does it give the secretary of state of a State that ability; nowhere does it give the Governor that ability; nowhere does it give a court that ability. It exclusively gives that ability to the legislatures. In fact, in most States, that is the process that was followed. But for those States, this wasn’t followed.
Unfortunately, this is not new. We have seen over and over again more States where the Democratic Party has gone in and selectively gone around this process. That has to end, Madam Speaker. We have to follow the constitutional process.
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.
So when we would have to make those changes, they were in public view; they were heavily debated; and then, ultimately, those laws were changed in advance of the election so everybody knew what the rules were. People on both sides knew how to play by the rules before the game started, not getting somewhere in the process and saying, well, you don’t think it is going to benefit you, so you try to go around the Constitution.
That is not how our system works. It has gotten out of hand. So President Trump has called this out, and President Trump has stood up to it. So many of us have stood up to it.
In fact, over 100 of my colleagues, Madam Speaker, asked the Supreme Court to address this problem just a few weeks ago, and, unfortunately, the Court chose to punt. They didn’t answer it one way or the other. They didn’t want to get in the middle of this discussion.
We don’t have that luxury today. We have to discuss this. We have to fix this.
In fact, on our first full day of this Congress, many of us brought legislation onto the House floor to start fixing the problems with our elections, to restore integrity to the election process, which has been lost by so many millions of Americans. And we had a vote. Every single Republican voted to reform the process. Every single Democrat voted against it. They don’t want to fix this problem.
But the Constitution is our guide, and it is time we start following the Constitution. It is time we get back to what our Founding Fathers said is the process for selecting electors: that is the legislatures in public view, not behind closed doors, not smoke-filled rooms, not bullying somebody that might give you a better ruling.
Let’s get back to rule of law and follow the Constitution, Madam Speaker.
The Speaker. For what purpose does the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) seek recognition?
Ms. Lofgren. Madam Speaker, I rise to strike the last word.
The Speaker. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Lofgren. Madam Speaker, this day marks a crossroads for American democracy. Those who object to the counting of the electoral college votes, which reflect the votes of the American people, want to substitute their preferences for the voters’ choice. That is not what our Constitution requires, and it is at odds with our American democratic Republic.
If Congress selects the next President instead of the American voters, we would have no need for an electoral college. In fact, we would have no need for Presidential elections at all. We would be moving from a government elected by the people to a government selected by those already governing.
That is not America. In the United States, we abide by the choices of the people, not by an elite few.
The Framers of our Constitution considered to have Congress select the President and specifically rejected it. Instead, they wrote Article II and the 12th Amendment.
Article II creates the electoral college, where each State appoints electors. Laws of all 50 States and D.C. require electors to vote for the winner of the State’s popular election. Each State provides for the orderly conduct of elections, including lawful challenges, recounts, and the like.
The 12th Amendment is what brings us to today. It says the electors meet in their States. That happened December 14.
The amendment says the electors shall cast their votes, sign and certify them, and transmit them to us, sealed. That has been done. The sealed envelopes containing the signed and certified ballots from each State’s electors reflecting the votes of the people are in those mahogany boxes.
The 12th Amendment directs the Vice President, as the President of the Senate, to do only this: open the sealed envelopes and then the votes shall be counted. Simple. It doesn’t say counted in a manner that some Members of Congress or the Vice President might prefer. No. The votes are simply to be counted as certified and transmitted by the States.
□ 1130
During reconstruction after the Civil War, more than one slate of electors were appointed by States. Dueling lists were sent and protracted processes were undertaken in Presidential elections. And, as a result, to make an orderly process, Congress enacted the Electoral Count Act of 1887. This law governs our proceedings today. The act provides dispute resolution mechanisms.
Under the ECA, if a Governor certifies a slate of electors and there are no competing slates in that State, the Governor-certified must be counted. Today, every single slate of electors won by Joe Biden, or won by Donald Trump, got their Governor’s certification. Not a single State submitted a competing slate. There is no dispute to resolve.
The 2020 election was the most secure election conducted in modern history. Challenges were resolved by lawful recounts and audits.
The result?
Vice President Biden won the 2020 election.
More than 60 lawsuits were filed contesting elements of the election process. None of these lawsuits prevailed.
Why?
As even President Trump’s own judicial appointees ruled, there was no evidence of any wrongdoing that would change the outcome.
The people spoke. It was not a close election. The margin of victory for Biden in 2020 was larger than Trump’s margin in 2016. In fact, the Biden victory is one of the most decisive in modern times, exceeding the margin enjoyed by Reagan when he defeated Carter in 1980.
Congress has gathered in a joint session to count electoral votes every four years since 1789. I understand the disappointment people feel when their candidate for President loses. I have felt the same several times in my voting life.
When that happens, it is not an invitation to upend the Constitution and the laws of the United States. It is an invitation to work with the new President for the good of the country and to wait for the next election in 4 years if you are dissatisfied.
In that spirit, I urge my colleagues to uphold the American democracy and reject the objection.
Mr. Jordan. Madam Speaker, I rise to support the objection.
The Speaker. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Jordan. Madam Speaker, Americans instinctively know there was something wrong with this election. During the campaign, Vice President Biden would do an event and he
