Misleading attacks on Democratic suffrage legislation HR 1 appear on social media and elsewhere. Chris Nichols, reporter for PolitiFact in California, of CapRadio, spoke with anchor Mike Hagerty about the attacks in this week’s episode of Can You Handle The Truth.
The interview was edited for clarity and length.
Maintenance points
About what HR 1 is and what it would do
HR 1, also known as the For The People Act of 2021, is one of the top legislative priorities for Democrats in Congress. This would increase access to the vote by requiring states to set up automatic voter registration on the same day and make it easier to vote by ballot.
But Republican lawmakers are strongly opposed to it. They have intensified the attacks against it over the past few days as it got closer to a vote in the U.S. House of Representatives. PolitiFact National reviewed several of these claims in February.
About what the California Republican Rep. Doug LaMalfa said about the bill and what the bill actually says
A LaMalfa voter asked PolitiFact to check an email she received from Congressman about HR 1.
In that email, he claims that the bill “will force states to restore the voting rights of convicted criminals – including violent criminals convicted of murder or rape.” HR 1 does not explicitly mention murders or rapists. But LaMalfa’s statement is partially correct – the bill will restore voting rights for those convicted of a crime, but only during federal elections and only once it is no longer locked up.
The congressman does not mention the facts in his email.
About if other states allow people to get their voting rights back after their jail time
Yes, the majority of states do so according to the National Conference of State Legislators. In 18 states, criminals get this right automatically restored to prison, including California. In 19 other states, they get their right after a period, usually at the end of their parole, so this is not new.
About how PolitiFact California rates this claim
We reviewed LaMalfa’s claim Half True – this is partly correct, but leaves out a very important context.
About dubious allegations about HR 1 spreading on social media
Some social media reports describe the legislation as a nationwide postal vote. ‘
It also does not have a context. The bill does not oblige by postal ballot. Instead, it tries to make it easier for voters to vote by mail if they prefer. The bill says, for example, that states should not require a voter to provide proof of identity or that a signature of witnesses is required to cast a ballot by mail.
Many states like California already trust strongly by vote, and others expanded the practice last year due to COVID-19.
On the unfounded allegation that HR 1 “will legalize the unlimited harvest of the ballot papers”.
This one also needs to be explained.
‘Harvesting of ballot papers’ is not an official legal term, but it refers to someone who collects the absent ballot papers on behalf of others and then submits them. It’s legal in California. HR 1 enables a voter to appoint ‘any person’ to return his sealed absentee ballot, as long as the person is not paid, based on the number of ballots returned. This is how California law already works.
This claim about legalizing the harvesting of ballots ignores the fact that many states already allow this practice, although some restrict it.
CapRadio provides a reliable source of news because of you. As a non-profit organization, donations from people like you support the journalism that enables us to discover stories that are important to our audience. If you believe in what we do and support our mission, please donate today.