[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 164 (Wednesday, September 22, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Page S6599]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               ELECTIONS

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, Federal takeovers are being discussed in 
both the House and the Senate this week. The Democrat leaders announced 
that the Senate will once again be taking up legislation to put the 
Federal Government, instead of the States, in charge of elections in 
this country. Meanwhile, over in the House of Representatives, they are 
expected to vote on legislation to eliminate essentially all State 
restrictions on abortion, no matter how modest or how widely supported.
  So what is up with all of these Federal takeovers? Well, Democrats 
have been pushing election legislation--what they call H.R. 1, or the 
For the People Act--for multiple years now. This radical legislation 
would provide for a massive Federal takeover of our electoral system, 
chill free speech, and turn the Federal Election Commission, which is 
the primary enforcer of election law in this country, into a partisan 
body, among other dangerous measures.
  And the reason--the reason for this radical legislation? Well, as 
even some Democrats have implicitly admitted, this legislation is 
designed to make it easier for Democrats to win elections.
  Fast forward to last week. With H.R. 1 unable to pass the Senate, 
some Democrats produced a modified version of this legislation. It is 
called For the People Act ``lite.''
  And while I appreciate their efforts, unfortunately, as the 
Republican leader said yesterday morning, ``This latest version is only 
a compromise in the sense that the center left compromised with the far 
left,'' or, as the Wall Street Journal editorial board put it this 
morning, ``Calling this bill slimmed down . . . is like touting your 
healthy choices after you order a Diet Coke with four Big Macs.''
  The For the People Act ``lite'' would still impose troubling new 
burdens on free speech; it would still undermine State voter ID laws; 
it would still spend taxpayer dollars on political campaigns; it would 
still make it easier for those here illegally to vote; and, most of 
all, it would still put Washington, not State governments, in charge of 
elections for no reason at all.
  Let's be clear. There is absolutely zero reason to have the Federal 
Government start dictating States' election policies--zero reason. 
There is no systemic problem with State election laws, and State 
election officials do not need Washington bureaucrats dictating how 
many days of early voting they should offer or how they should manage 
mail-in ballots.
  This bill, like its parent H.R. 1, is a solution in search of a 
crisis. States have been doing a fine job running elections. Even 
Democrats have sort of had to admit that given the huge voter turnout 
in the last election and the fact that Democrats won, albeit by the 
slimmest of margins--even Democrats have had to admit that States are 
doing a pretty good job running elections.
  So now that they can no longer tell us that our electoral system is 
broken, Democrats are telling us that we need election legislation like 
this because States are passing legislation that will, Democrats claim, 
threaten election access--baloney. It is just another attempt to 
manufacture a crisis that will justify passing H.R. 1 or some variant.
  Democrats are pushing election legislation for one simple reason: 
because they think it will improve their chances in future elections. 
That is not a good reason to bring up election legislation, and I will 
continue to oppose any Federal takeover of elections.
  South Dakota election officials are doing just fine without having 
their every move dictated by Washington bureaucrats.

                          ____________________