Elections

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, a few years back, I was watching a television news show and I saw video that struck me as strange. It was a video taken by a security device outside of a residence. Basically, someone is knocking on the door--multiple doors at this particular apartment--and the person knocking on the door basically said this: I am a volunteer for the Democratic Party, and I am here to collect ballots from those who wish to vote Democrat in the next election.

I found that strange until I learned that that practice called ballot harvesting is perfectly legal in the State of California; in other words, it is all right for me as a volunteer for my party to go and knock on the door and say: I am here to collect your absentee ballot but only if you are voting for the candidate I am for.

That is perfectly legal. That is called ballot harvesting. I hope my colleagues can see the opportunity for abuse in this particular practice.

I think most State legislatures that have prohibited this sort of practice see the opportunity for abuse. What is to stop me from saying, ``Knock. Knock. Knock. I am a volunteer for party X, and I am here to collect ballots for people who like to vote for candidates of party X,'' getting those ballots and then perhaps forgetting to turn them in or perhaps losing them or not turning them in at all?

That sort of practice is rife for abuse, and I think it is the reason that most States prohibit that.

Soon we will be taking up a bill, which I am told, if it comes to us in the form that it is in now, would allow that sort of ballot harvesting. To me, if California wants to try this, that is their right. I think it is rife for abuse, and I wish they wouldn't do it. But to impose these sorts of requirements on the rest of the Nation-- our friends on the other side of the aisle propose this week to vote on destroying a provision that has served this Senate and this Republic well for over two centuries, and that is what is known as the filibuster but what I call the consensus-building, 60-vote rule.

This is a time-honored way that this body has been unique, and it has enabled us to craft some of the most long-lasting and widely accepted legislation in the history of this Republic. The Civil Rights Act of 1994 was passed with consensus because this Senate had to have 60 votes or more. In that case, it may have been a 66-vote rule. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed with that consensus-building technique. Medicare, Social Security--time-honored legislation that has served this Republic and its citizens has been passed with this consensus- building tool.

And the leadership of my friends across the aisle would bring a measure to the floor later this week to repeal that and make us just like the House of Representatives, make us just like every Parliament in socialist countries around the world: majority rule, 51 votes--you get it--destroying that one tool that makes us come together and reach compromise.

And it wasn't just bills passed decades ago. In recent years, during your term and mine, Mr. President, we passed major--major--veterans legislation with Johnny Isakson on one side and Bernie Sanders on the other side coming together to build more facilities for veterans, to provide more choice for veterans.

Senator Murray of Washington and former Senator Alexander of Tennessee came together with a major rewrite of an education bill. And we did it with the filibuster in place. We had to come to an agreement. We had to get over 60 votes, and the bills were better because of that.

For that reason, in April of 2017, when a Republican President--a President I voted for--said we ought to think about abolishing the filibuster, 28 Republicans signed a letter saying, ``Let's don't do that.'' They were joined by 32 Democrats and by 1 Independent who caucuses with the Democrats. If I might take the time to read the two short paragraphs:

To Majority Leader McConnell and Democratic Leader Schumer:

We are writing to urge you to support our efforts to preserve existing rules, practices, and traditions as they pertain to the right of Members to engage in extended debate on legislation before the United States Senate. Senators have expressed a variety of opinions about the appropriateness of limiting debate when we are considering judicial and executive branch nominations. Regardless of our past disagreements on that issue, we are united--

Said these 28 Republicans and 32 Democrats and 1 Independent-- [we are united] in our determination to preserve the ability of Members to engage in extended debate when bills are on the Senate floor.

And now I am told, unless I have been sadly misinformed, that every Senator from across the aisle, save two--save two--are prepared to go against what was specifically said in this letter and, on election laws, say that we are going to make all the decisions in Washington, DC, and take that away from the States.

I heard the distinguished majority leader say earlier today--and I had to ask about it. I heard the distinguished majority leader say Georgia has, of all things, made it a felony to give water to people standing in line to vote. I sat listening to the majority leader in astonishment. How could that possibly be? It turns out that if a charitable group or if a neutral person wants to come and give somebody water in line in Georgia, that is all right. What is against the law in Georgia is for me as candidate X to come up with a bottle of water that says ``Vote for Candidate X'' and give it to somebody in line. Apparently, the people in Georgia in a decision-making role had decided, once you get in line to vote, you are no longer fair game. Politicians should leave you alone once you get in line to vote.

It is not a matter of giving somebody water; it is a matter of electioneering: Hi. I am Roger Wicker, running for Senator. Here is a bottle of water. I hope you will remember me in another 50 feet when you get into the polling place.

The people of Georgia, in their wisdom, have decided that is going too far.

And I am told--and perhaps the distinguished majority leader could come to the floor and correct me and I would stand corrected if he did--I am told that it is against the law in New York to do the same thing. Once you are in line in New York, somebody comes and hands you something that advocates for one candidate or another, that is forbidden not only under Georgia law but under New York law--and I can see the wisdom in that.

Two months ago, there were two amendments to the New York Constitution that were presented before the voters--the November 2 election, 2021, in the State of New York. One would have deleted the current requirements that a citizen be registered to vote for 10 days. In my State, you have to be registered for 30 days. In New York State, it is 10 days. The law is you have to be registered for 10 days or you can't vote. A proposition was put on the ballot to eliminate that, allow same-day registration. Guess what the voters of New York did on that proposal a short 2 months ago. They voted 56.3 percent no against that.

Are we to assume that the voters of the State of New York are Jim Crow on steroids, as the President of the United States would suggest or can we possibly assume they thought a 10-day period before voting was appropriate and that we should keep it that way? I choose to think that we want 30 days in Mississippi. If Maine wants same-day registration and if the voters of New York say 10 days is all right by a double-digit margin, they have the right to do that.

And, again, if the distinguished Democratic leader can prove me wrong, I would accept that and apologize to him for that.

There was another issue on the ballot, and I hope not to take too much more time because I see my distinguished colleague from Louisiana here. The amendment would have deleted the requirement that an absentee voter give an excuse, and these are the excuses you have in New York right now. You have to be able to--unable to appear because of absence from the county or because of illness or physical disability. That is a requirement in New York. Somebody put on the ballot: Delete that requirement. Guess what the voters of New York decided. They decided to keep that requirement by a vote of, again, double digits--55.03 percent of New Yorkers voted no on that.

I don't condemn them for doing that. I am sure they had a reason for doing that. But I think the leadership of the State of New York and the voters of the State of New York had a right to do that and I don't condemn them for doing it and I would not--I would certainly not break a two-century, consensus-building provision that has withstood the test of time to tell New York they can't do that, to tell all the 50 States that they must conform to an election law that we devise here in Washington, DC.

This is a pivotal week. This is a week that will decide the future not only of the Senate but of the future of our government--our representative government--and the future of our Republic.

I urge my colleagues to think twice about this. Sometimes, I have had to stand up to my party and say: I can't vote with you on that one. I know you want me to. I know I will suffer some reproach for not going with the team, but I am begging Members of both parties to search their hearts and decide in this case we are going to preserve the one consensus-building, compromise-encouraging provision that has withstood the test of time. I hope that happens.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source