Would someone who is more familiar with history be able to help me with a response to this?
I sent my congressman (Denny Heck D-WA) an email that he should support H.R. 1 (For the People Act) and requested a response from him. I included his response below. It doesn’t ring true to me. It sounds like intellectual dishonesty, but I don’t have the background in history to adequately point out where he is wrong and/or deliberately misleading (dishonest). I want to write Mr. Heck back and show him that he is wrong.
Some of my initial thoughts are as follows:
According to your letter, women could vote. Yet there is this thing called the 19th Amendment giving women the right to vote.
According to your letter, slaves and Native Americans could vote. Yet there is this thing called the 14th Amendment giving slaves and Native Americans the right to vote.
I view the part of Mr. Heck’s letter talking about not having time to review H.R. 1 as an excuse. They have been doing this for years if not decades.
If anyone can review the letter below and share their thoughts, I would really appreciate their time and expertise. 🙂
The Letter:
Dear Mr. Hersey,
Thanks for writing me about my vote on Rep. Crenshaw’s amendment to H.R. 1, For the People Act. I always appreciate hearing from constituents who are keyed-in to the important vote taking place in our nation’s capital. Let me be frank and say that I voted no on this amendment for two reasons. First, it seemed clearly to violate the principles and plain text of the Constitution that the framers drew up, so I thought it was inconsistent with my oath of office. And secondly, it was a surprise amendment that was not revealed until minutes before we had to vote on it, and I do not believe that is a sound approach to policymaking. I will generally vote against any measure that I don’t have a chance to review beforehand. I appreciate you reaching out and I hope it gives us an opportunity to start a dialogue and better understand each other on this issue.
I’d like to start by talking about the procedural issues I had with this vote. This amendment was offered as something called a Motion to Recommit (MTR). This motion is a guarantee that the minority party will always have a chance to offer at least one amendment on any bill that is being considered on the House floor. I absolutely believe that the minority party should be given this right, and I think it can be used to further constructive dialogue. Unfortunately—in contrast to all other amendments we consider for a piece of legislation—there is no requirement that the amendment be circulated before it is debated. So Congress is sometimes put in situations where lawmakers are having to read the amendment while the vote for it is being called. That is a terrible way to make policy. The House floor is often filled with confusion during this vote, and I cannot in good conscience vote for provisions that I do not have a chance to understand. So if they continue to be offered in this way without advance notice—as was Rep. Crenshaw’s amendment to H.R. 1—then I will continue to vote against them.
With respect to the substance of the amendment, I have to say that I have been confused by some of the criticism that this vote on states’ rights was contrary to the Founding Fathers’ vision of America. Since even before the Constitution, states have had the power to set their own rules for elections, including voter eligibility. The Constitution’s Elections clause (Article I, Section IV) explicitly preserves this power to the states, but it gives Congress some say in federal elections. Congress is given no power over state and local elections. Rep. Crenshaw’s amendment regulated who can vote in state and local elections and is plainly inconsistent with the Elections clause. At the beginning of this Congress, I swore an oath to “bear true faith and allegiance” to the Constitution, and I think that oath requires me to vote against bills that go against the explicit word our founding document.
As you already know, this amendment dealt specifically with states and localities allowing noncitizens to vote in their elections. That doesn’t seem like a good idea to me. I will admit that I was surprised to find out that for most of this country’s history, many (or even most) states have allowed noncitizens to vote in their elections. And before Congress changed the rules in the 1996 Immigration Reform bill, states could have allowed noncitizens to vote in federal elections. I didn’t know that—and it frankly doesn’t sit too well with me—but it clearly cannot be the case that the Founders would be upset that states were allowing noncitizens to vote in state and local elections because: 1) they gave the states the power to determine who can vote in their elections; and 2) the Founders’ generation used that power to allow noncitizens to vote.
That being said, there is nowhere in Washington state where noncitizens can vote in any election, and I wouldn’t advocate for that to change. But if other states in our federal system want to have different rules for their own local elections, it appears to me that the Constitution guarantees them that right. And regardless of how I feel about this issue, I cannot faithfully execute my oath of office if I try to deny them that right.
I hope that this explanation helpful to you, and I am happy to continue this dialogue as we continue forward in this Congress. And I hope you will also continue to stay engaged in our legislative process. I’ve always said that democracy works best when it is a 24/7, 365-day-a-year participant’s sport. It only works if and when elected officials hear from people like you, and so I encourage you to continue to make your voice heard in the legislative process
Sincerely,
Denny Heck
Again, If anyone can help me with the history so I can write a compelling response, I would really appreciate it. 🙂
Have a great day!
Stuart
5 replies on “Voting rights and noncitizen’s and State’s rights”
I looked at the text of the amendment and it is pretty innocuous. It doesn’t prohibit states or localities from allowing non-citizens to vote: it merely states that Congress thinks it’s bad.
Second, I looked at the text of HR1 itself as it’s been sent to the Senate. It’s a monster bill, of course, so I only glanced at the table of contents. Then I looked at a bit of the text of the first part of the bill, and here’s what I saw: a law requiring states to provide internet voter registration. So, this is a terrific example of the leftward ratchet. You can ask your representative why it’s okay for the federal governnet to dictate to States how they register voters and otherwise conduct their elections, but only if the federal government remains silent on the issue of voter eligibility. Why do States have the sole authority under the Constitution to decide who gets to vote, but not how they register or how they vote?
I don’t have time to study HR1 because it’s enormous, but I suspect that even a cursory examination of its text (or even its table of contents) will reveal dozens of other examples. Indeed, it seems that the whole point of the bill is to dictate to the States how to conduct their elections, in contravention of the Constitution.
Secondly, regarding the procedural issue: with a little research, it probably would not be too hard to find cases where your rep either stood in exactly Rep. Crenshaw’s shoes (offering an amendment with the same timing) or at least where your rep has voted for amendments offered with the same timing. This of course is intrinsically non-substantive but at least you can call him out for his hypocrisy. More of the one-way ratchet.
Thank you for your insight and your time! 🙂
Stuart, Constitutionally and procedurally, the lawmaker seems to be on solid ground. But I also don’t know the legislation in question. What is it about the Amendment to HR1 that you like?
Good question. After reading Laura’s comments, I need to look into this more. What I thought I liked was the premise that U.S. citizens that meet specific requirements (registered to vote, not a felon, etc.) have the right to vote in an election. Noncitizen’s do not have a right to vote in U.S. elections.