Rae Oliver Davis

They want to send a political message. They don't want to govern.

We want to make sure that vote by mail is utilized in a manner throughout this Nation.

What H.R. 1 will do would codify that we will have more registered voters in so many more census tracks.

What we are trying to do is stop the potential for more McCrae Dowlesses in every other State in the Nation.

H.R. 1 will weaken our voting system by centralizing the voting process, creating unsurmountable vulnerabilities.

The lack of same-day registration has a different impact on African American and Hispanic voters than it does on white voters.

Tell me, tell me that this is something that we should put through to the American people that is going to nationalize our election processes.

Provisional voting is good for robust democracy and encouraging citizens to engage with voting.

I would urge a 'no' vote on this amendment.

The Federal Government does not have a good track record of being able to implement systems from a top-down approach.

We cannot sit here and say that this process is not ripe for fraud, because what is illegal--what is alleged--and I believe there was fraud in North Carolina, which is why I think this process needs to be changed.

This bill is being rushed to the floor of the House for political reasons rather than actual good policy.

The Federal Government, Madam Chairperson, does not have a good history of providing cost-effective internet access to many programs.

We are not considering and we are not asking the States their input on this.

We want everybody to vote. We want everybody to be registered to vote. But in the end, we want to make sure those who are voting are voting in the districts that they are eligible to vote in.

Now I am understanding why, when we tried to abolish the Presidential Election Campaign Fund to put $370 million-plus into paying down the debt or pediatric cancer research 2 years ago, that this Committee voted to send that when we were…

We don't want H.R. 1 taking power away from the States given to them by the Constitution.

We should all share a common goal of ensuring our elections be open, free, fair, and functioning with the highest level of integrity.

They felt it was outmoded.

The issue here is trying to provide candidates with a way to run for office where they don't have to depend on lobbyists, on bundlers, on large contributions.

You are basically saying, okay, any Presidential candidate does not have to make the choice anymore to choose to abide by limitations in spending.

This is a great debate. America's election system, as I think everybody in this room can attest, can always be improved.

I just find it hard to believe the average American taxpayer is going to want the taxpayers to create a political candidate's ATM.

It is just a constitutional overreach that places limits on free speech protected by the First Amendment.

Bipartisan election reforms can happen, but not with Republicans not even being consulted.