authorized committee of a
candidate for Federal office;
``(2) the use of official authority or influence for the
purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an
election for Federal office;
``(3) the solicitation, acceptance, or receipt of a
contribution from any person on behalf of a candidate for
Federal office; and
``(4) any other act which would be prohibited under
paragraph (2) or (3) of section 7323(b) of title 5, United
States Code, if taken by an individual to whom such paragraph
applies (other than any prohibition on running for public
office).
``(d) Exception for Campaigns of Official or Immediate
Family Members.--
[[Page H7146]]
``(1) In general.--This section does not apply to a chief
State election administration official with respect to an
election for Federal office in which the official or an
immediate family member of the official is a candidate.
``(2) Immediate family member defined.--In paragraph (1),
the term `immediate family member' means, with respect to a
candidate, a father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister,
husband, wife, father-in-law, or mother-in-law.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall apply with respect to elections for Federal office held
after December 2010.
SEC. 4. COMPLIANCE WITH STATUTORY PAY-AS-YOU-GO ACT OF 2010.
The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of
complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, shall
be determined by reference to the latest statement titled
``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation'' for this Act,
submitted for printing in the Congressional Record by the
Chairman of the House Budget Committee, provided that such
statement has been submitted prior to the vote on passage.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Davis) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel
E. Lungren) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
General Leave
Mrs. DAVIS of California. 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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. 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.
{time} 2020
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. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. 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.
[[Page H7147]]
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.
{time} 2030
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.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. 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.
[[Page H7148]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 512, as amended.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand
the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________