Congress in perspective: H.R. 1 – The conservative

Election procedures must provide citizens with legitimate reason to trust that the election is fair and that its outcome accurately reflects the will of the governed. In fulfilling this goal, election procedures must balance two competing interests: to provide every eligible voter with a fair opportunity to cast their ballot and to prevent or root out any form of fraud. HR1, a sweeping federal election reform effort, miserably fails to strike an acceptable balance.

Certainly, there are positive aspects of this legislation. For one, it would automatically register eligible voters who provide the applicable information to other government agencies (such as the DMV). This promotes the first interest of election procedures – providing eligible individuals with a fair opportunity to vote.

Another constructive element is the paper ballot requirement. Electronic voting systems are potentially vulnerable to large-scale election fraud. By allowing voters to confirm their votes with paper ballots and by retaining those ballots for recounts, these vulnerabilities can be shielded. This responds to the second interest – preventing election fraud.

But these commendable and well-balanced portions cannot save HR1 from its radical errors such as the nullification of state voter ID laws. Although proponents claim that such laws discriminate against minority citizens, evidence from “the largest individual-level dataset ever assembled to study voter participation,” published by the nonpartisan National Bureau of Economic Research, did “not find any negative effect on overall turnout and registration rates or on any group defined by race, age, gender or party affiliation.” This purported attempt to uphold the interest of providing a fair opportunity to vote goes too far in neglecting the interest of preventing fraud; consequently, it would undermine trust in our electoral system.

But whereas nullifying voter ID laws would unreasonably tip the balance out of order, the vote-by-mail mandate breaks the scales entirely. As New York Times writer Adam Liptak explains, “votes cast by mail are less likely to be counted, more likely to be compromised and more likely to be contested than those cast in a voting booth.”

HR1 has a net negative impact on our trust in democratic institutions – just when that trust is most needed.