Ed Markey: “The objection we just heard to my resolution proves exactly why this resolution that we should be debating is absolutely…”

“The objection we just heard to my resolution proves exactly why this resolution that we should be debating is absolutely necessary in order to ensure that President Trump does not, in fact, nationalize--or attempt to nationalize our elections. And this unanimous consent request is not about the SAVE Act. It is not about voter registration policy. It is not about partisan election administration debates. It is about something far more fundamental: whether the President of the United States may unilaterally nationalize elections that the Constitution places squarely in the hands of the States. Those are separate issues and no amount of legislative deflection can change that. The SAVE Act that the gentleman from Florida is speaking to right now is a policy proposal, one that many of us oppose because it would impose rigid documentation requirements, disenfranchise eligible voters, burden State election officials, and do nothing--nothing--to address a problem that does not meaningfully exist. But today, the resolution I am bringing out is not about that legislation. It is about constitutional limits on Presidential power. No act of Congress--the SAVE Act or otherwise--would give a President authority to seize control of State-run elections. That power does not exist; it cannot be created; and it cannot be exercised by Executive fiat. So let us not confuse the issue, and let us not allow anyone to dodge it.”