Skip to main content

tv   Lawmakers Examine Elections Clause Congressional Authority  CSPAN  July 26, 2021 10:17pm-11:46pm EDT

10:17 pm
>> today with broad constitutional authority given to congress to regulate articles under the u.s. constitution known as the elections clause. cormack time places and manner of senators and
10:18 pm
representatives but the congress knows anytime that to prescribe the duty to make regulations of elections but also provide congress at any time. during the constitutional conventionte is the inclusion of the elections clause and the powers that it confers to congress. and with self-preservation of the state obstructions and federalist 59 that every
10:19 pm
government ought to contain in itself its own preservation. and to have other concerns as well of the elections clause in constitution and federal oversight that it would authorize. they learned about the state lawmakers and with unequal representation and gerrymandering also learned about other forms of voter suppression to go unchecked and with the elections clause to act since the supreme court decision state legislatures around the country have strict voter id laws and those with access to power and that power
10:20 pm
is through the 2020 general election. gerrymandering is an ongoing obstacles. in the hearing today we were here with the framers intended when they included the elections clause in the constitution likewise the supreme court has been consistent providing paramount powers for federal election that has interpreted such to be expanded that in 1932 the supreme court said in with the procedure and safeguard which are necessary another
10:21 pm
intertribal council of 2013 justice scalia, wrote to the court that those who wanted citizenship fit that requirement. with the time places and manner. with the election in congress has exercise that legislation with the apportionment act of
10:22 pm
1842 the note the idea election campaign act of 1971 that reliance of that authority to be supported on a bipartisan basis. since the house began to identify the constitutional authorities for legislation in recent years members decided that election clause and how they conducted their elections or certain activities. in the last congress my colleague ranking member davis introduce legislation to provide grants to states that permit third-party individuals and in doing so he decided
10:23 pm
full constitutional authority fraud.ction and those that may not be used. and then to endeavor new democracy. and just as the framers intended. and with that congressional authorities to ask for the contours of the election clause. and the constitutional power
10:24 pm
so i understand richard davis is on assignment semester style you are now recognized. spent his hearing is entitled the elections clause, interpretation of congressional exercise. this is a hearing our committee should have had before we had hearings of the election administration and then the primary able to establish the times and places and manners under the
10:25 pm
constitution it has a purely secondary role in the space evidence from the way it has been written congress is listed second under hr one and hr four it is outside these constitutional powers. these bills prevent states from establishing the time place and manner the way they arehi held for the election system by bureaucrats in washington dc and on the subject of hr for the supreme court ruled that states have the power to protect the integrity of their elections through consider thoughtful legislation making it easy to fill in hard to cheat the court upheld the states power to ban the use of third-party ballot harvesting justice alito said an entirely legitimate state interest is the prevention of fraud.
10:26 pm
and then to carry appropriate weight. and with the fairness of elections and the perceived with the subcommittee of elections in the ranking, committee committee member with that election progress.th in the way that was tossed resulting from ballot harvesting. and despite the well-documented fraud cases hr one visualizes according to democratsal is a state of discrimination but fortunately court ruled that
10:27 pm
was not the case but the intent and totality of the voting system matters. so justice alitoed voting structures intending to bolster confidence with ballot integrity does not equal discrimination which is what my democratic colleagues continue o to claim. not only does the recent supreme court ruling invalidate the claim that this committee of record demonstrates this as well. claiming that voter id is to suppress the contrary to democratic claims with those of lowering voter turnout and those id last are record turnout the 2020 election. and those to be very interested to learn to confirm
10:28 pm
those in rural wisconsin that have running water, electricity and i found a new invention that was not there whende first biden and asked the president was here when it first ran for senate it is a camera phone and a connection to take a photo and can be submitted electronically. shocking. i know. maybe it hasn't come to san francisco so vice president harris may not be familiar but i encourage everyone to check out these new camera phones that used to use enhance integrity for people voting by mail remotely enroll america. additionally. and those with democratic witnesses during a hearing earlier this year democratic witness stated minority participation was from the 2012 election due to voter
10:29 pm
suppression. those with self reporting and to reach that conclusion not a scientific poll to reverse engineer the desired result. and then i pointed out with that has doric candidacy. and those to administer elections but on the other hand the multiple election administrators. and then to testify. enter out hr one day will not work in the jurisdiction.
10:30 pm
it can make elections less secure. after a thorough review democrats will abandon the efforts to circumvent the constitution to nationalize the election is clear works best when those closest to the people set the rules not unelected bureaucrats in washington. in article four article one section for the constitution i yield back. s>> all other members are invited to submit opening statements for the record. we have a very distinguished panel to hear from.
10:31 pm
and from the american studies and those at stanford university were heht has taught since 1980 and a constitutional historian's research includes the origins of the american revolution and the constitution the political practice and theory of james madison and historical knowledge of litigation the author of six books including original meanings in the making of the constitution to have a pulitzer prize in history the mandate american academy of arts and sciences the american philosophical society in the past president of the society of the early american republic and a bachelors in history next we
10:32 pm
have faculty from usc school ofof law nationally recognized expert in russian law. her scholarship focuses on the areas of election law, constitutional law, legal history. and with the 14th and 15th amendments. and with the united states court of appeals for the seventh circuit with the northern district of illinois and the title article with the enforcement of federal law appeared in the yale law in which she examines under the elections clause with the
10:33 pm
underutilization with hr one. with the founding of the jim crow era. and with the wisconsin law school in the authority of scholarship to address voting rights and free speech and democratic inclusion publishing over law review articles and papers on a broad scope of topics and then the co-authors of election law. and talking about the new soft money.
10:34 pm
and then to receive the jd from yale law school. and those with areas free speechd and those last but not least is secretary of state. secretary of adams the 86 secretary of state sworn into his term january 6, 2020. he established an election law in 2007. and later expanded hisis practice with the committee think political figures. and then to be appointed to the county board of elections. with after mitch mcconnell's 2002 election with deputy general counsel in the deputy
10:35 pm
attorney general from the bush administration.ce and also receiving jd from harvard law school and chief as on —- cheat also clerked for the chief district law judge. good to have all of you. we will hear testimony for about five minutes there is a clock on the screen to help you keep track of time. we do ask you summarize your entirent statement will be made part of the written record. first to the professor it's great to see you. >> and ranking member davis. think you for the opportunity to test the origins. and those losing the recommendation and then in my
10:36 pm
written statement in with that times and places and manners. but first the reconstruction indicates and those have those defects in congressional defects within the state and also and also designed with federal elections. and with that with the asking that word should they default under members ofhe congress? and also those in part of the federation and those with the
10:37 pm
federal agents. and with the most detailed speech. and that as a closet is debated. and with no congressional review or alteration. so precisely because with those words of latitude of that discretionary power. and then that inequality.
10:38 pm
and with that can congressional districts but then the then that motion was rejected. so madison speech also identifies new problems in designing a system of national political representation so it should be decided with the district for all representatives these and many others with the members of the committee to know there was no precedent in history for the representatives of the framers of society the american colonies and state were
10:39 pm
illegally organized. that would never work in the extensive expanding american republic those political entities. with every need to send you'll sentence. but then everything to decide what kind of constituency answer presented. of those political representations working or not working in the language of any time. so talk about political representation those that were consistently guided and in
10:40 pm
1776 the legislative assembly should be from the largest society. and then to be an equal representation and should have equal interest in it. but this, was still then with the representation andue it applies that democrat is an equitable solution. and for congress to think boldly and then to form a more perfect union. think you very much. >> think you very much professor. now i like to call on dean
10:41 pm
tolson for her testimony. >> think m you very much chairperson and ranking members of the committee to talk about the scope of the congressional power so as we know for federal elections with a complete halt for federal elections and then to supplement the regulatory regime and then to jeopardize the health and vitality so congress can make or alters state law by enrolling in those provisions of the time and place and manner as well as those qualification
10:42 pm
standards because first hr one have artie o been validated and by prior congressional and then those authorities is broader as well as the 14th to 15thth amendment despite that election clients untapped potentialio which contributes to the perception that hr one is unprecedented and unconstitutional, it is not. for example the decision that held voter registration under the elections clause and in 2013 but in those to implement the legislation from the national voter registration
10:43 pm
act knows of public assistance. courts have found them to be constitutional to impose additional obligations but the supreme court in the independent commission to draw districtsde with those commissions of federal elections those are arguably theab constitutional and those objections that touch voter qualification and the fact for the precipice of voting in federal elections. under the elections clause there are circumstances of those qualifications with state regulations discourage
10:44 pm
to turn out the federal election in for example to see the advocacy voting act had the elections clause with the new balance specifically for use for military personnel and then to determine which personnel were entitled to vote. and then that throughout that threat and helpp of the legitimacy and other categories to be insufficiently protected by law. so conscious power and then to be even more indisputable. and those individuals from exercising their fundamental rights as protected by the 14th and 15th amendment and as it stands those are
10:45 pm
disproportionately minority. and that that common sense could protect the election bill and those on the competition of the united states with the motivation of the government itself and those provisions serve that exact purpose. those provisions do not approach those outer limits under the elections clause which would allow them to alter or makede state law under the 14th and 15th amendment.. think you so much for the opportunity to discuss my research i will answer any questions you may have.
10:46 pm
>> now we turn to the other dean. for your five minutes. >> think you madame chair woman in think you ranking member davis, representative from my state, the great state of wisconsin i am the dean at the university of moscow my primary research area writing on congresses power before. the one that the us supreme court has used repeatedly around 142 years power over congressional elections is paramount. under the unambiguous text of the election clause, congress has broad primary authority of the time and place and manner to conduct congressional elections and the most recent
10:47 pm
was justice scalia opinion for justices in arizona versus intertribal council in 2013 where he referred to the broad and comprehensive scope of congress is elections clause power. the remainder of my testimony i provide background what the elections clause means and how that has been construed by the supreme court. >> the elections clause allow states for conduct of congressional elections but only so far as congress to clients to preempt legislative choices —- justice scalia claimed this grant wonders assurance against the possibility that states would
10:48 pm
try to undermine the union by either failing to have procedures for congressional elections are those that were inadequate in the federalist papers the state legislatures would annihilate that by neglecting to provide for the affairs. congress has exercised the broad power to regulate repeatedly to the apportionment act in the post- civil warnd enforcement act and more recently togi the national voter registration act. i will not go through all of the precedents toon support these and other laws which congress previously has but in 1879 at case involved the
10:49 pm
reconstruction era enforcement act and in thatd case the court said congress may exercise his power as he sees fit and then the action of congress so far as it extends and conflicts necessarily supersedes them. in 1832 and goes on to say congress may have a complete code for congressional election including registration and prevention of fraud in corrupt practices with those canvassers to make publishing of election returns. there was a time in the early 2h century where the court said it didn't reach primary elections but that was reversed in 1941 that does
10:50 pm
allowed to the primary as well as general elections. the power isn't unlimited but it does say the power does not include to dictate outcomes or to even aid. >> you are at five minutes. >> think you. >> that congress does have very broad power and then it is broader under other clauses of the constitution is good reason for have a lecture and on —- electoral college from other constitutional powers because congress in the election clause area is not acting in a b place where the state has pre-existing authority before the constitution.
10:51 pm
now there is a question in the qualifications clause power begins which i would be happy to an address in my response that the supreme court precedent confirms the election clause means what it says congress has a broad power to make rules to govern the time and place and manner. thank you. >> last we have secretary of state adams think you for joiningjo us you are now recognized for five minutes. >> think you madame chair members of the committee good afternoon i'm kentucky secretary of state. it's an honor to be with you today. i understand the topic of the discussion is election clause the congresses considering that is a good day and wish you every success my purpose is to address policy concerns
10:52 pm
to have increasing role of the elections in congress and some background i developed this last year with my state chief election official took place during the pandemic i asked the legislature and received emergency powers to be shared with the democratic governor leading us tos implement the system to ensure public safety and voter access and election security. we expanded absentee voting and established early voting for the first time in kentucky history. in the days before our primary election kentucky was singled out of harassment and hate of false accusations of voter suppression the phones were clogged with callers from california and dc and new york sometimes threatening violence this was directed at us by celebrities on twitter including a certain member of
10:53 pm
congress who now chairs the senate committee but when the dust settled it was the most successful election to that point in the pandemic safe and orderly. kentuckians knew how to run an election better than the national politicians were media. expanded voting reforms added securityty measures proved so successful and popular that the legislature made most of them permanent when fouts in both chambers bipartisan and nearly unanimous. we are the national leader in election reform this year but we are not alone. bipartisan legislation expanding opportunities also passed in vermont. why was kentucky able to have the most significant modernization of our system since 1891 to make it both easier to vote and harder to
10:54 pm
cheat? widespread support across the political divide? why did louisiana and vermont follow suit? because you did not stop us you wantt democracy to work there are two lessons here. kentucky knows what is best for kentucky i urge you let kentucky be kentucky in kentucky and vermont be vermont and respect those laboratories of democracy in a decentralized system vermont past mail-in voting and in kentucky even with expanded absentee voting even in the pandemic most voters voted in person election policy should be made not by a caucus or thinkel tank but by administrators working in a bipartisan fashion bipartisanship has concerns on both sides but also shows voters on both sides the rules
10:55 pm
are not rigged to favor one over another to have the state legislatures acting in a partisan fashion when i would encourage you to avoid doing the same thing yourselves do not be victims of a false narrative i don't agree with every election bill all offeredth but the reality on the ground is more complicated then we hear about in the second chamber to use red states is so strong media outlets covering the achievement are rewriting their own coverage to fit the narrative cnn reported on april 82 signed into law the bipartisan election bill to expand grant and cnn reported 17 states enacted 20rd laws making it harder including kentucky. on april 8 the "washington
10:56 pm
post" reported democratic governor wanted to expand voting june 20 forced the "washington post" post concluded kentucky was undermining democracy. they did not even accept facts and to contradict their own narrative. politics has grownwn increasingly harsh and even dangerous the more big decisions are federalized rather than resolved that the state and local levels i urge you to respect diversity of our country in the magistrate of those election systems. think you so much. >> think you madame on —- mr. secretary now members of the committee may ask questions for about five minutes i will turn first congressman raskin who is also a constitutional law professor. you are recognized.
10:57 pm
>> think you for calling this important hearing in the witnesses for their testimony. let me start with you. someone to be in the forefront of expanding in defending the franchise new jersey gave women the right to vote but at the same time there also at the forefront to disenfranchise people grandfather clauses and other attempts to disenfranchise a what do you make of the claim we just heard from secretary adams that we should just trust the state and let kentucky be kentucky? and let every state? is that consistent with how we respect voting rights. >> think you for that question representative. there are two important principles and we have to recognize both of them.
10:58 pm
states are laboratories of democracy. it's a great thing of our federalist system that states can experiment as they so often do including experimenting with election reforms like same-day registration a number have experimented with proving quite successful to make it more convenient to vote with increasing turnout. on the other hand, there is a competing principal that in the end, congress has to have the authority to regulate congressional elections. that includes regulating to protect the fundamental right to vote the first noteworthy examplee are the enforcement acts that has been written about and has been addressed
10:59 pm
in testimony of the reconstruction period that is absolutely vital for congress to exercise its authority under the election clause in 14h and 15th amendments and then to protect the voting rights of newly freed african-americans after the appalling disenfranchisement of african-americans that to place after reconstruction and throughout most of the 20th century again necessary for congress to act under the elections clause authority to protect the rights. so we do want states to be laboratories of democracy at the same time congress has to have the ability to protect the right to vote particularly in federal elections as the election clause directs. >> theel other point was raised by secretary adams about election administrators.
11:00 pm
so how should we delegate this decision to administrators what they need in terms of voting with the representatives of people in the house in congress and senate? . . . . to protect the s
11:01 pm
in an effort to displace and run somebody against them so they have a subservient secretary in georgia. it is absolutely amazing to watch that but what about the idea and increasingly partisan officials were being targeted around the country to be deferred to in terms of the voting rights. we will start with you. >> thank you so much for that question, representative. representative.i appreciate thes point. but sometimes they produce some of those measures in our history so if you look at the constitution of 1890 that is a constitution where the state 1disenfranchised within the ste
11:02 pm
and other governments followed suit. the point is well taken but at the same time a list of best practices, so a list of things that will further the national conceptionna of democracy to soe extent it can't be a big level. we have to have a sense of who we are as a national democracy. sufficient discretion over the apparatus within the state. >> my time is up. it was itself something with innovation. the best way to think about this
11:03 pm
simply to recognize would have been seen as two levels of the legislatures that you would have anything like the secretary of state at the state level. it would have been an anomaly in that period. so it's the idea more than the bureaucratic one. >> the gentleman's time is expired. the gentleman from georgia. >> thank you madam chair for being a part of this hearing today. we need to separate the constitutionality of congresses ability to set the times, place
11:04 pm
and manner. there are two issues that are being slated in this argument. the first is the qualification of electors and that is very specific with our founders and the courts that have upheld the constitution establishes the a qualifications and this is the argument i'm hearing in a lot of the cases that yes the federal congress has the ability to establish who they can be and they do not have the ability to assert that because that is set in the constitution. the second aspect is the times, places and manner that should be taken literally. the system was broad when it talked about the electors in the system but the founders through their debates and in the
11:05 pm
federalist papers were very specific and as it was brought up earlier hamilton made the argument the government ought to contain within itself the means of its own preservation and the reason for this was during the ratification of the constitution, the antifederalists and those who were opposed to this position believed factions or parties to manipulate and can stay in office indefinitely. hamilton however in a quote that comes out of the federalists clarifies that and says it ought to contain the means of its own preservation and argues that the provision was a reasonable compromise that gave the fault or secondary powers that would be exercised in whatever extraordinary circumstances i
11:06 pm
render that position necessary to its safety so what hamilton is saying is they have the power that congress only has a secondary power and his argument was in case of the manners for which they will not fill the seats for congress to manipulate and hold congress hostage if they did and that was the secondary argument that they were making and that's why congress has that secondary power. this is getting convoluted and the argument and i think we need to separate that and the republicans argument here isn't the qualification of electors but if the states provide the onresponsibility for the times,
11:07 pm
places and manners. with that, secretary adams as you know according to the section we have been talking about and all of the times, places and manners have the responsibility for setting that but even still many of my colleagues on the committee are pushing this article which would in my opinion circumvent the defense of the founders of the constitution. my question is how would this work across the country especially in kentucky? the provisions that were substantially changed. >> let me give you an example back in december as i was drafting my report the biggest
11:08 pm
change of the system we expanded early voting and i had a meeting with high level officials and in my surprise he told me secretary adams, please don't expand early voting. that spoke to me that you think of for example mail-in voting which i'm not here to support it's just shouldn't that be permitted from the state. that is our culture we are just different. that's our tradition. >> i see my time is expired.
11:09 pm
we know in person voting is the most secure that's why many people prefer to do that. traditionally that is where we've seen the largest amount. >> mr. butterfield is recognized. >> thank you for convening this hearing today and thank you to the witnesses for your testimony and it's good to see all of my colleagues i look forward to the return to washington. madam chair, as a law student many years ago as a lawyer and as a supreme court justice over the years i've had many occasions to read and study court opinions and law review articles about the clause and i've come to the same conclusion every time i read about it it
11:10 pm
seems to me to be unambiguous. so i want to begin today by asking each of the witnesses the first question should congress choose to pass a regulation affecting do you agree or disagree that such regulation will preempt and let me go to each one of the witnesses. i guess i can go in the same orderhe that you testified. >> the basic answer i would argue is yes. >> unambiguous?
11:11 pm
>> yes. >> the next witness. >> contrary to state laws it will create new in some places but in some cases if they conflict then it's absolutely preempt. >> representative butterfield, i do agree it is unambiguous that under the clause, congress haser broad power over the time, place and manner and you don't have to take my word for it. that is what justice scalia wrote in the reaffirming over almost a century and a half. >> before you respond, you noted
11:12 pm
in your testimony it was primarily about policy in other words whether congress and whether we should pass legislation and for the sake of clarity, when it comes to the question of whether congress can pass legislation, and that is what my first question is about, would you agree that it gives broad authority to regulate putting aside the policy concerns? >> that's kind of a subjective question. there are guardrails in the system. we've seen it time and time again for example congress can't require states to do medicaid.
11:13 pm
>> do we have that authority? >> if i could finish my answer. telling what they can do and whether they can require them to do certain things in exchange for federal funds if you are asking about significant authority, -- >> does it include mail-in voting? >> perhaps the scholars have. >> they want to vote in person. how did you arrive at that conclusion? >> a couple of things. i was told by a high-ranking official -- minority groups and all groups want the ability to
11:14 pm
vote absentee as well as early voting. let me move on if i can my time isis moving out. i do not have enough time for my final question so i will be healed back. >> the gentleman yields back. i find more and more people do have access and it's also great to see the university law school as well as everybody else today. i'd like to direct my first question to the secretary of state to the subcommittee hearing and how do you suggest the importance of providing a mandatory vote by mail increase in voter turnout and analysis?
11:15 pm
>> before i took office we would vote absentee and i worked hard to make voting as easy as possible but i don't know that it would make much of a difference. that's why in kentucky i quadrupled the number of days people could vote. >> it seems like it's a different in how people prefer to vote. it may be different in utah or wisconsin they exist in different states in the united states. >> if i could make an overall point i am not here to
11:16 pm
criticize. i don't want to see the bills change. i think california and coloradoc would be upset if the republicans did that when they held power. utah has a system they seem to like and i don't question that at all. it's super for them. the best way to expand the franchise that we saw last year even though we made the voting available to all people, they didn't want to vote absentee and they still came to vote in person. the easiest cost efficient way was when people could vote in person. >> did they make these decisions and encourage everyone to vote
11:17 pm
to deal with that? >> i think look at the record and what we've been accomplishing in kentucky both with the national government has with regards to the administration and what the states achieved. it t allows us to have space for democrats and republicans to come together and pass something unanimous that was idealized. >> you are a secretary of state and elections attorney.ey could you go through your interpretation of the clause? >> i will be the first to admit i've never researched that inrca scholarly fashion. i don't have a whole lot to add in terms of the history i think
11:18 pm
that it speaks for itself. i appreciate your testimony and with that, from rural america i yield back. >> the gentle man yields back. the representative is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you so much. is this coming through okay? >> thank you, secretary. i'm pleased to see my former professor. we know each other way back in the day longer than i can admit but it's great to have you on the hearing today because of course he is the preeminent national authority and the original meaning of the
11:19 pm
constitution i would like to direct my first question about the clause that we are talking about. we heard an awful lot about but the second half of that was what gives congress the power to do something different than the state legislatures. can you talk about the second part with respect to the authority that is given to the states in the first place? >> it didn't originate in the convention and came out of the words of the committee between july 26 and august. the committee took the general resolutions. the convention hasn't been appointed so the idea of
11:20 pm
speaking more specifically about the conduct originated in the committee and was already discussed primarily because the south carolina delegates. in the sense that it had a long mission. they spoke opposition to it and in part it does involve speaking historically about the change over time as much as legally. to realize that this was a
11:21 pm
deeply experimental process there was no example of designing the kind ofmu politicl system that the framers were creating. give the department representation but there's no idea of expanding the record and there was a loft in the beginning about representing the states as aggregate constituencies. would you do it by districts both represented in the state i think the important thing to stress is that there was a
11:22 pm
strong dimension to the clause in how the national political system would work on the basis of that experience would include the question of whether or not the issue of discrimination as we think about there was an 18th century way to think about this with ofxp the society should be equally representing and in some ways that is a very modern notion as well so thinking about these terms would be helpful it's not just about protectingat the states. the models of national representation broadly define. >> coming from pennsylvania over the past decade we have had a number of different voter id laws with of the republican legislature where the housegr
11:23 pm
majority leader reported saying the provisions were implemented in order for the party to maintain power that seems to be the very type of conduct of the framers were skeptical of and we are hearing about states having certain cultures and we know certain communities have for example the black community says the tradition of voting on sunday after church and some state legislatures try to undermine that tradition of voting so including closing polling places or certain voters over other types of voters. i don't know if we can get an answer to that but i see that my time is up.
11:24 pm
>> the gentle ladies time has expired. the gentle lady from new mexico for five minutes. >> thank you to the witnesses further discussion on the constitutionality. you discussed how they described the need to protect the ability of the voters to elect a representative assembly that was a miniature in the exact portrait of the people at large in the country. t you discuss how that representation may not be what it is today but it is supposed to be every citizen whether they be native american, black, latino, whatever that they need to be able to reflect them.
11:25 pm
and our concern is that that's not happening. the restrictions and terms that are being enacted are targeted so certain communities cannot succeed in getting that beautiful portrait of themselves in congress. can you explain how the clause and its history -- the concern is similar, correct? >> i would assume to defer to my colleagues who've written so much about these periods of discrimination. earlier'' the phrase was they we viewed as laboratory democracy but you could say equally well they served as laboratories of discrimination against the jim crow era restrictions during the time of reconstruction it also
11:26 pm
considered the aftermath of the shelby county decision seeing not the full scale buttr the bas whether the kind of clause and acted would have that discriminatory affect and went to great lengths and the court now seems fairly anxious to deny. it was something they actively debated. there was a fascinating passage trying to imagine what the ideal congress would look like. it would be good if we had that
11:27 pm
middle-class quality. it's easy for people to get together to decide what they are going to do it wasn't the dominant motive of the 18th century politics. it was down to about 1890 was three years manning the vast majority of the members served so the whole idea that the politics wouldld be driven throh the process voters don't choose representatives but the representatives choose the voters.
11:28 pm
behind the federalist movement was the belief that the m legislatures couldn't be relied upon to do their federal duty.? subject to the kind of partisan concerns with the idea that you might get as far as in politics. >> thank you, professor. i wanted to get to at least one other question and it strikes me that unlike wisconsin where we earlier earlier today one of the rural areas i represent don't have such infrastructure and at the time poverty areas of my district especially in tribal areas, access is actually hard.
11:29 pm
but in response to the state laws it also includes provisions to ensure we have care and equitable these and other provisions are unconstitutional. >> part of it is this is something that has come out over the course of the hearing and the text is the time, place and manner of the clause. you look at the history as recounted g and consider the fat there was a reconsideration.
11:30 pm
the fact that it was rejected and accepted the clause illustrates the distrust that the national government had with respect to state legislatures over thiss issue so it provides for all of hr one. when the states are abusing that ability -- >> thank you so much. my time is expired. >> and i see the ranking member, mr. davis, has joined us. you are now recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. by keeping tabs on the testimony
11:31 pm
i had a littles coup d'état but it's great to see everybody. mr. secretary thank you for coming here today. it was great to see you if you days ago in washington with basic k provisions there's some good stuff but i want a micromanagement of the elections. the second argument is with respect to congress i think we do a better job of funding space across the aisle to work
11:32 pm
get things done. it's a less toxic atmosphere than we have in washington. >> the last two election cycles we sawaw the reference in 2020 d haven't been able to produce a single boat that was suppressed and even stacey abrams testifiee before the committee. >> what was the last part of your question? >> you testified before the committee of the turnout that it doesn't really matter. can you explain how that makes sense when in the record turnout theie committee hasn't been
11:33 pm
suppressed and they are saying voter turnout doesn't matter. i think it does, do you? >> in the election last year there were over 2 million voters that voted and there are some hits that protected the security and integrity and expanded early voting. we found they tended to vote in person instead off by absentee. tito respect the wishes of their constituencies and come up with a model that works best for them. >> did this impact voter
11:34 pm
turnout? >> interestingly, the first lawi that i got past was a voter id that was an issue that i ran on and we didn't find that disenfranchised anybody. we had a record turnout we still managed to ensure the vote. >> can you tell us briefly how did they get these reforms that
11:35 pm
many think are impossible and how did that impact 2020? >> i think it's important that the administrators be at the center of the table in advising the election rules. written by a caucus for a think tank, they should be done with administratorsmp at the table, less ideological on these things and more practical. we had to engage in customer service business. in our state we found the county clerks, urban county clerks, students relying on the primary method. most republicans wanted to vote was in person so the question is how do we achieve that and to do
11:36 pm
so. >> thank you to the witnesses. i ran out of time talking to you, mr. sec., so i didn't have time to answer the others. thanks again. >> the general ranking member yields back and i now recognize myself for a few questions. it's been alleged that if congress exercises its jurisdiction in the clause it would cause constitutional problems specifically i'm interested in redistricting these provisions and whether the court has really addressed this issue per se, for example. can you address that? >> yes, thank you for that
11:37 pm
question. and in fact, in the decision which rejected a constitutional challenge to the partisan gerrymandering. the court reaffirmed congresses broad power to regulate congressional electionsll specifically including redistricting. the court referenced favorably the apportionment act of 1842 which was the first exercise of the power process of drawing the congressional districts and the congressional representation process and went on to explain congress does have the power to make laws regarding the congressional districting. similar to the question about congress' power to regulate the
11:38 pm
reapportionment if there ever was it inventively resolves the under the clause with the ultimate power over the rules regarding the districting. >> let me ask you, professor, why were the framers concerned in particular on the state lawmakers drawing the district lines? >> i think the best answer. in the confederation about congress to recommend to the states needed to be done for national purposes it's about the
11:39 pm
decisions made and was the criticism of the devices but they assisted the recurring tendencies to play down the reflected the decisions to be confident to adjudicate. in the national legislature.
11:40 pm
the point i was trying to make has negative connotations and you may see distortions at the state level or you may come up with better ideas. do you see any parallels at that
11:41 pm
time. [inaudible] >> the consequences we are waiting to see we spent almost every day thinking about it. and hopefully what is the national h level. my time is expired and the time of all members has expired. concern about the local election officials our concern has been with partisan legislative bodies
11:42 pm
enacting legislation that governs bothou actions. for hr 682 and hr 3412 from the 116th congress. members have additional questions for each of the witnesses and some will submit in writing and request that he would answer to receive the
11:43 pm
answers to the questions i want to thank the panel for an outstanding testimony today. rwithout objection, the committe on housing administration will stand adjourned.
11:44 pm
11:45 pm
on the national security threats posed by climate change. bill nye, known as the science guy and environmental experts testify about forced migration due to climate change and mitigation efforts to stave off the impacts of severe weather events before they occur. this is two hours. >> the subcommittee on emergency preparedness response and recovery will come to order. the subcommittee is meeting today to receive testimony on examining climate change, a threat to the homeland. without objection, the chair is authorized to declare the subcommittee in recess at any point. i'd like to say good afternoon to all of you and thank you for joining us today for the witnesses as well as the amazing members. we appear today to discu

16 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on