Source: United States Senator for Oklahoma James Lankford
06.08.21
WASHINGTON, DC – Senator James Lankford (R-OK) today praised a letter from Oklahoma State Election Board Secretary Paul Ziriax regarding the dangers he sees posed by S. 1 and H.R. 1, the For the People Act, to Oklahoma’s free and fair election process. Lankford has worked for years to ensure elections are secure, reliable, and remain state run. In 2018, Lankford delivered a speech on the Senate floor on how, under Secretary Ziriax’s leadership, Oklahoma efficiently and effectively blocked Russia’s interference attempts on Oklahoma’s voting system.
“Secretary Ziriax is a trusted election security professional with national credibility in making sure voting in Oklahoma is easy, fair, and secure, so this warning about the Democrats’ S.1 and H.R. 1 should raise red flags for anyone interested in free and fair elections,” said Lankford. “Oklahoma’s election process is simple and straightforward with paper ballot backups to ensure we can audit and have confidence in our election results. Senate Democrats want to take elections away from our states to be run by Washington, DC, and make cheating, voter fraud, voter intimidation, and ballot harvesting easier to do. I strongly agree with Secretary Ziriax’s opposition to these bills, and I remain committed to opposing this DC power grab of our elections.”
In his letter to the Senators, Ziriax wrote, “As Oklahoma’s chief election official, I am writing to make you aware of my concerns regarding S.1, companion legislation of H.R.1, which was considered by the United States Senate Rules Committee on May 11, 2021. In short, S.1 is an unnecessary (and constitutionally dubious) federalization of election administration policy that would negatively impact our ability to administer fair and secure elections in Oklahoma. The administration of elections should be left to the States, as the Constitution and our federal form of government intends.”
Ziriax went on to write, “If S.1 is enacted, it will lead to less confidence in the veracity of our nation’s election process, not more. My recommendation is that Congress drop efforts to federalize election administration and instead focus on proposals that can receive bipartisan support – such as enhancing federal assistance to the States for election cybersecurity.”
You can find the text of Ziriax’s letter below and HERE.
Senators Inhofe and Lankford:
As Oklahoma’s chief election official, I am writing to make you aware of my concerns regarding S.1, companion legislation of H.R.1, which was considered by the United States Senate Rules Committee on May 11, 2021.
In short, S.1 is an unnecessary (and constitutionally dubious) federalization of election administration policy that would negatively impact our ability to administer fair and secure elections in Oklahoma. The administration of elections should be left to the States, as the Constitution and our federal form of government intends.
The justification for S.1 that I hear most often from its proponents is that it is necessary to counter new “voter suppression” laws in the States. But the concerns about these new election laws seem exaggerated, and in many cases appear to be based on misinformation about the content of those laws. Furthermore, regardless of what is happening in other States, there is no evidence of “voter suppression” here in our state.
S.1 seeks to supersede most of Oklahoma’s election administration and election integrity laws. For example, it legalizes absentee ballot harvesting and makes it virtually impossible to verify the identity of in-person and absentee voters – in direct contravention of Oklahoma’s election laws. S.1 also attempts to micromanage some of the most minute details of election administration, such as voting hours and polling place locations.
S.1 is not compatible with Oklahoma’s election deadlines. For example, Oklahoma law requires that elections must be certified one week after the date of the election. But S.1 disregards such deadlines by requiring absentee ballots to be accepted and counted 10 days after Election Day – three days after the state must certify the election results according to our own laws. This is unworkable.
Even setting aside concerns about the constitutionality of S.1, this legislation is not realistic in its timelines for implementing its election administration changes. By our estimation, implementing even a few of its major provisions could take years – yet S.1 demands that many new election administration policies and technologies be put in place in time for the 2022 elections. This is not only impossible, it also sets up election officials for failure and guarantees chaos in our elections.
Under the Constitution and our federal system of government, it is the responsibility of State Legislatures to determine the time, manner and place of elections. In my opinion, Congress should not attempt to implement a one-size-fits-all set of election rules for the States. Furthermore, S.l’s sponsors are trying to make it difficult for States and concerned citizens to challenge its constitutionality by requiring plaintiffs to go to Washington, DC, to file lawsuits against it. Even with this attempt to make legal challenges more difficult and expensive to file, it seems certain that the enactment of S.1 would lead to costly and lengthy litigation.
Finally, although my concerns with S.1 are too numerous to provide an exhaustive list in this letter, I can say its flaws do not seem possible to fix through the amendment process. If S.1 is enacted, it will lead to less confidence in the veracity of our nation’s election process, not more.
My recommendation is that Congress drop efforts to federalize election administration and instead focus on proposals that can receive bipartisan support – such as enhancing federal assistance to the States for election cybersecurity. If you or your staff would like to discuss this issue further, please feel free to contact me. Thank you.
Sincerely
###