This is important legislation and this summary below is very succinct, I find, so I am not editing it down as I think the entire thing is worth the read.

To me the big question on this one is whether it will the republicans or Manchin who derail it or force the most changes? Hope i am wrong re Manchin, ...time will tell.


H.R. 1 for Dummies
A layman’s guide to understanding what the For the People Act is and why America needs it.



With the latest COVID relief package passed, H.R. 1—the For the People Act—becomes the most salient pending piece of legislation. Our democracy is on borrowed time: Just two months ago America weathered a violent attempt to overthrow a free and fair election. One of our two major political parties is now explicitly seeking to lower the number of votes cast in future elections. And if we don’t take decisive action now to preserve our democracy, we’ll lose it. H.R. 1 is supposed to be a bulwark against these anti-democratic threats. It has taken on a partisan tinge, but it’s neither a progressive nor partisan bill—it’s a pro-democracy bill that should appeal to Americans of all political backgrounds.

So before the next stage of the debate begins in earnest, let’s open the hood and take a look at what’s actually in the bill.

Broadly speaking, H.R. 1 covers three major areas: voting and elections, campaign finance, and ethics.

First, it would:

- reduce barriers that keep eligible citizens from registering to vote and then casting their vote;
- set minimum, uniform standards for elections; and
- provide funding to increase the security of our elections.

These reforms have a long record of bipartisan support and have already been implemented across many states.

Second, H.R. 1 would increase the transparency of spending on elections and campaign ads and strengthen protections against foreign interference in our campaigns.

Third is ethics: Requiring increased disclosure of lobbying activities, and putting into law ethical guidelines preventing conflicts of interest by staff, appointees, members of Congress, and even presidents.

So those are the broad strokes of what the bill aims to do. Here’s a bit more detail on the mechanisms it proposes.

Preventing Voter Suppression and Protecting Elections (Titles I–III)


Currently, each state sets its own procedures for how its residents register and cast their vote. The For the People Act creates minimum standards that will apply to each state, for how voters register and cast their ballots, while still empowering states to run their own elections.

Consider voter registration. H.R. 1 takes voter registration reforms that have proven successful across dozens of states over multiple election cycles, and mandates them nationally: It requires states to allow online and same-day voter registration and strengthens protections against efforts to hinder, deceive, or intimidate voters from registering or casting their ballots.

As another example, H.R. 1 restores the right to vote for all felons who have served their sentences and been released from prison. These 5 million currently disenfranchised voters are disproportionately people of color.

There’s historic precedent at work here: kicking blacks off the voter rolls for a criminal conviction was such an effective tool of the Jim Crow South that when the Reconstruction Congress readmitted Confederate states to the Union, it limited which felonies could be used to suspend a person’s ability to vote—a limitation which has gone tragically unenforced. A century later, states such as Alabama, Mississippi, and Tennessee have used this same principle to disenfranchise more than 8 percent of their voting-age populations. The For the People Act would end the seesaws of these state-by-state laws and impose a fair minimum standard.

The For the People Act would also standardize how a voter can be removed from the rolls. Some states remove voters because they skipped voting in an election a while back or failed to return a piece of mail. And some campaigns abuse these rules to intentionally push voters (namely, ones likely to vote for their opponents) off the rolls.

While existing law places some limits on the use of racially discriminatory voter purges, enforcement of these protections is inconsistent (at best). The act would prohibit the use of non-forwardable mail that has been returned as a basis for kicking someone off the voting rolls. It also prevents voters from being kicked off the rolls if they fail to vote in an election, and requires people who are not election officials to swear that they have a good faith factual basis if they decide to challenge a citizen’s voter registration.

In terms of casting the ballot after a voter is registered, H.R. 1 would expand procedures that make it easier to vote. It expands vote-by-mail—which, contrary to many partisan arguments, does not overall boost turnout of one party over another. The bill would also allow curbside voting (so that older people and people with disabilities can vote from their vehicle) and pre-paying the postage on mail-in ballots so a citizen doesn’t miss out on casting their vote just because they could not afford a stamp.

The act also seeks to reduce wait times at the polls. Long wait times can impose undue hardships on voters—making voting physically hard on the elderly, for instance, or economically hard for hourly workers without childcare. A bipartisan commission recommends a 30-minute maximum wait time. But in the United States, not only do many voters wait longer than an hour and a half, lines are longer at polling places in predominantly black neighborhoods—regardless of whether that neighborhood is in a Democratic- or Republican-controlled state.

The For the People Act includes several provisions that would reduce wait times, including setting minimum hours and days for early voting availability, and funding states’ recruitment and training of more poll workers so that they can open more polling locations.

H.R. 1 also standardizes vote-by-mail procedures to reduce confusion that results in uncounted ballots. In 2020, many voters were left waiting for absentee ballots that either came too late or never arrived at all. Those who did get their ballots were often worried about their ballot arriving back at the board of elections in time to be counted. The act requires states to track and confirm the receipt of absentee ballots and make it easier for people to return ballots through secure dropboxes.

H.R. 1 also forbids any official from overseeing an election in which they, or a family member, are a candidate. For example: In November 2018, Brian Kemp campaigned to become governor of Georgia at the same time that he was overseeing the election as Georgia’s secretary of state. He resigned in response to a lawsuit (disclaimer: our organization filed it) arguing that that refereeing and running in the same election violates the basic constitutional principle that a person may not be a judge in their own case. H.R. 1 would formalize this rule.

Perhaps most critically, H.R. 1 would also end the political parties’ control over drawing congressional districts—a process which is abused across the country, by both Democrats and Republicans, and which herds tens of millions of Americans into bizarre geographic constructions for the sole purpose of being able to win more races with same number of votes.

Instead, H.R. 1 requires states to use non-partisan redistricting commissions to draw these lines. In the face of the Supreme Court’s decision in 2019 not to stand in the way of extreme partisan redistricting, this provision would help make a state’s representation more proportional to the actual outcome of elections.

The For the People Act also includes numerous provisions to increase election security and, just as importantly, bolster public confidence in this security. It creates minimum standards for election equipment vendors (including requiring that they are made in the USA); requires paper ballot receipts to enable audits; directs states to prevent and deter cybersecurity risks; and funds research into improving the security of our election infrastructure.

It would also require federal intelligence agencies to help states share information about potential security threats and to test voting machines for vulnerabilities. The Act doesn’t leave states footing the bill: it provides over $1 billion in funding to help states take these steps to better secure our elections.

All of these actions are well within Congress’s authority to manage elections in which a candidate for federal office is on the ballot. In fact, Congress’s power here to regulate elections is broad and explicitly authorized by multiple constitutional provisions.

First and foremost, Article I’s Elections Clause explicitly empowers Congress to regulate the “times, places and manner” of federal elections. The Supreme Court has explained that this includes the power to “provide a complete code for congressional elections.” Indeed, Congress’s power here is “paramount, and may be exercised at any time, and to any extent which it deems expedient.”

This is in addition to Congress’s inherent Article I power to “preserve the purity of presidential and vice-presidential elections.”

Moreover, Congress has the power under the Enforcement Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee against racial discrimination in voting. The ']Republican Guarantee Clause, which states “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,” is another source of Congress’s authority to regulate elections. While the contours of each specific authority can be complicated, the overall conclusion is not: Congress has broad authority to regulate the conduct of elections in which federal officials appear on the ballot.

Transparency, Campaign Finance, and Foreign Interference (Titles IV–VI)

H.R. 1 includes a set of reforms designed to create more transparency around election-related spending and limit foreign interference in elections.

There is limited space for Congress to reform campaign finance, following the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United. But within this framework, Congress has significant authority to require more transparency—which is the thrust of the campaign finance reforms in H.R. 1. The act requires more disclosure of who funds online ads, disclosure of spending by government contractors, and creates a shareholder right to know about a corporation’s political expenditures.

It also strengthens protections against foreign interference in elections. It requires campaigns to report attempts by foreign nationals to unlawfully interfere with elections, tighter limits on campaign donations by foreign nationals, and the requirements for transparency in “dark money” groups and ads will bring to light an avenue by which foreign funds influence U.S. elections.

Some of these provisions have been the subject of thoughtful critique by the ACLU. But overall, this is a set of reforms designed to shore up the integrity and stability of the U.S. elections system by increasing transparency and limiting foreign interference, while remaining consistent with the limitations of Citizens United.

The act also provides matching funds for small-donor contributions to candidates, with strict limitations to ensure that no taxpayer dollars go to these matching funds. While there is some evidence that small donors can fuel politicians with more extreme views, in a world where Congress can’t restrict campaign funding, this approach is designed as a hedge against the magnified influence of large donors.

Ethics Reform Across the Entire Federal Government (Titles VII–X)

H.R. 1 contains numerous ethics provisions that move beyond elections, and apply to all three branches of the federal government. Some apply to presidential candidates as well. Taken together they amount to basic steps in reducing corruption and self-dealing throughout the government.

The act would require the judiciary to create a code of ethics that applies to all federal judges. (Currently, Supreme Court justices are the only federal judges not subject to any written code of conduct.) It would also strengthen the registration requirements for agents of foreign governments, strengthen lobbying disclosures, and make all of these registrations and disclosures more easily available to the public.

And it would significantly strengthen ethics requirements across the executive branch. Examples:

- bolstering recusal requirements for current federal officials;
-preventing federal funds from being spent at businesses owned by the president or cabinet members; and
- requiring presidential appointees to recuse themselves from matters in which the president or their spouse is a party.

H.R. 1 would also close loopholes that prevent standard federal conflict-of-interest rules from applying to all officials, by extending relevant requirements to the president and vice president and requiring presidents-elect adopt and enforce ethics rules for their transition teams.

It would strengthen the Office of Government Ethics’s independence and investigatory authority and require the sitting president, vice presidents, and major-party presidential candidates to release their tax returns for the prior 10 years, so the people can understand any financial interests their candidates and elected officials might have.

Finally, H.R. 1 imposes stronger ethics requirements on Congress. It would require members of Congress to reimburse taxpayers for employment discrimination claims against those members who have been paid by the Treasury. It would extend some basic conflict-of-interest rules to members of the House and Senate, including barring them from working to advance legislation that is primarily to further their, or their families’, financial interests. It also requires that the many reports that agencies submit to Congress be made available and searchable online. And it would limit those agencies’ ability to alter or remove final reports.

Reasonable people might quibble with the wisdom of this or that provision in H.R. 1. It’s a big bill. But there is no reasonable way to view it as a partisan power grab or federal takeover of our democracy.

And taken as a whole, we believe it upholds the essential components of democracy:

- That eligible voters can participate freely in our elections to choose their representatives.
- That those elections are secure and protected against undue influence and interference.
- And that public officials across the federal government must then abide by some basic ethical codes.

H.R. 1 might not be sufficient to stop the anti-democratic forces now loose in our politics. The Voting Rights Act needs to be reauthorized in light of the Supreme Court’s Shelby County decision and the Protecting Our Democracy Act is needed to restore guardrails on executive power.

But H.R. 1 is a necessary step in protecting our political order because it reflects that the key tension is no longer left versus right, but democratic versus anti-democratic.

Who sets these rules? The majority? If that true, and was in place prior to the 2020, you guys would melt the **** down.

There is an argument that the state check on federal elections is what prevents the majority in congress from manipulating the rules to win an election.

Can you not see any of these reforms/rules that are just common sense, and for which it's rather irrelevant who sets them?

Annnnd here's the problem with US (and wider) politics these days. So many people need to frame everything this way. Your side, our side, blah blah blah...

And allows the states do so (manipulate the rules to win elections) - and they are. So...just continue on with that plan?

Is this an acknowledgement that republicans would have terribly manipulated the rules to win?


Seems like the Fed's need to excerpt 'check' power for just the reason you state here about why State's might need some power here to.

Meh, maybe IHIV is right and the states should continue to decide everything. What could go wrong?

Iowa governor signs controversial law shortening early and Election Day voting

Thank goodness someone is thinking of election integrity.

Like this one:

A huge stride forward for transparency and accountability, because...reasons, I guess?

As I understand it, the rules comes in the form of a minimum standard. This is a good solution to ensure local autonomy, while still retaining the ability to strike down on subpar results.

Of course, exactly what should be in such a standard is up for debate, but that the US has for a long time struggled with equal access to voting is generally accepted conclusion to be derived from reports by international election observers. Common issues that repeat themselves is lack of universal access, extensive gerrymandering, unequal distribution of polling stations etc. I take it for granted that everyone agrees that a healthy approach to voting is to ensure equal access to voting and that voting is easily accessible for all citizens.

From history we know the US has a long history of wilful attempts to reduce legal votes, and while we are probably a far cry from the 1870s, I would say this tendency still lives.

Of course, the big question of something like HR1 is if it will survive legal challenges, especially in the supreme court. Conservative originalists would tend to point to states being responsible for organizing elections, others that the intent of the constitution fails if people are hindered from voting. The US isn't exactly in a political climate that favours happy compromises either.

How does making sure eligible voters get to participate in our democracy stop the states from checking the feds's power ?

I get the left wants the fed to have control of every facet of American life, and they forget a great many conservatives don't like that (not even when conservatives are in power), but one national goofy rule is way worse than a few states having goofy rules. That's not even a partisan argument. The 50 states are a check on the Fed. If you don't think that's important, cool. The Republic has lasted 200+ years for a reason. The myth of the altruistic Democratic party that the left on this forum continues to believe, in isn't real. They are all about changing rules that benefit them politically. The only reason this is an issue is the left can't pass an ultra progressive agenda, so they want to change election rules so it makes it easier to get a progressive majority.

The idea you think Democrats want to pass these rules to make it better for the people is nuts... This is all about making it easier to get Democrats elected.

The simple truth is that in this case, the Democrats are on the right side of history. There are no "both sides" to hide behind here. There are currently over one hundred GOP bills on the state levels to restrict voting access, most promoted by outright lies about the last federal election. So much for the checks and balances on the state level.

And this has very grim consequences, like we saw in Georgia in 2018, when some 200000 voters were denied their rightful access to voting.

Arguing that limiting access to voting is defensible because the alternative is bad for your party is a pretty lousy argument. Arguing that expending access to voting is purely partisan because it does not benefit your party is similarly a bad argument. Voting access must be a right in any democracy and access must be equally distributed.

And as stated previously, the legislation (as I understand it) comes in the form of a minimum standard. Minimum standards are good at ensuring local autonomy, so your argument is pretty much moot.

"But both sides" bullshit. The argument is about expanding the federal government, and giving those elected to it more power. I don't give a **** who you think is better or worse, who you think is on the right side of an issue argument. What we are discussing is a systemic change that both side will exploit politically.

1. One thing is clear from knowing a little American history, the Republic hasn't lasted 200+ years because the federal government refused to legislate voting rights.

2. Setting standards that states have to comply with is not the same thing as control.

Who cares? If this is good policy, then why should it matter that it benefits Democrats? You shouldn't be so partisan.

Anyway, while it might help Democrats more in the short-term, I wouldn't be surprised if in 15-20 years policy that makes voting easier helps the GOP more than Democrats. If the GOP continues to trend more towards rural and low-education voters, and continues to pick up Hispanic voters, and loses suburban and college-educated voters, they'll also see benefits from better voter access, plausibly more so than Democrats.

I am not doing «both sides» anything, you are. I would prefer losing because of fair access to voting to the alternative any day of the week.

Other than that, it seems obvious from your posts and especially this one that you are not very interested in what HR1 actually is and just want to yell at people you perceive as political enemies.

Let's roll back the tape on this one. I posted this:

And then you replied with:

So it's a little rich to hear you trying to make out like you don't see this as a partisan issue.

Aside from redistricting/gerrymandering, the other main way US politicians have to **** around with the rules to benefit their party is to change the rules around how voting takes place - and as a result, who is more likely to vote. Republican voters are obviously much whiter, more male, and wealthier than Democrat voters. I don't know of a whole lot of election rules that will work to suppress that vote. Less polling stations and more limited hours in white neighborhoods, I suppose...oddly, that never seems to be an issue. The minority and lower income support, however, that's much easier to suppress. So what you have is Republicans that work to suppress voting, and Democrats that work to increase voting. And the Republicans openly admit as much:

Trump says Republicans would ‘never’ be elected again if it was easier to vote

So yeah, when Democrats argue for laws that encourage more people to vote, it benefits them politically. But it's also what any good, healthy democracy should be doing. Maybe you've been so immersed in the US system that you think the bullshit around elections that is allowed to go on in your great democracy is normal - it isn't. The fact that fixing it supports one side more than the other is just an unfortunate (for Republicans and their supporters) side effect. As OrP points out, who it benefits may change over time.

Now, for you it may purely be a keep the federal government small and out of state business line that you're taking. I've always found the extremes of the "states' rights" issue a little strange, but I get that it's very important to some Americans. But even if that is your only angle on opposing this, I can assure you that's not the case for a lot of (I suspect most) Republicans. If you'd like some confirmation of that, see the article I posted above.

:: reads statistics ::

Oh black people tend to vote disproportionately on Sundays due to Church organizing.


:: ban voter fraud. Ban voting on Sundays ::


No one needs to play your game IHIV. This is about voter suppression, full stop.

If it had any thing to do with voter fraud it would target republican districts more as i think almost all, if not all, of this last cycles election fraud that was found and charged was done by republicans.


...'ya, but... but... black people still should not be voting"

If only the dishonorable blacks never reneged on the 3/5ths compromise, none of this would necessary. So this is on them. '

It's not.


You keep going to stuff like this, to which I'm not refuting.


You are talking about fundentally changing the role of the Federal government by making it more powerful and influential in every day life. You say your justification is a noble one, but you only it view within the vacuum of voters rights issue, and don't contend with the consequences of continuing to nullify the state check on the Federal government, which has far broader consequences. This HR is just one more step. You can always address these issues at the state level. You all always act like the only way to address these issues is at the federal level. Why? Oh, you don't like the results of Democracy at the state level.

Once again, I'm not even disputing what you are saying. I'm disputing the methods the D's are taking to resolve the issue.

The 14th ademendment gives protection against the states for those who are disenfranchisied, which is a check on the state.

To expand further, it's only a states rights issue tangentially, insofar as it's the mechanism that prevents the people within Federal government from acting in their own interest. The underlying issue with the HR is it asserts the US congress can change, add, modify rules in place for elections. That power was limited for a reason. Whether you think these rules are just or not is a political and partisan question, in most cases. The evil Republicans will be back in power at some point, and you just told them they can add/change/modify rules for elections. It won't matter that you agree or disagree with the rules. There is nothing that can stop them. The consequences of that can be extreme, and it will centralize government even further and make corruption easier, and more prevalent.

This is a more complicated Constitutional question than you seem to think. Here is the Constitution:

The Congress explicitly has the power to make or alter regulations governing Congressional elections. That would seem to cover at least some of the bill, including imo the most important part, the independent redistricting commissions.

And here is the Fifteenth Amendment:

I am not knowledgeable about how this has been interpreted by the courts, but the Congress has relatively broad powers to regulate federal elections in the states.

When "the issue" is literally that state legislators are deliberately taking measures to impinge on citizens' constitutional rights how does that get resolved at a state level?

Hell this is almost a textbook example of one of the few situations that the federal level has the power and responsibility to rule over state actions, i.e. when states are acting unconstitutionally. Having a minimal set of rules that ensures states act constitutionally is exactly the correct way to handle this situation, in much the same way that the CRA was imposed at the federal level. In fact the CRA was also a predominately 14th (equal protection) and 15th (voting rights) amendment issue, so there is even already a specific precedent for laws being enforced at a federal level in regards to the exact same amendments that HR1 is targeted at.

Which seems to me the way the Constitution wanted to ensure the Congress had the Check and Balance power to the States. Meaning that States could not so control the process that determines who is elected into Federal Office that it has the potential to become a State appointee apparatus.

Seems like a good thing to me to ensure a State cannot, for instance, make sure they only send white representatives by purposely doing things to limit the ability of POC to make it through the process. We like to believe no State would be that reprehensible but...

It certainly shouldn't be.

Excellent!

Cool. Any suggestions how this should happen?

You insist this isn't a partisan issue, yet continually accuse others of raising this as one.

And how's that working out?

ihiv is very concerned about the slipperiness of the slope. duh.

if the federal government does this thing which is CLEARLY in its wheelhouse to do and listed specifically in the constitution that it can do then DOWN GOES THE 200+ YEAR REPUBLIC!

Go check what it says about POTUS elections, then check the 10th Amendment.

Check the 14th Amendment. The judicial branch of government provides a check on the states. As far as the rest of your post, there are plenty of lawyers around who can make claims a states law is against the constitution.

There is no slippery slope, it's happening. We already have ever increasing involvement and desire to involve the fed on citizens everyday life, from policing (except for immigration, which seems to the be only thing D's don't want the Federal government doing), to education, to healthcare, speech, etc etc.

I knew one of you would say something like this, and it's like denying the very thing you want to happen.