For the People Act of 2019
The For The People Act of 2019 is a bill introduced and passed in the United States House of Representatives to expand voting rights, limit partisan gerrymandering, strengthen ethics rules, and limit the influence of private donor money in politics. It was introduced by John Sarbanes on January 3, 2019, on behalf of the newly elected Democratic majority as the first official legislation of the 116th United States Congress. The bill was passed by the House on March 8, 2019 by a vote of 234–193 along strict party lines., it has not been passed by the Senate.
The bill's provisions fall into three major categories:
- Campaign finance reform. The bill would introduce voluntary public financing for campaigns, matching small donations at a 6:1 ratio. It also incorporates campaign finance reform provisions from the DISCLOSE Act, which would impose stricter limitations on foreign lobbying, require Super PACs and other "dark money" organizations to disclose their donors, and restructure the Federal Election Commission to reduce partisan gridlock. The bill also expresses support for a constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United decision, where the Supreme Court held that virtually unlimited political spending by corporations, labor unions, and other associations was a constitutional right.
- Government ethics. The bill would require presidential and vice-presidential candidates to disclose their previous 10 years of income-tax returns, eliminate the use of taxpayer money by politicians to settle sexual harassment claims, and create a new ethics code for the U.S. Supreme Court, which is not subject to existing judicial codes of conduct.
- Voting rights. The bill would create a national voter-registration program, make Election Day a federal holiday, replace partisan gerrymandering with non-partisan commissions to draw electoral districts, and limit efforts to purge voting rolls.
Voting rights for felons
The authority of the United States Congress over elections is extensive. One feature of the proposed legislation is that convicted felons could not be denied the right to vote unless currently in prison. Whether congressional authority extends this far is subject to disagreement, with arguments being made for and against. Fourteen states have laws that indefinitely deny voting rights for some convicted felons, twenty-two do not restore voting rights until after parole and/or probation, and some states require payment of fines or restitution.Supreme Court ethics
Another part of the proposed legislation instructs the Judicial Conference to establish rules of ethics binding on the Supreme Court. It is unclear whether Congress has the constitutional authority to impose ethics requirements on Supreme Court Justices, which is a question that the Court ultimately may have to decide. In 2011, Chief Justice Roberts made it clear in his end-of-year report that he believed Congress did not have the constitutional power to impose conduct rules on the Supreme Court. The reason is that the Supreme Court was established by the Constitution, according to which the justices serve as long as they exhibit "good behavior," or face possible impeachment and removal for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." Lower federal courts, by contrast, were created by Congress and are subject to the rules that Congress establishes. Because of this some suggest that the purpose of the proposed ethics rules would not be punishment or even enforcement, but rather only a promulgation of rules so that Supreme Court justices can be held accountable for their conduct in the court of public opinion. In addition, a documented ethics violation could be relevant to a potential impeachment proceeding. Others argue that Congress has the authority to require the Supreme Court to write its own code of ethics. In 1991 the Supreme Court adopted a resolution that officers and employees of the Court will comply with the substance of the Judicial Conference Regulations, subject to stated clarifications.Statehood for the District of Columbia
The proposed legislation also calls for statehood for the District of Columbia, arguing that the District has a larger population than two states, Wyoming and Vermont, and is close to the population of the seven states that have a population of under one million fully represented residents, and claiming that Congress has the authority to admit new States to the union through legislation. Others argue that a constitutional amendment would be required. The question of admission of the District of Columbia as a state has a long history. Statehood for D.C. is expected to be opposed by Republicans, since it would almost certainly put more Democrats in Congress. The one time the House voted on statehood, in 1993, the proposal failed 277 to 153, with support from 60 percent of Democrats and one Republican.Gerrymandering
Congressional redistricting occurs every 10 years as congressional boundaries are redrawn after the Census. Under Article One of the Constitution, the state legislature controls this process. In order to prevent gerrymandering, the proposed legislation would require states to use independent commissions to design their congressional districts. If they declined to do so, the federal government would set one up for them.The 2015 U.S. Supreme Court decision Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission affirmed that even though the Constitution calls for the legislature to draw the district lines, an independent commission could constitutionally be appointed to perform this function. In the 2019 decisions Rucho v. Common Cause and Benisek v. Lamone the Supreme Court found that gerrymandering was a nonjusticiable political questions, leaving any solution to the other branches of government.
Number of Federal Election Commissioners
Under current law, the Federal Election Commission is made up of six members, no more than three of whom can be members of the same political party, with at least four votes being required for any official FEC action. The complaint is that this has resulted in an impotent and gridlocked FEC, with important reforms being left unaddressed, such as the updating of campaign finance law for the digital age and the effective regulation of political donations. Some advocates for reform have blamed the Republican members of the FEC for being unwilling either to investigate any potential violations or to impose tougher restrictions, and for loosening restrictions simply by signaling what standards they are willing to enforce.The proposed bill would give the FEC five commissioners instead of six, reducing the likelihood of tie votes, and would require that no more than two can be members of the same political party. It would set up a "Blue Ribbon Advisory Panel" consisting of an odd number of individuals selected by the president from retired Federal judges, former law enforcement officials, or individuals with experience in election law, except that the president could not select any individual to serve on the panel who holds any public office at the time of selection, but the president would not be required to choose from among those recommended by the panel. Some observers claim that there would be no built-in benefit for either party.