Elections

Condos backs election bill Ted Cruz calls ‘Corrupt Politicians Act’

Texas senator warns Leahy about weaponizing Federal Election Commission

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) schools Sen. Patrick Leahy in his critique of HR1, “For the People Act”

By Guy Page

Should states – including Vermont – decide how to run their own elections? Or should Congress make the rules for state elections?

In recent statements, both Sen. Patrick Leahy and VT Secretary of State Jim Condos have stated openly that Congress knows best. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), on the other hand, says pending legislation (supported by both Leahy and Condos) just proves the opposite. 

Yesterday, in an essay entitled “Democracy at a Crossroads,” Secretary of State Jim Condos called on Congress to pass HR1, the “For The People Act,” the purported electoral reform bill which passed the House but has stalled in the Senate. Condos – elected to represent Vermont voters and protect Vermont elections – comes down squarely on the side of taking crucial aspects of the election process out of Vermont’s hands and giving them to Congress:

“In the face of the alarming rise in state-level attacks on voting rights, we cannot afford to wait for solutions  one-by-one in all 50 states. With the gutting of the Voting Rights Act by the Supreme Court, we no longer have  the luxury of a “wait and see” approach. Congress can, and must, create minimum voter access and fairness standards that states must abide by, so that eligible voters are not being denied their voting rights.

“Two federal bills pending, the For the People Act, and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, give  Congress this opportunity to act. The time has come for the partisan, political games to stop,” Condos writes. 

But partisan power politics are what’s really behind the “For The People Act,” Cruz said in a June 22 Senate speech exposing the flaws of HR1. The bill Cruz calls “The Corrupt Politicians Act” would:

  • Strike down state voter ID laws, which over 70 percent of Americans support and over 60 percent of African Americans support. Vermont now has no voter ID requirement, although some Republicans have pledged to support it if introduced. 
  • Mandate ballot harvesting in all 50 states by striking down state laws that prohibit it. The potential for electoral fraud is particularly high when partisan activists collect ballots at senior living homes, Cruz said. 
  • Strike down laws to prohibit voter registration of non-citizens applying for state drivers’ licenses.
  • Require states to allow felons to vote. Murderers, rapists, and child molesters would all be allowed to vote” because Democrats have made the cynical calculation that if millions of illegal aliens are allowed to vote, and millions of criminals and felons are allowed to vote, that those individuals are likely to vote Democrat, and Democrats want to stay in power,” Cruz said. 
  • Limit how states remove the names of dead people from voter rolls. “You can’t go in when someone is dead and say dead people shouldn’t be voting. No, this bill mandates leaving the dead people on the rolls, another step designed to invite fraud,” Cruz said. 
  • Create welfare for incumbent politicians. This bill is designed to give hundreds of millions of dollars every year to incumbent politicians to keep them in power. “It matches for contributions under $200, six-to-one federal funds so that the members of this body would receive collectively over a billion dollars in federal funds to stay in power,” Cruz said. “If you’re a corrupt politician who wants to prevent a challenger from ever defeating you and if you want to prevent the voters from making a different choice, then you flood them with federal funds to make it so you can’t beat corrupt incumbents. But that’s not what you do if you want to protect the right to vote. This bill is brazen.”
  • End political neutrality of the Federal Election Commission. Current law requires an equal number of Democrats and Republicans serving as commissioners. HR1 would change the composition of the commission to give the ruling party a 3-2 edge, Cruz said. 

On the subject of the FEC, Cruz aimed his remarks directly at Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), the President Pro Tempore of the Senate. 

“Mr. President, you’re a sophisticated political player. I want you to ask for a second in a close election, in the weeks before the election, if the Senate Majority Leader had the ability to launch investigations from the Federal Elections Commission, to bring prosecutions from the Federal Elections Commission, to sue the political opponents of the majority, how much would that invite abuse? 

“I understand right now Democrats are in power of both houses of Congress and the White House. Power can be intoxicating. 

“But I do want to point out it wasn’t that long ago, Mr. President, you and I were both in this body four years ago when there was a Republican president and a Republican House and a Republican Senate. 

You didn’t see the Republican majority try anything as brazen as the ‘Corrupt Politicians Act.’ You didn’t see a Republican majority trying to rig the game, trying to change the rules so that Republicans could never be defeated in the next election. You didn’t see the Republican majority trying to turn the Federal Election Commission into a partisan weapon.

“We should protect the right to vote. This bill takes away your right to vote. This bill is designed to prevent the voters from choosing to throw the bums out, the most fundamental right of any voter to throw the bums out whether they’re one side or the other side. We the people have sovereignty, and this bill, the ‘Corrupt Politicians Act,’ was designed to take that power from the people and give it to the politicians in Washington.”

Leahy did not offer a direct, public response to Cruz. However on July 1 he derided the Supreme Court’s Brnovich ruling upholding a state’s right to determine how to conduct elections, which he called “a body blow to yet another critical pillar of the Voting Rights Act.”

Categories: Elections

11 replies »

  1. The only way we will stop extreme Federalism is to run our own state locally and exclude the Federal govt. from all things the Constitution affords our States individually….That includes Federal election laws…. Period!…Of course the socialists in DC would love to control our elections and education system…This must never come to pass!

    • I think Ralph is mistaking ‘Federalism’ with ‘Centralism’. Federalism is the distribution of power in an organization (such as a government) between a central authority and the constituent States that bear the primary responsibility for defining laws other than those enumerated in the U.S. Constitution.

      Centralism is, for example, the concentration of power and control in the central authority of an organization (such as a political or educational system).

      The U.S. Constitution is based on Federalism for good reason.
      https://connectusfund.org/15-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-federalism

      There were, however, during the Constitutional Convention, significant debates between ‘Federalists’ and ‘Antifederalists’…. not to be confused with ‘Federalism’. Their debates centered around HOW MUCH power should be allocated to the Federal Government and to individual State governments.

      Here’s a web site explaining the Federalist vs. Antifederalist debates.
      https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-resources/teaching-resource/differences-between-federalists-and-antifederalists

      Federalist Paper #9, penned by Alexander Hamilton, who actually leaned more toward Centralism than did, for example, John Hancock and Patrick Henry, is a great read also because it shows the extent of the Founder’s considerations as they designed our Constitutional Republic, comparing previous attempts to form lasting Republics in other countries, and the nuances that caused their failure, to the Founder’s proposed insights. The more I read these considerations, the more amazed I am at the form of governance the Founders created and that has served us so well for so many years.

      Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist Paper #9 is the case in point. In it, Hamilton says “The proposed Constitution, so far from implying an abolition of the State Governments, makes them constituent parts of the national sovereignty by allowing them a direct representation in the Senate, and leaves in their possession certain exclusive and very important portions of sovereign power.”

      I suspect the confusion with Ralph’s comment is more an indication of our education system’s failure to teach the civics all citizens should know, not his actual position on the matter of supporting the right of State legislatures to determine their own election law, with which I too whole-heartedly agree.

      The Democrats, on the other hand, are currently trying to circumvent those State’s Rights. So, brush up on your civics history whenever you can. Our survival as a Constitutional Republic depends on it.

  2. Despite his long history of exemplary levels of civic involvement, unfortunately Mr. Condos puts the welfare of his corrupt party above the overall good of the people and protecting the integrity of the electoral process. Voter ID laws are NOT RACIST. It is the pinnacle of racist reasoning however to make the argument that some demographic groups are too lazy or too stupid or have economic priorities that preclude them from obtaining a government-issued ID.

    • Condos is a crooked Secretary of State. He thinks he’s a big shot.. ( which he’s not).. He thinks he’s smarter then anyone else ( which he is not) All he cares about is the MONEY that goes into his pocket !!! He kisses every democrat’s butt.. He doesn’t care for Vermont, he doesn’t care about the corruption in Vermont ( which he is on the top of the list of crooked politicians)

  3. the question was: “Should states – including Vermont – decide how to run their own elections? Or should Congress make the rules for state elections?” The answer is of course – as long as they abide by the US Constitution and laws by Congress validly in pursuit of its constitutional mandates.

    14th amendment:

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. (portions altered by the 26th amendment)

    The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

    15th amendment.

    The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

    The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

    I have linked to an article by the Constitution Center on the powers of Congress regarding these two amendments.

    https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/amendment-xv/interps/141

    end.

  4. I would expect no different from Sec. Condos than to toe the party line, ad espouse the virtues there of.

  5. Merely the fact Condos endorses this legislative attempt to overthrow State’s rights is enough reason to oppose it.

  6. I wouldn’t call anything coming out of Ted Cruz’s worth listening to..Talk about spineless and corrupt.

  7. Neither Condos, Leahy, Sanders, Welch, Scott and the legislation cares about Vermont.. they only care about their bank accounts and their position in the government. We are nothing to them but prions.. They don’t give a rats A$$ about us…

  8. Condos should be paying attention to election fraud in Vermont. If he was we wouldn’t have three marxist, corrupt stooges in DC and there would not be so many democrat horrors in our Senate and House. Vermont needs a good looking at by Judicial Watch and Project Veritas.

  9. Bravo Guy – nicely put together – are they listening? Will they act? Soon enough there will be no choice, but to do both. Too many still asleep so keep putting pieces like this in their face – something has to stick. The citizenry has yet to act on demanding a forensic audit and instead fall for the carefully calculated sweep over called an audit. The motion dies…

Leave a Reply