RSN Fundraising Banner
184 House Republicans Just Voted Against Securing Elections
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=15321"><span class="small">Josh Israel, ThinkProgress</span></a>   
Friday, 28 June 2019 13:23

Israel writes: "While the bill's provisions to ensure a paper trail for American's ballots, give accessibility and privacy for citizens with disabilities, and avoid foreign rigging would seem fairly non-controversial, just one Republican voted for the bill, along with all 224 Democrats present."

Rep. Mike Conaway (R-TX). (photo: Drew Angerer/Getty)
Rep. Mike Conaway (R-TX). (photo: Drew Angerer/Getty)

184 House Republicans Just Voted Against Securing Elections

By Josh Israel, ThinkProgress

28 June 19

So much for the House GOP's stated concern for safeguarding the political process.

he House of Representatives passed the Securing America’s Federal Elections Act (SAFE Act) on Thursday, on a 225 to 184 vote. While the bill’s provisions to ensure a paper trail for American’s ballots, give accessibility and privacy for citizens with disabilities, and avoid foreign rigging would seem fairly non-controversial, just one Republican voted for the bill, along with all 224 Democrats present.

Back in 2018, the Republican majority on the House Intelligence Committee issued a report following its investigation into whether Russia interfered in the 2016 election and whether President Donald Trump’s campaign illegally coordinated with Russia’s meddling efforts. The investigation and report — which drew criticism from the committee’s Democrats, who called it “superficial” — were led by Rep. Mike Conaway (R-TX).

While Conaway and his team said they did not find any illegal coordination by Trump, they did find significant meddling by Russia and criticized both 2016 campaigns for “poor judgment” in how they handled it. They also wrote that, “The U.S. government’s subsequent response to the Russian active measures campaign during the 2016 election was slow and inconsistent,” and urged “several solutions to help safeguard U.S. and allies’ political processes from nefarious actors, such as the Russians,” including more spending on secure elections systems.

On Thursday, the House considered a bill that aimed to address these very problems and to ensure easier access for voters. It included “requirements for voting systems, including that systems (1) use individual, durable, voter-verified paper ballots; (2) make a voter’s marked ballot available for inspection and verification by the voter before the vote is cast; (3) ensure that individuals with disabilities are given an equivalent opportunity to vote, including with privacy and independence, in a manner that produces a voter-verified paper ballot; and (4) be manufactured in the United States.”

Rep. Brian Mast (R-FL), who lost both legs while serving in Afghanistan and has made advocacy for wounded veterans a priority, joined the Democratic majority in supporting the bill. Conaway, along with 183 other Republican colleagues, voted no.

In a statement, Conaway said the bill would pour money “into the wrong solutions for serious problems facing our nation.”

“This bill does nothing to secure our elections, but instead wastes over a billion dollars from the taxpayers on hyper partisan federal mandates aimed at affecting election outcomes,” he wrote, adding, “Injecting more mandates from the federal government and blindly spending money will not solve our election security problems.”

The bill faces an uphill battle, given that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has blocked votes on virtually all major legislation passed in the House and has dubbed himself “the grim reaper,” killing progressive bills.

Email This Page your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

+6 # Diane_Wilkinson_Trefethen_aka_tref 2019-06-29 12:07
Over and over, Mitch McConnell, R-KY, blocks the Senate from EVEN CONSIDERING LEGISLATION that is not supported by Trump or the Republican Party. When is SOMEONE going to sue him or demand his impeachment for the high crime of violating the first, most important Constitutional requirement of Congress, ie, to LEGISLATE?

Who has “standing” to sue a member of Congress for violating the Constitution? Any constituent? Only the US Atty General? Any member of the House or the Senate?

As for impeachment, I should think ALL members of the House should be willing to pass a bill of impeachment but the truth is only the Dems would be likely to vote for same. The House Republicans serve their party, not their people. Even so, with over a 54% majority, the Dems could easily send a bill of impeachment to the Senate and unlike the other bills passed by the House, McConnell could not block it. Every Senator would have to vote on that bill, either Yea or Nay, and thus be on record as opposing the Constitution’s very first line in Art I, Sec I. “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives .”