"Now, there might be reasons why some people don't like the process laid out by a legislative body. Madam Speaker, I served on one of those legislative bodies when I was in the State legislature for 12 years. I served on the House and Governmental Affairs Committee, where we wrote the laws for our State's elections. And I can tell you, when we had to make changes, those were extensively negotiated. We would have people on both sides come."
"Republicans and Democrats, Madam Speaker, would get together to work through those changes, any minute change to how a precinct would function, to how a change would be made in the time of an election, signature requirements, all the many things that involve a clerk carrying out the duties in each parish, in our case. You would see people come and give testimony, Madam Speaker. Both sides could come. Clerks of court were there in the hearing rooms."
"It was an open process, by the way, not behind closed doors in a smoke-filled room where somebody might want to bully a secretary of state to get a different version that might benefit them or their party or their candidate. That is not what our Founding Fathers said is the process. Maybe it is how some people wanted to carry it out. But they laid out that process."
Legislative changes to election laws must follow the constitutional process and occur through negotiated, public legislative procedures. Changes are extensively negotiated with Republicans and Democrats collaborating and stakeholders, including clerks of court, testifying in open hearings. Minute operational details—precinct functions, election timing, signature requirements, and clerk duties—are debated and settled in advance of elections. The process is public and deliberative rather than secretive or coercive. The Founding framework prescribes transparent, legislated change instead of ad hoc alterations driven by pressure or behind-closed-doors arrangements.
Read at Emptywheel
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]