Tag Archive for: election reform

Hice: Election Integrity Is a ‘Sacred Trust That Must Be Protected’

/in , , , , , , , , /by

“There is perhaps no greater endeavor that is more fundamental for the perseveration of our Republic than preserving the integrity of our elections,” writes Jody Hice, senior vice president at Family Research Council. “If the voice of the people is heard, and their resolve enacted, both in policy and representation, there is hope for a government ‘of the people, by the people, and for the people.’” This is a part of the former congressman’s new book, “Sacred Trust,” where he tackles an issue that has become increasingly important to American voters: Election integrity.

In his book, Hice outlines the fundamental necessity of having election integrity. As a former member of Congress, he has seen this issue from the inside out, and watched as it rose to the prominence it has today. In comments to The Washington Stand, he shared that election integrity “was not a topic that was on my radar when I went to Congress.” But Hice explained that during the COVID pandemic, the Democrats started pushing for “a federal takeover of elections.”

As a Georgia native, Hice became engaged in the fight once these arguments from the Left began to target his own state. He recalled how Democrats accused Georgia’s 2021 election integrity bill of suppressing minority voters and other claims that made it seem Georgia lacked integrity in the election process. “Well, I grew up in Georgia and I knew these things were not real. So, I started pushing back,” he remarked.

Hice’s journey led him to become a spokesperson within the realm of election integrity as Democrats fought to change voter laws “from ballot harvesting to taking away voter ID, one thing after another,” he detailed. “All of which, in my mind, disintegrated election integrity.” But what stood out to him over the years of engaging in this fight, especially after the process of writing his book, is how the “topic is taboo” — specifically for Republicans. “When a Republican raises a red flag that elections have been or could be compromised, we are called ‘election deniers.’ We are called ‘threats to democracy’ just for raising the issue, let alone addressing it publicly,” he emphasized. However, he added, “Democrats have challenged elections forever, and there’s no problem.”

In many ways, it was an emotional “hurdle” Hice said he had to jump “to deal with the reality of the political environment on a topic such as this.” But despite the task of navigating through the hypocrisy, “these are issues that have to be addressed,” he stressed.

In the book, Hice recounts how he is thankful he had the opportunity to share his experiences while in Congress, as well as other aspects of his life such as his time as a pastor, and how it all related to the topic of election integrity. He explained to TWS that the book’s title, “Sacred Trust,” is “indeed” what election integrity is. “The right for the people to vote, to be a self-determining populace in regard to who’s going to represent them, and what kind of policies we’re going to tolerate, be it on the state, local, or federal level, is a sacred trust that must be protected,” he said.

Although, what Hice wanted to make clear is that addressing the problem is only half the battle. “The topic itself is not just exposing problems but trying to offer some solutions.” On a recent episode of FRC’s Outstanding podcast, he went even further: “We need a divine work of God in this country. We need the good hand of God to be poured out upon this land. We need a spiritual awakening, and without the aid and the help, the intervention of Almighty God, we cannot, I don’t believe, fix this by political means alone.”

Hice elaborated on this theme at an FRC event Wednesday night featuring his book. “Church leaders across the board have to engage what’s happening in our country,” he underscored. For Hice, the reason America is “in the mess we are in right now is because the church and the faith leaders … [from] different denominations [have] just been silent [and] sitting on the sidelines.” He elaborated that too many in the church have believed “the lie [of] separation of church and state,” or they’ve become too concerned over losing members or overstepping boundaries.

However, the “truth of the matter is,” he continued, “our system of governance does not work without involvement of the people. And furthermore, when you’re talking limited government, which is what our Constitution is all about, it is impossible to have limited government if you don’t have people capable of self-governing their own lives.” And, as Hice emphasized, self-governance “comes by religion and morality,” which the Founding Fathers said were “‘indispensable supports,’ because without those two things, all the rest of it collapses.”

Ultimately, Hice stated, “the role of pastors [and] faith community [is] to bring … an understanding of God, accountability to God, and that all of us will stand before Him” one day. He added, “There is such a thing as right and wrong, [and] all these things are the very legs upon which limited government rests. And … what we are seeing is the more God is removed from our culture, the more problems we have, and the bigger government gets. Christian leaders have to engage.”

Hice concluded by pointing out that believers have a great responsibility to be good stewards of their role in the political arena, since election integrity is “among the highest issues” for American voters. “If we lose that in a constitutional republic … then we lose everything,” he remarked, noting that elections are ultimately about what the people want. “At the end of the day, it’s not about who won an election. It’s about whether or not the voice of the people was heard and accurately portrayed.”

AUTHOR

Sarah Holliday

Sarah Holliday is a reporter at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLE: Ex Obama Strategist Predicts Arizona Supreme Court Ruling Could ‘Tip This Election’

POSTS ON X:

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.

Enjoying news and commentary from a biblical worldview? Stand with us by partnering with FRC.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

‘Our Elections Are Not for Sale’: Texas Lawmaker Pushes for Nationwide Election Reform

/in , , , , , , , /by

In the wake of an astonishing poll released last week revealing that roughly 20% percent of mail-in voters admitted to committing fraud in the 2020 election, deep concerns over election integrity continue to ripple across the country as the 2024 election approaches. Experts say that the passage of state legislation aimed at upholding the integrity of elections in Georgia and Texas in recent years should be replicated in other states.

In 2021, Georgia enacted legislation that, among other provisions, required government-issued ID to vote and tightened restrictions on mail-in ballots. The bill received immense pushback from the Left and the mainstream media, who slammed it as “Jim Crow 2.0” due to the view that it would discourage minorities from voting. However, election turnout in Georgia in the 2022 midterms proved to be an all-time record, and 0% of polled black voters reported a “poor” experience.

That same year, Texas Governor Greg Abbott (R) signed into law legislation that created uniform statewide voting hours, prohibited drive-through voting, authorized poll watchers, and tightened mail-in ballot regulations, among other provisions.

On Monday, Texas State Senator Bryan Hughes (R) joined “Washington Watch” to discuss how his state’s election integrity bill can be a model for other states to follow.

“We have to have elections where people can know the results and accept the results and move forward if our system is going to work,” he emphasized. “… [O]ur mantra is, ‘Easy to vote, hard to cheat.’ … We found that mail-in ballots can [have] the greatest potential for fraud — that was the case in Georgia and many states. And so we’ve cracked down on these ballot harvesters who are paid by political campaigns, and they go to the homes of vulnerable voters, mislead them, get their signatures, sometimes forge their signatures, and [are] paid by a campaign under the guise of helping the voters. … Now in Texas, we [also] have [a] 24-hour live stream of whenever those ballots are being counted, wherever they are.”

Hughes continued, “[In] many states … signature verification processes … were being shortcutted. … We also implemented voter ID for those mail-in ballots … [so] we can verify to make sure it was you, the voter, who requested that ballot and make sure you, the voter, are the one who cast that ballot — simple commonsense reforms like that. [F]or in-person voting, [we also] expanded the hours [to make] it easier for folks to vote. And one more thing we found was happening [at] polling places, we had these vote harvesters being paid by campaigns [to] come up alongside vulnerable voters — maybe first-time voters [or those] with limited English proficiency … They [would] come alongside these voters and say, ‘Oh, let me help you.’ … But then it’s a voter assistant who’s doing the voting and not the voter. We’re cracking down on that. If folks need help, they’re going to get help. But we cannot have paid political operatives in the voting booth influencing voters.”

Hughes concluded by encouraging voters across the nation to push their state lawmakers to enact laws that streamline in-person voting and to put proper safeguards in place to govern mail-in ballots.

“Mail-in ballots [are] an important tool for folks who are disabled [or] who are going to be out of the country,” he noted. “But as you know, states are pushing for universal mail-in ballots. … That is a recipe for fraud [and] for elections that we cannot trust. So we want to make the in-person voting process as smooth and easy and secure as we can. And for those folks who need to vote by mail, that’s important. Make sure we have those checks in place [by] making sure it’s the voter requesting the ballot, the voter casting the ballot, [and] mak[ing] sure we’re matching up those signatures and keep[ing] those paid political operatives out of the process. Our elections are not for sale. [We] want to keep it that way.”

AUTHOR

Dan Hart

Dan Hart is senior editor at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2023 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Republicans and Election Reform

/in , , , , , , , /by

Now that Republicans have working majorities in both houses of Congress, the American people can once again enjoy the benefits of the constitutional republic that the Founders designed for us.  Right?  Well, not so fast.  To expect the current crop of congressional Republicans to do what is necessary to restore constitutional government and repair the damage done by Barack Obama… let alone know what must be done… is entirely problematic.

As a case in point, the recent battle over construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline demonstrates the complete fecklessness of congressional Republicans.  From the instant the last ballot was counted in November, it was clear that one of the first bills to pass in the 114th Congress would be a bill to approve construction of the pipeline… a bill that Barack Obama promised to veto if and when it reached his desk.  Does Obama care about the environment or the leftists who politicize it?  Of course not.  What he does care about are the many millions of dollars that pour into Democrat Party coffers from a handful of radical environmentalists.

What congressional Republicans apparently failed to recognize was the immense political gains to be made if the issue was properly handled.  By developing best estimates of the number of engineers, contractors, welders, heavy equipment operators, truck drivers, and laborers required to complete the project, along with the generous salaries, wages, and benefits that those workers would command, Republicans could have armed themselves with the most potent political weapon they’d ever been blessed to have.  By seeing to it that every Republican in Congress had that information at his/her fingertips, with instructions to repeated it in every radio, TV, and print media interview, and in every public appearance, Republicans could have driven a very large wedge either between the Democrat Party and radical environmentalist, or between Democrats and organized labor.

By signing the pipeline bill Obama would reap the anger of the radical environmentalists and win the approval of organized labor.  Conversely, by vetoing the bill he would win high praise from environmentalists, but organized labor would be angered enough to split the Democrat vote in many national and state elections.  For Republicans, it was a win-win proposition.  However, instead of using that opportunity to their advantage, making a veto override a real possibility, congressional Republicans treated that opportunity as if it were a sexually-transmitted disease.

While Democrats can be counted upon to always play hardball, Republicans seem intent upon playing political softball.  So, if congressional Republicans aren’t smart enough to recognize a political advantage when one falls into their laps, how can we expect them to recognize the political damage to be done if Obama is successful in giving Social Security numbers, drivers licenses, and voter registration cards to millions of illegals, none of whom are eligible to vote?

Even though they are seriously victimized by fraud, violence, and intimidation in every election, congressional Republicans appear to be blithely unaware of the problem as Democrats continue to liberalize the electoral process.  In fact, it is unlikely that election reform is even on their wish list.  Although election law is generally a matter of state law, a comprehensive election reform law targeting federal elections would supersede state law.  A comprehensive election reform bill… one that would put Obama and congressional Democrats in a tight box… would contain the following elements of reform:

  • Voter registration must be done only in person.  Fraud-friendly motor-voter, postcard, Internet, and same-day registration schemes must be either repealed or superseded.

In same-day registration states, Democrats have recruited teams of college students to travel from precinct to precinct, registering to vote and voting numerous times in the same day.  In a heavily-Democratic county in Minnesota, an undercover investigator visited a county election board to ask whether or not it was necessary for new voters to register in person, saying that he had two friends, Tom Brady and Tim Tebow, who were unable to appear in person.  The investigator was given twenty registration forms and was told that he could register twenty voters with the forms.

  • Registrations must be done only by full-time registrars, employees of counties and/or township government, and only in the state, county, and/or township in which the registrant maintains his/her primary residence.  Third party registrars, paid and unpaid, must be prohibited.

In 2012, a voter registration study showed that, in North Carolina alone, some 35,570 voters shared the same first names, last names, and dates of birth with individuals registered to vote in other states.  Another 765 North Carolinians had the same first names, last names, birthdays, and final four digits of a Social Security number as those who voted in other states.  As a requisite for voter registration, each voter should be required to show proof of citizenship (birth certificate or passport) and proof of residence (drivers license, residential deed, apartment lease, utility bills, etc.).

  1. Before voting, each voter must show an official government-issued photo ID (drivers license, passport, etc.), or an official state-issued voter registration card complete with telephone number, home address, Social Security number, and precinct number.  As an alternative, and as a means of preventing voters from voting more than once in a single day, states may require voters to dip a finger into a vial of indelible ink after voting.
  2. Court administrators must be required to furnish local election boards with name, address, date of birth, and Social Security number of every individual convicted of a felony.  Election boards must be required to purge voter registrations rolls of all felons at least ten days prior to any election.  County Coroners must be required to furnish election boards with copies of all death certificates.  All deceased persons must be removed from the voter rolls no later than ten days prior to any election.
  3. Registered voters who move from one state to another, from one county or township to another, or from one precinct to another, must be required to obtain voter registration transfer documents from their local election board.  This document must be presented, in person, to voter registrars of the voter’s new place of residence.
  4. Absentee ballots must be received no later than ten days prior to an election.  Absentee ballots, other than those of overseas military personnel, must be tallied no later than the day and hour that polls close in any election.  Absentee ballots completed by residents of hospitals, nursing homes, elder care, and mental health facilities must be completed only in the presence of representatives of both major political parties.
  5. Other than absentee ballots, voting must be done in person, only on the day of the election, and only in the precinct in which the voter maintains his/her primary place of residence.  Electronic voting and vote-by-mail schemes must be repealed or superseded.  Provisional ballots must be limited only to the most serious instances of clerical error by election board officials.
  6. The Voting Rights Act must be amended to provide fines and mandatory jail sentences for any individual who would, in any election in which the name of a candidate for federal office appears on the ballot, do any of the following:
    • Vote in the name of another person.
    • Vote or attempt to vote more than once in any election.
    • Vote in the name of a deceased or fictitious person.
    • Vote in more than one state or political subdivision.
    • Vote without benefit of U.S. citizenship.
    • Intimidate, interfere with, or cause injury to the person or property of any other person peaceably engaged in the political process, or cause any other person to do any of the foregoing.

In an April 10, 2014, speech before Al Sharpton’s National Action Network, Barack Obama attempted to rally his base by charging, falsely, that Republicans were attempting to suppress the black vote in the 2014 elections.  Demonstrating once again that he is either totally dishonest or ignorant of the facts, he said, “The principle of one person-one vote is the single greatest tool we have to redress an unjust status quo.  You would think there would not be an argument about this anymore.  But the stark, simple truth is this:  The right to vote is threatened today in a way that it has not been since the Voting Rights Act became law nearly five decades ago.”

In truth, what Obama would like to see is a system in which only Democrats and illegal aliens get to vote twice.  If Republicans had any courage at all they would insist on tightening the noose around vote fraud and stop ignoring Democrat efforts to create more fraud-friendly processes.  They might use comprehensive voting reform as yet another issue that would require Democrats to identify themselves for who and what they are.

As Obama has said, one would think that there would no longer be a question about holding open and honest elections in the United States, but that’s not the way things are.  Decent, honest, men and women will endorse the reforms outlined above.  Democrats, on the other hand, are certain to oppose them.