Page:Congressional Record 167(4).pdf/10

H84 The Supreme Court has acknowledged this over and over. They previously affirmed in Article II, Section 1, Clause 2: “The appointment of these electors is thus placed absolutely and wholly with the legislatures of the several States.” That authority can never be taken away or abdicated.

The Arizona Legislature did enact detailed rules and procedures that the State was supposed to follow to choose its electors. But in the months preceding the 2020 election, as we have heard—and by the way, a thousand pages of evidence have just been submitted on the facts on this—those well-established rules and procedures were deliberately changed.

They weren’t changed by the legislature, friends. They were changed by judges. And those actions taken by the judiciary were not limited to mere interpretations of existing law. No, they were substantive, wholesale changes to those statutes.

Madam Speaker, that is a usurpation of the authority that the legislature had. That usurpation was repeated across the country this year. It is the primary reason—it is one of the reasons why the election of 2020 became riddled with an unprecedented number of serious allegations of fraud and irregularities all over the country.

National polls, it has been said, indicate that a huge percentage of Americans now have serious doubts about not just the outcome of this Presidential contest but also the future reliability of our election system itself.

Since we are convinced that the election laws in Arizona and some other key States were changed in this unconstitutional manner, we have a responsibility today. The slates of electors produced under those modified laws are thus unconstitutional. They are not “regularly given” or “lawfully certified,” as required by the Electoral Count Act, and they are invalid on their face. That is just the conclusion that you have to reach.

Madam Speaker, given these inescapable facts, we believe we have no choice today but to vote to sustain objections to those slates of electors.

Mr. and others today have cited the 12th Amendment, and they cite Article II, Section 1, Clause 3—remember that, Clause 3. And they have asserted that Congress has only one narrow role today; we are just supposed to count the electoral votes that have been submitted. But those advocates have overlooked a critical first principle.

Their assertion is only true so long as Congress first is convinced that the electoral votes were not produced by a process that violated the Constitution is there. We have to get through Clause 2 of Article II, Section 1, before we get to Clause 3 is the point.

Look, in our unique system, Congress is positioned as the last bulwark in a Presidential election to ensure the Constitution has been followed. Indeed, just two decades ago, the Supreme Court spoke to this. They plainly acknowledged this important deliberative role of Congress. It was the famous Bush v. Gore litigation that everybody remembers from 2000.

In a per curiam opinion—meaning all nine Justices, that it was unanimous—they noted strict adherence to the provisions of the Electoral Count Act may create “a ‘safe harbor’ for a State insofar as congressional consideration of its electoral votes is concerned.”

However, unanimously, the Court said since title 3, section 5 contains a principle of Federal law that would assure finality of the State’s determination if they followed all the proscriptions there, if the will of the legislature is attempted to be changed by a State court, that is a problem. That, they said, Congress might deem to be a change in the law.

That is precisely why we are here right now. Go read Bush v. Gore, and you will see this.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Scalia and Thomas joined in a concurring opinion 8 days later, and they reiterated this point.

A significant departure from the legislature’s scheme for appointing Presidential electors presents a Federal question. It is a big problem for us, and it is one we cannot get around. That is why we are here.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues today to look at the facts, to follow the law, and to follow our congressional oath. We are supposed to support and defend the Constitution. That is what we do here today. I urge everyone to do the right thing. Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the objection.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. GRIVALJA. Madam Speaker, this exercise in futility that Congress is undertaking is at the behest of Republican Members of Congress. The effort to overturn the Presidential election and grant Donald Trump 4 more years is the motivation behind it. And to continue a baseless conspiracy-fueled threat to our democracy makes no sense because there is no viable constitutional or legal path to overturn the election that will make Vice President Biden and Senator President and Vice President of the United States after January 20.

One certain outcome of this whole process is the weakening of our democracy and the threatening of our democracy. Beginning with Arizona, Congress is being asked to chase down a rabbit hole—baseless, discredited, and judicially discarded fringe conspiracy theories.

Madam Speaker, for the record, let’s talk a little bit about Arizona. Arizona and State and local officials did an unbelievable job to ensure that the 2020 elections ran smoothly. Mr. Hickman, the Republican chairman of the Maricopa County board, the largest county in the State of Arizona, said: “No matter how you voted, this election was administered with integrity, transparency, and in accordance with State laws.”

Arizonans showed up to the polls in record numbers. More than 3.4 million people voted, with increases in every county, and 65 percent of all eligible voters in Arizona voted in the 2020 election. Arizonans cast their ballots up and down for Republicans and Democrats, and 11 electoral votes were granted to Joe Biden and based on their victory in Arizona. That is the story.

Arizonans voted in hundreds of races this year. In addition to the Presidency, these races include nine members of the State’s congressional delegation that are with you—four of them, my Republican colleagues. These Members have already been seated in the 117th Congress. They do not question the accuracy of Arizona’s 2020 elections to select the congressional delegation, yet my four Republican colleagues question the Presidential election.

Our colleagues may say they are only asking questions and seeking to reassure voters, but let us be clear: These questions have been answered by the voters and by the courts. Rather than accepting the answers and the results of the election, they are fanning the flames of unfounded suspicion and once again creating a threat, a very real and dangerous threat to our democracy.

Again, our friends do not question the outcomes of their own elections. That is because they have no reason to, just as they have no legitimate reason to question the results of the Presidential election in Arizona.

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to reject this objection, to respect the will of the voters in the State of Arizona and throughout this country, and to fundamentally add some preservation to our democracy from any future damage, that this effort that we are undertaking in this House and in the Senate today does not further damage our democracy. Mr. GOSAR. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of my objection.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. GOSAR. Madam Speaker, I filed my challenge on the slate of electors from the State of Arizona that was actually put forward by Governor Ducey of Arizona.

My ask to you, the Speaker, through the Vice President, is simple. Do not count these electors until and unless the secretary of state allows a forensic audit of the election, a request she has denied repeatedly.

We have been told over and over that even though this was a public election using public money and public machines utilizing public employees, the public today has no ability to simply double-check the veracity of these results.

If the Presidential election was a football game, we would get a slow-motion review from multiple angles and a