I recently contacted our congressman, Salud Carbajal, asking that he cast a no vote for HR 1. I citied that it was an infringement of states’ rights set out in the 12th Amendment: The only job the federal government has is to set the date for voting and certification of the Electoral College vote.
Our Legislature retains the authority by state constitution to certify the Electoral College vote. Already even I can see how this past election has been compromised in half a dozen ways, but sticking to my point: Federalism was an agreement among the states that each state’s sovereignty was protected. The federal government was limited by the governed to what powers they had. Over the years, the federal government has exceeded what would be their initial roll to provide for the common defense and to promote trade. Federal government has bloated to an overreaching bureaucratic tyrant.
At first blush, federal standardization of elections seems reasonable. However, 50 states conforming to what is outlined in HR 1 mandates include directives that some don’t want. It’s true that one state’s election laws could cause friction with other states, and if a disenfranchisement leading to harm to the other states is demonstrated, it would be up to the Supreme Court to sort out those issues. (Which recently that court abdicated their authority to do. That is another topic for another day.)
What I’m boiling down to is independence. Henry David Thoreau, among others, is quoted in “Civil Disobedience,” “The government that governs least, governs best.” Government should be “held at arm’s length.” You have no redress to authority that hides behind masks and barbed wire.
Read HR 1. Tell Salud that he represents us to the federal government and not the other way around. Government in this country derives its authority by consent of the governed.
By the way, his response to me was that he was going to vote to impose federal authority over our election process.
Jan Lipski
Vandenberg Village
This article appears in Mar 4-11, 2021.
