SC Representative Norman reiterates his opposition to the Voting Rights Bill


Editorials and other opinion content offer viewpoints on issues important to our community and are independent of the work of our newsroom reporters.


Ralph Norman, South Carolina Representative

Imagine the posture of the media if a Republican-controlled Congress focused not on the myriad problems facing America, but rather on a federal takeover of the election to make it easier for them to stay in power.

This is precisely what congressional Democrats have attempted with their so-called House and Senate voting rights legislation. With more hyperbolic claims than traffic jams on I-26, we were told sweeping changes to our election laws were urgently needed to protect voting rights in the future.

Republicans have been denounced for daring to question the consequences of this legislation or the unspoken motives of its authors. Even more frustrating was the mainstream media’s apparent inability to look beyond the title “Voting Rights” to analyze what was actually in the bill.

Among the troubling provisions of this legislation was an attack on voter identification laws, requiring states to simply accept a signed statement of a voter’s name in lieu of a valid ID. For a company that requires photo ID for nearly all major transactions, it’s intellectually bankrupt to claim that verifying your identity with a valid ID – which is free in most states, including including South Carolina – is somewhat of an obstacle to exercising our right to vote. .

Then this bill would have provided 6-to-1 funding for contributions up to $200 in federal races. This is extremely inappropriate, as your public funds should never be used to fund the campaigns of candidates whose values ​​and ideas you disagree with.

The bill would have required states to count ballots cast by voters outside their assigned precinct, creating a fog of uncertainty across the country over late-arriving ballots, ballot security and election results.

The bill would have restored the right to vote to convicted felons immediately upon release from prison, even if they have incomplete court-imposed parole, probation or restitution conditions.

This would have prohibited states from requiring witness signatures for mail-in ballots, which would obviously make mail-in voting prone to fraud.

In addition, this bill would have made it harder for states to remove deceased or relocated voters from their rolls, made the Federal Election Commission a partisan agency controlled by the majority party, and a host of other inappropriate measures.

If you’re reading this and just now learn what this so-called “voting rights” legislation would have actually done, your news consumption may be limited to our liberal mainstream media, with an analysis by those speaking behind the convenient anonymity of an editorial board signature.

It was impossible for me, and my fellow Republicans, to see this effort as anything other than a deliberate attempt by Democrats to weaken election integrity, creating avenues they could exploit later in an effort to stay in power. .

Are there measures to improve the voter experience? Perhaps, and our Constitution makes it clear that this is a matter of the state.

Would this federal bill have weakened the integrity of elections across the country? Absolutely, that’s why I voted against it in the House and I’m glad it couldn’t advance in the Senate.

U.S. Representative Ralph Norman represents South Carolina’s fifth congressional district.


Comments are closed.