Highlights:
2021: Mace Voted To Certify The Electoral College Results. According to the Post and Courier, “Mace was the only Republican from South Carolina who voted to certify the Electoral College results that secured President-elect Joe Biden’s victory. ‘I’m not going to be voting with any of those folks,’ Mace said. ‘I am not going to vote to overturn the results of the Electoral College because I do not believe that Congress knows better than voters or better than the states.’” [Post And Courier, 12/26/21]
Mace Refused To Join Congressional Objectors To Biden’s Victory. According to CNN, “Mace did not vote to impeach Trump, but she refused to join congressional objectors to President Joe Biden’s victory, earning the former President’s wrath. Faced with charges of insufficient loyalty to Trump, she drew a challenge from Katie Arrington, who defeated then-Rep. Mark Sanford, another Trump critic, in the 2018 primary but went on to lose the general election.” [CNN, 6/14/22]
Mace Said Trump’s Accomplishments “Were Wiped Out In Just A Few Short Hours” After January 6. According to the Post and Courier, “‘Every accomplishment that Republicans have made over the last four years, including President Trump had (made),’ she said, ‘were wiped out in just a few short hours,’ Mace told The Post and Courier on Jan. 7.” [Post And Courier, 12/26/21]
Mace Said She Was “Disappointed” In The Hours After January 6. According to POLITICO, “In an interview on CNN, Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) fiercely condemned the violence that unfolded the previous day across the Capitol complex, which resulted in four deaths and both chambers of Congress being forced into lockdown after pro-Trump rioters breached the building’s walls. But she saved particular criticism for the president, who had incited his supporters earlier Wednesday afternoon at a rally outside the White House. In those fiery remarks, Trump encouraged the crowd to march on the Capitol and told them that ‘you’ll never take back our country with weakness.’ ‘I’m disappointed right now,’ Mace, who worked for Trump’s 2016 campaign, said Thursday morning. ‘I think that after last night — and I’m on my 100th hour of being a member of Congress, I’m working on about two hours of sleep — I’m distraught. We’ve got to rebuild our nation, and we’ve got to rebuild our party. This is not who we are. It’s extremely distressing. And it’s saddening. It’s heartbreaking.’ As for the president, ‘everything that he’s worked for ... all of that — his entire legacy — was wiped out yesterday,’ she added. ‘We’ve got to start over.’” [POLITICO, 1/7/21]
Mace Came To Congress Declaring She Would Be A “New Voice” For The Republican Party. According to the Washington Post, “Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.), whom Haley endorsed in 2022 against a Trump-backed GOP challenger, threw her support behind Trump this week after coming to Washington in 2021 with declarations of becoming a ‘new voice’ for the Republican Party.” [Washington Post, 1/24/24]
Mace Discussed With Aides The Prospect Of Confronting January 6 Rioters To See If She Could Get Punched And Become The Face Of Anti-Trump Republicans. According to the Washington Post, “Mace was so angry at Trump during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol that she discussed with aides the prospect of confronting the rioters so she could get punched and become the face of anti-Trump Republicans, according to former staffers familiar with the incident, who spoke on the condition of anonymity out of fear of retribution.” [Washington Post, 1/24/24]
Sources Said Mace Wanted To “Get Punched In The Face” And Said Several People In The Office Heard It. According to the Daily Beast, “According to three sources who heard the comments firsthand, Mace used those exact words: She wanted to go ‘get punched in the face.’ ‘She literally begged us to let her leave the office and head to the floor so she could ‘get punched in the face’ and ‘get media attention,’’ one former aide said, who shared the story on the condition of anonymity. ‘That’s word for word what she requested.’ The source continued that there were ‘several of us in the office who heard it.’ ‘And she had been in office for three days, if that tells you anything about her motivation,’ this former aide said. Mace ultimately backed off the idea in the face of pushback from her staff.” [Daily Beast, 1/24/24]
Mace Called Herself A “Never-Trumper” On January 6
Mace Called Herself A “Never-Trumper” To Her Staffers On January 6. According to the Washington Post, “Mace — who also declared to her staff during the riot that she was a ‘never-Trumper’ — made the comments while she was hiding with staff in her office in the Cannon House building as they watched rioters march through the Capitol on television. If there was video of her challenging rioters on social media, it could give credence to her anti-Trump position, these people said of Mace’s thinking at the time. Staffers pushed back against their then-freshman boss, citing guidance from U.S. Capitol Police. Mace eventually set aside the idea, according to the people.” [Washington Post, 1/24/24]
2021: Trump Recruited A Primary Challenger To Run Against Mace After He Endorsed Her During Her 2020 Campaign. According to the Post and Courier, “Trump, who had endorsed her during her 2020 campaign, said in a statement last month he’s looking for ‘good and SMART America First Republican Patriots’ to challenge Mace in her primary.” [Post And Courier, 12/26/21]
Trump Labeled Mace A “RINO” After She Condemned His Role In the January 6 Attack. According to the New York Times, “Ms. Mace drew Mr. Trump’s ire a few days into her first term after she condemned his role in the attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. His false claims about the election being stolen, she said in interviews, contributed to the riots and ‘wiped out’ the Trump administration’s accomplishments. Mr. Trump subsequently labeled Ms. Mace a ‘RINO,’ a pejorative acronym meaning Republican in name only, and endorsed Ms. Arrington.” [New York Times, 6/14/22]
2022: Mace Won Her Primary Against Trump-Backed Challenger Katie Arrington. According to the New York Times, “Representative Nancy Mace, a Republican who clashed with former President Donald J. Trump after the Jan. 6 attack, fended off a primary challenge on Tuesday from Katie Arrington, a former state representative who had Mr. Trump’s backing. The race was called by The Associated Press. Ms. Mace played up her background as a onetime Waffle House waitress and the first woman to graduate from the Citadel, the military college of South Carolina. Billing herself as a ‘new voice’ for the Republican Party, Ms. Mace, 44, championed a range of issues in Congress, including veterans’ rights and marijuana legalization. Her Lowcountry district, which stretches along South Carolina’s southeastern coast from Charleston to just beyond Hilton Head Island, favors Republicans.” [New York Times, 6/14/22]
2021: Mace Voted Against The Impeachment Of Trump. According to WCIV, “As expected, Rep. Nancy Mace voted against the impeachment of Pres. Donald Trump. In an interview with ABC News 4 after the votes were tallied, Mace said there were multiple reasons she voted against impeachment. ‘One, the way the House went about impeachment totally erased any due process for anyone no matter how guilty you feel somebody is,’ she said. ‘It didn't go through any judiciary process, it was merely debated for two or three hours and then we had a vote,’ she said.” [WCIV, 1/31/21]
2021: Mace Voted Against Impeaching President Trump For Incitement Of Insurrection After He Repeatedly Claimed Voter Fraud Led To The 2020 Presidential Election Results And Made Statements At A Rally That Encouraged The January 6th Insurrection. In January 2021, Mace voted against a resolution over an article of impeachment which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, “impeach President Donald Trump for incitement of insurrection by ‘inciting violence against the government of the United States.’ Specifically, it would state that Trump ‘repeatedly issued false statements’ asserting that the results of the 2020 presidential election were the product of widespread fraud and should not be accepted or certified. It would state that Trump made statements at a rally on Jan. 6, 2020, that ‘encouraged -- and foreseeably resulted in -- lawless action’ at the Capitol building during the certification of electoral college votes, during which protesters entered the Capitol, attacked law enforcement personnel, ‘menaced’ members of Congress and the vice president, and engaged in other ‘violent, deadly, destructive, and seditious acts.’ It would state that Trump's conduct on Jan. 6 followed prior efforts ‘to subvert and obstruct’ the certification of 2020 presidential election results, including during a Jan. 2 phone call during which he urged Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to ‘find’ enough votes to overturn the state's presidential election results and ‘threatened Secretary Raffensperger if he failed to do so.’ It would state President Trump's ‘endangered the security of the United States and its institutions of government’ and that he ‘threatened the integrity of the democratic system, interfered with the peaceful transition of power, and imperiled a coordinate branch of government.’ Pursuant to the rule (H Res 41), upon adoption of the article of impeachment, the House agreed to the resolution (H Res 40) that would appoint and authorize the following impeachment trial managers to conduct the impeachment trial against President Donald Trump in the Senate: Reps. Raskin, D-Md., DeGette, D-Colo., Cicilline, D-R.I., Castro, D-Texas, Swalwell, D-Calif., Lieu, D-Calif., Plaskett, D-V.I., Neguse, D-Colo., and Dean, D-Pa.” The vote was on agreeing to the resolution. The House passed the resolution by a vote of 232-197, but the Senate failed to acquit former President Trump. [House Vote 17, 1/13/21; Congressional Quarterly, 1/13/21; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 24]
2021: Mace Effectively Voted Against Impeaching President Trump For Incitement Of Insurrection. In January 2021, according to Congressional Quarterly, Mace voted against the “adoption of the rule (H Res 41) for the resolution (H Res 24) containing one article of impeachment against President Donald Trump for incitement of insurrection. The rule would provide for two hours of debate on the article of impeachment without any intervening motion or question, equally divided between the chair and ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee or their designees. The rule would provide for automatic agreement, upon adoption of the article of impeachment, to a resolution (H Res 40) appointing and authorizing managers for the impeachment trial in the Senate.” The vote was on the adoption of the rule. The House adopted the rule by a vote of 221-203. [House Vote 16, 1/13/21; Congressional Quarterly, 1/13/21; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 24; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 41]
2021: Mace Effectively Voted Against Impeaching President Trump For Incitement Of Insurrection. In January 2021, according to Congressional Quarterly, Mace voted against the “motion to order the previous question (thus ending debate and possibility of amendment) on the rule (H Res 41) for the resolution (H Res 24) containing one article of impeachment against President Donald Trump for incitement of insurrection. The rule would provide for two hours of debate on the article of impeachment without any intervening motion or question, equally divided between the chair and ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee or their designees. The rule would provide for automatic agreement, upon adoption of the article of impeachment, to a resolution (H Res 40) appointing and authorizing managers for the impeachment trial in the Senate.” The vote was on a motion to order the previous question. The House agreed to the motion by a vote of 221-205. [House Vote 15, 1/13/21; Congressional Quarterly, 1/13/21; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 24; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 41]
2021: Mace Voted Against Invoking The 25th Amendment To Remove Trump After Attempting To Intervene In Georgia’s Vote Count And Coerce State Officials To Declare Him Winner, Claiming The November 2020 Elections Were Fraudulent, And Inciting The January 6th Insurrection At The U.S. Capitol. In January 2021, Mace voted against a resolution which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, “state that the House of Representatives calls on Vice President Mike Pence to use his powers under section 4 of the 25th Amendment to convene and mobilize members of the president's cabinet to declare that President Donald Trump is unable to successfully discharge the duties and powers of his office, and to transmit notice to Congress that Pence will immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as acting president. The resolution would state among its findings that Trump ‘widely advertised and broadly encouraged’ participation in the march on the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, Jan. 6, which turned into a violent insurrectionary mob that resulted in 5 deaths following the storming of the Capitol building; did not appeal to his followers to exit the Capitol during the insurrection; refused to accept the results of the 2020 presidential election as legitimate; and made at least three attempts to intervene in the vote counting and certification process in the state of Georgia and to ‘coerce’ its state officials to declare him the winner of the state's electoral votes.” The vote was on agreeing to the resolution. The House passed the resolution by a vote of 223-205. [House Vote 14, 1/12/21; Congressional Quarterly, 1/12/21; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 21]
2021: Mace Effectively Voted Against Removing Trump From Office By Calling On Vice President Mike Pence To Invoke The 25th Amendment. In January 2021, according to Congressional Quarterly, Mace voted against the “adoption of the rule (H Res 38) that would provide for floor consideration of the resolution (H Res 21) calling on Vice President Mike Pence to invoke the 25th Amendment and remove President Donald Trump from office. The rule would provide for up to one hour of debate on the resolution and automatic adoption of a Nadler, D-N.Y., manager's amendment that would correct language in the findings related to the legal authority of Congress to count electoral votes, as prescribed by section 15 of title 3 of United States Code. It would waive the prohibition against ‘personality’ in debate with respect to references to the president during debate on the resolution or on the impeachment resolution (H Res 24) that would impeach President Donald Trump for incitement of insurrection.” The vote was on the adoption of the rule. The House adopted the rule by a vote of 222-204. [House Vote 13, 1/12/21; Congressional Quarterly, 1/12/21; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 21; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 38]
2021: Mace Effectively Voted Against Removing President Donald Trump From Office By Calling On Vice President Mike Pence To Invoke The 25th Amendment. In January 2021, according to Congressional Quarterly, Mace voted against the “motion to order the previous question (thus ending the debate and possibility of amendment) to the rule (H Res 38) that would provide for floor consideration of the resolution (H Res 21) calling on Vice President Mike Pence to invoke the 25th Amendment and remove President Donald Trump from office. The rule would provide for up to one hour of debate on the resolution and automatic adoption of a Nadler, D-N.Y., manager's amendment that would correct language in the findings related to the legal authority of Congress to count electoral votes, as prescribed by section 15 of title 3 of United States Code. It would waive the prohibition against ‘personality’ in debate with respect to references to the president during debate on the resolution or on the impeachment resolution (H Res 24) that would impeach President Donald Trump for incitement of insurrection.” The vote was on a motion to order the previous question. The House agreed to the motion by a vote of 219-206. [House Vote 12, 1/12/21; Congressional Quarterly, 1/12/21; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 21; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 38]
Mace Voted Against The Formation Of The January 6 Bipartisan Inquiry. According to the New York Times, “More recently, when she voted against the formation of the proposed bipartisan Jan. 6 inquiry, Ms. Mace called the endeavor a ‘partisan, duplicate effort by Speaker Pelosi to divide our nation.’” [New York Times, 7/25/21]
2021: Mace Effectively Voted To Condemn Speaker Pelosi For Her Decision Not To Nominate Minority Leader McCarthy’s Republican Nominees For The January 6th Capitol Attack Committee. In July 2021, Mace voted against tabling, thus killing, a resolution which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, “condemn the refusal of Speaker Pelosi, D-Calif., to seat all five Republican members nominated by Minority Leader McCarthy, R-Calif., to the Jan. 6 select committee and urge Pelosi to appoint the following members: Reps. Banks, R-Ind., Jordan, R-Ohio., Davis, R-Ill., Armstrong, R-N.D., and Nehls, R-Texas.” The vote was on a motion to table. The House agreed to the motion by a vote of 218-197. [House Vote 219, 7/26/21; Congressional Quarterly, 7/26/21; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 554]
Mace Voted Against Holding Mark Meadows In Criminal Contempt For Defying A Subpoena From The January 6 Committee. According to the Post And Courier, “Republican U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace voted against holding Mark Meadows — former President Donald Trump’s chief of staff — in criminal contempt of Congress after he defied a subpoena by the committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. Meadows was held in contempt after a 222 to 208 House vote on Dec. 14. Mace told The Post and Courier she believed the case should be handled and reviewed by a court. His conduct will now be referred to the Department of Justice. ‘This case is unlike any other and it’s why I ask the courts to expeditiously resolve the outstanding issue of executive privilege in this singular unprecedented instance,’ Mace said.” [Post And Courier, 12/14/21]
Mace Voted Against Finding Mark Meadows In Contempt Of Congress For His Refusal To Abide To A Congressional Subpoena To Investigate January 6th Capitol Attack. In December 2021, Mace voted against the resolution which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, “find Mark Meadows, former White House chief of staff to President Donald Trump, in contempt of Congress for refusal to comply with a subpoena issued by the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol. It would direct the speaker of the House to ‘take all appropriate action to enforce the subpoena’ and certify the committee report (H Rept 117-216) accompanying the contempt resolution to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia for judicial action.” The vote was on passage. The House passed the resolution by a vote of 222-208. [House Vote 447, 12/14/21; Congressional Quarterly, 12/14/21; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 851]
2021: Mace Effectively Voted Against Finding Mark Meadows In Contempt Of Congress. In December 2021, according to Congressional Quarterly, Mace voted against the “adoption of the rule (H Res 848) that would provide for House floor consideration of the Meadows contempt resolution (H Res 851). The rule would provide for up to one hour of debate on the bill.” The vote was on the adoption of the rule. The House adopted the rule by a vote of 220-210. [House Vote 442, 12/14/21; Congressional Quarterly, 12/14/21; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 851; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 848]
2021: Mace Effectively Voted Against Finding Mark Meadows In Contempt Of Congress. In December 2021, according to Congressional Quarterly, Mace voted against the “motion to order the previous question (thus ending debate and possibility of amendment) on the rule (H Res 848) that would provide for House floor consideration of the Meadows contempt resolution (H Res 851). The rule would provide for up to one hour of debate on the bill.” The vote was on a motion to order the previous question. The House agreed to the motion by a vote of 218-209. [House Vote 441, 12/14/21; Congressional Quarterly, 12/14/21; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 851; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 848]
2022: Mace Voted Against Finding Peter J. Navarro And Daniel Scavino, Jr., Advisers To Former Presidents Trump, In Contempt Of Congress For Refusing To Comply With Subpoenas Issued By The Select Committee To Investigate The January 6th Attack. In April 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Mace voted against a resolution that would “find two advisers to former President Donald Trump -- Peter K. Navarro, former White House director of trade and manufacturing policy, and Daniel Scavino, Jr., former White House deputy chief of staff -- in contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with subpoenas issued by the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol. It would direct the speaker of the House to ‘take all appropriate action to enforce the subpoenas’ and certify the committee report (H Rept 117-284) accompanying the contempt resolution to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia for judicial action.” The vote was on passage. The House passed the resolution by a vote of 221-203. [House Vote 118, 4/6/22; Congressional Quarterly, 4/6/22; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 1037]
2022: Mace Effectively Voted Against Finding Peter J. Navarro And Daniel Scavino, Jr., Advisers To Former Presidents Trump, In Contempt Of Congress. In April 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Mace voted against the “adoption of the rule (H Res 1023) that would provide for floor consideration of the resolution (H Res 1037) accompanying the report (H Rept 117-284) that would find Peter K. Navarro and Daniel Scavino, Jr., advisers to former President Donald Trump, in contempt of Congress. It would provide for up to one hour of debate on the resolution.” The vote was on the adoption of the rule. The House adopted the rule by a vote of 221-200. [House Vote 117, 4/6/22; Congressional Quarterly, 4/6/22; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 1037; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 1023]
2022: Mace Effectively Voted Against Finding Peter J. Navarro And Daniel Scavino, Jr., Advisers To Former Presidents Trump, In Contempt Of Congress. In April 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Mace voted against the “motion to order the previous question (thus limiting debate and possibility of amendment) on the rule (H Res 1023) that would provide for floor consideration of the resolution (H Res 1037) accompanying the report (H Rept 117-284) that would find Peter K. Navarro and Daniel Scavino, Jr., advisers to former President Donald Trump, in contempt of Congress. It would provide for up to one hour of debate on the resolution.” The vote was on a motion to order the previous question. The House agreed to the motion by a vote of 219-206. [House Vote 116, 4/6/22; Congressional Quarterly, 4/6/22; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 1037; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 1023]
2022: Mace Voted Against The FY 2023 Omnibus Spending Package, Which Included The Presidential Election Reform Act And Changed The Procedures For Casting And Counting Electoral Votes In Presidential Elections. In December 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Mace voted against concurring with the Senate amendment to the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, which would “modify procedures for casting and counting electoral votes in presidential elections.” The vote was on a motion to concur. The House concurred with the Senate amendment by a vote of 225-201, thus the bill was sent to President Biden and ultimately became law. [House Vote 549, 12/23/22; Congressional Quarterly, 12/23/22; Congressional Actions, S.Amdt. 6552; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2617]
2022: Mace Voted Against The Presidential Election Reform Act, Which Would Specify That The Vice President Does Not Have The Authority To Validate Or Invalidate Electoral Votes And Require Objections To A State’s Electors To Be Signed By 1/3 Of Members In Each Chamber And Only Permit Valid Reasons For The Objections. In September 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Mace voted against the Presidential Election Reform Act, which would “make numerous modifications to the presidential election process. Among provisions related to the counting of electoral votes in a joint session of Congress, the bill would specify that the vice president has only a ‘ministerial’ role in the process and does not have any power to resolve disputes concerning the validity of electoral appointments or votes. It would require objections to a state's electors to be signed by one third of members in each chamber and only allow objections on the grounds that a state was not a valid state at the time electoral votes were cast; a state submitted more votes than it is constitutionally entitled to; an elector is constitutionally ineligible to be an elector; an electoral vote was cast for a candidate who is ineligible to be president or vice president; or an electoral vote was cast in violation of certain election law requirements.” The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 229-203, thus the bill was sent to the Senate. The Senate did not take substantive action on the bill. [House Vote 449, 9/21/22; Congressional Quarterly, 9/21/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 8873]
2022: Mace Effectively Voted Against The Presidential Election Reform Act. In September 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Mace voted against the “adoption of the rule (H Res 1372) that would provide for House floor consideration of the Presidential Election Reform Act (HR 8873). The rule would provide for up to one hour of general debate on the bill.” The vote was on the adoption of the rule. The House adopted the rule by a vote of 219-209. [House Vote 446, 9/21/22; Congressional Quarterly, 9/21/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 8873; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 1372]
2022: Mace Effectively Voted Against The Presidential Election Reform Act. In September 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Mace voted against the “motion to order the previous question (thus ending debate and possibility of amendment) on the rule (H Res 1372) that would provide for House floor consideration of the Presidential Election Reform Act (HR 8873). The rule would provide for up to one hour of general debate on the bill.” The vote was on a motion to order the previous question. The House agreed to the motion by a vote of 219-209. [House Vote 445, 9/21/22; Congressional Quarterly, 9/21/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 8873; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 1372]
2021: Mace Voted Against Permitting Universal Mail-In Ballots, Against Providing Ballot Drop Boxes To All Counties At Least 45 Days Prior To An Election And Against Enacting Ballot Tracking Programs. In March 2021, Mace voted against the For The People Act which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, “require states to allow all eligible voters to vote by mail-in absentee ballots, provide ballot drop boxes in each county at least 45 days before an election and carry out a program to track and confirm receipt of all absentee ballots.” The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 220-210. The Senate did not take substantive action on the bill. [House Vote 62, 3/3/21; Congressional Quarterly, 3/3/21; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1]
2021: Mace Voted Against An Amendment That Would Require A Study On The 2020 Elections And Recommendations To Support States Improve Their Vote-By-Mail Systems. In March 2021, Mace voted against en block amendments no. 1 to the For The People Act which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, “require the Election Assistance Commission to conduct a study on the 2020 elections and compile a list of recommendations to help states transition to or improve their current vote-by-mail system.” The vote was on adoption of amendments. The House adopted the amendments by a vote of 218-210. [House Vote 52, 3/2/21; Congressional Quarterly, 3/2/21; Congressional Actions, H.Amdt. 16; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1]
2021: Mace Effectively Voted Against An Amendment That Would Require The Barcode Service For Mail-In Ballots, Prohibit Campaigns From Accepting Opposition Research Donated By Foreign Entities, Remove A Provision That Would Deport Undocumented Immigrants Believed To Have Interfered In U.S. Elections, And Direct The Federal Election Commission To Establish A New Designation For Separate Segregated Funds. In March 2021, Mace voted against the manager’s amendment to the For The People Act which would according to Congressional Quarterly, “require mail-in ballots to use the Postal Service barcode service; clarify that the definition of ‘thing of value’ with regard to the statutory prohibition on foreign donations to political campaigns includes provision of opposition research, polling, or other non-public information on a candidate for the purpose of influencing an election; remove provisions in the bill that would provide for the inadmissibility or deportation of undocumented immigrants reasonably believed to have interfered or intend to interfere in U.S. elections; and require the Federal Election Commission to collect information and initiate a rulemaking process to establish a new designation and classification for separate segregated funds, which are a type of PAC financially supported by a corporation or labor organization.” The vote was on the adoption of the rule. The House adopted the rule by a vote of 218-207, thus automatically adopting the manager’s amendment. [House Vote 51, 3/1/21; Congressional Quarterly, 3/1/21; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 179]
2021: Mace Effectively Voted Against An Amendment That Would Require The Barcode Service For Mail-In Ballots, Prohibit Campaigns From Accepting Opposition Research Donated By Foreign Entities, Remove A Provision That Would Deport Undocumented Immigrants Believed To Have Interfered In U.S. Elections, And Direct The Federal Election Commission To Establish A New Designation For Separate Segregated Funds. In March 2021, Mace effectively voted against the manager’s amendment to the For The People Act which would according to Congressional Quarterly, “require mail-in ballots to use the Postal Service barcode service; clarify that the definition of ‘thing of value’ with regard to the statutory prohibition on foreign donations to political campaigns includes provision of opposition research, polling, or other non-public information on a candidate for the purpose of influencing an election; remove provisions in the bill that would provide for the inadmissibility or deportation of undocumented immigrants reasonably believed to have interfered or intend to interfere in U.S. elections; and require the Federal Election Commission to collect information and initiate a rulemaking process to establish a new designation and classification for separate segregated funds, which are a type of PAC financially supported by a corporation or labor organization.” The vote was on a motion to order the previous question. The House agreed to the motion by a vote of 220-201. [House Vote 50, 3/1/21; Congressional Quarterly, 3/1/21; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 179]
2021: Mace Voted Against An Amendment That Would Have Ensured Counties With Over 20,000 Registered Voters Offer At Least One Ballot Drop Box For 24 Hours A Day. In March 2021, Mace voted against en block amendments no. 1 to the For The People Act which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, “require states to ensure that in counties with at least 20,000 registered voters at least one drop box is open to accept ballots for 24 hours a day.” The vote was on adoption of amendments. The House adopted the amendments by a vote of 218-210. [House Vote 52, 3/2/21; Congressional Quarterly, 3/2/21; Congressional Actions, H.Amdt. 16; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1]
2021: Mace Voted Against The For The People Act. In March 2021, Mace voted against the For The People Act. The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 220-210. The Senate did not take substantive action on the bill. [House Vote 62, 3/3/21; Congressional Quarterly, 3/3/21; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1]
The For The People Act Would Have Provided Ballot Drop Boxes To All Counties At Least 45 Days Prior To An Election
The For The People Act Would Have Provided Ballot Drop Boxes To All Counties At Least 45 Days Prior To An Election. According to Congressional Quarterly, the For the People Act would “provide ballot drop boxes in each county at least 45 days before an election.” [Congressional Quarterly, 3/3/21]
2021: Mace Voted Against The For The People Act. In March 2021, Mace voted against the For The People Act. The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 220-210. The Senate did not take substantive action on the bill. [House Vote 62, 3/3/21; Congressional Quarterly, 3/3/21; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1]
The For The People Act Would Have Enacted Ballot Tracking Programs. According to Congressional Quarterly, the For the People Act would “ carry out a program to track and confirm receipt of all absentee ballots.” [House Vote 62, 3/3/21; Congressional Quarterly, 3/3/21; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1]
2022: Mace Voted Against The Freedom To Vote Act. In January 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Mace voted against concurring in the Senate amendment with a House amendment to the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act, which in part would “expand disclosure requirements for large campaign contributions, require candidates and political committees to report foreign contacts to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and prohibit the creation of corporations to conceal foreign election contributions.” The vote was on a motion to concur. The House agreed to the motion by a vote of 220-203, thus the bill was sent to the Senate. The Senate subsequently failed to invoke cloture. [House Vote 9, 1/13/22; Congressional Quarterly, 1/13/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 5746]
The Freedom To Vote Act Would Have Made Election Day A National Holiday. According to NPR, “The measure would: make Election Day a national holiday, aimed at making easier for all voters to get to the polls that day; allow states to have early voting for at least two weeks prior to Election Day, including nights and weekends; allow voting by mail with no excuses needed, and voters could put their ballots in drop boxes; require that states make voting more accessible for people with disabilities; require that states that require IDs for voting would have to broaden the types of identification acceptable. States would also have to offer same-day voting registration and online registration and also make it easier to register at places like departments of motor vehicles.” [NPR, 1/18/22]
The Freedom To Vote Act Would Have Permitted States To Have At Least Two Weeks Of Early Voting. According to NPR, “The measure would: make Election Day a national holiday, aimed at making easier for all voters to get to the polls that day; allow states to have early voting for at least two weeks prior to Election Day, including nights and weekends; allow voting by mail with no excuses needed, and voters could put their ballots in drop boxes; require that states make voting more accessible for people with disabilities; require that states that require IDs for voting would have to broaden the types of identification acceptable. States would also have to offer same-day voting registration and online registration and also make it easier to register at places like departments of motor vehicles.” [NPR, 1/18/22]
The Freedom To Vote Act Would Have Allowed No-Excuse Absentee Ballot Voting
The Freedom To Vote Act Would Have Allowed No-Excuse Absentee Ballot Voting. According to NPR, “The measure would: make Election Day a national holiday, aimed at making easier for all voters to get to the polls that day; allow states to have early voting for at least two weeks prior to Election Day, including nights and weekends; allow voting by mail with no excuses needed, and voters could put their ballots in drop boxes; require that states make voting more accessible for people with disabilities; require that states that require IDs for voting would have to broaden the types of identification acceptable. States would also have to offer same-day voting registration and online registration and also make it easier to register at places like departments of motor vehicles.” [NPR, 1/18/22]
The Freedom To Vote Act Would Have Made It Easier For People With Disabilities To Access The Ballot
The Freedom To Vote Act Would Have Required Greater Accessibility For People With Disabilities. According to NPR, “The measure would: make Election Day a national holiday, aimed at making easier for all voters to get to the polls that day; allow states to have early voting for at least two weeks prior to Election Day, including nights and weekends; allow voting by mail with no excuses needed, and voters could put their ballots in drop boxes; require that states make voting more accessible for people with disabilities; require that states that require IDs for voting would have to broaden the types of identification acceptable. States would also have to offer same-day voting registration and online registration and also make it easier to register at places like departments of motor vehicles.” [NPR, 1/18/22]
The Freedom To Vote Act Would Have Required States To Broaden Their Valid Photo ID Requirements
The Freedom To Vote Act Would Have Required States To Broaden Their Valid Photo Identification Requirements. According to NPR, “The measure would: make Election Day a national holiday, aimed at making easier for all voters to get to the polls that day; allow states to have early voting for at least two weeks prior to Election Day, including nights and weekends; allow voting by mail with no excuses needed, and voters could put their ballots in drop boxes; require that states make voting more accessible for people with disabilities; require that states that require IDs for voting would have to broaden the types of identification acceptable. States would also have to offer same-day voting registration and online registration and also make it easier to register at places like departments of motor vehicles.” [NPR, 1/18/22]
The Freedom To Vote Act Would Have Required States To Offer Same-Day And Online Voter Registration
The Freedom To Vote Act Would Have Required States To Offer Same-Day And Online Voter Registration. According to NPR, “The measure would: make Election Day a national holiday, aimed at making easier for all voters to get to the polls that day; allow states to have early voting for at least two weeks prior to Election Day, including nights and weekends; allow voting by mail with no excuses needed, and voters could put their ballots in drop boxes; require that states make voting more accessible for people with disabilities; require that states that require IDs for voting would have to broaden the types of identification acceptable. States would also have to offer same-day voting registration and online registration and also make it easier to register at places like departments of motor vehicles.” [NPR, 1/18/22]
The Freedom To Vote Act Would Have Limited How States Could Conduct Voter Purges
The Freedom To Vote Act Would Have Limited How States May Conduct Voter Purges From Voter Checklists. According to NPR, “The measure would also outlaw partisan gerrymandering — that is, drawing congressional boundaries to the political advantage of one party or another — and would limit the ways states can purge people from voting rolls.” [NPR, 1/18/22]
The Freedom To Vote Act Would Have Protected Voters From Intimidation Efforts
The Freedom To Vote Act Would Have Prohibited Intimidating Individuals From Registering To Vote, Engaging In Voter Intimidation And Harassment Of Election Workers, And Restricting Food And Non-Alcoholic Drinks At Polling Locations. According to Congressional Quarterly, the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act, would “prohibit any attempt to prevent an individual from registering to vote, prohibit certain practices related to voter intimidation and harassment of election workers, and prohibit states from restricting the provision of food and nonalcoholic beverages at polling locations.” The vote was on a motion to concur. The House agreed to the motion by a vote of 220-203, thus the bill was sent to the Senate. The Senate subsequently failed to invoke cloture. [House Vote 9, 1/13/22; Congressional Quarterly, 1/13/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 5746]
2021: Mace Voted Against The For The People Act. In March 2021, Mace voted against the For The People Act. The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 220-210. The Senate did not take substantive action on the bill. [House Vote 62, 3/3/21; Congressional Quarterly, 3/3/21; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1]
The For The People Act Would Have Prohibited Voter Intimidation And Voter Purging. According to Congressional Quarterly, the For the People Act would “prohibit certain practices related to voter deception or intimidation and removal of voters from voter rolls.” [Congressional Quarterly, 3/3/21]
The For The People Act Would Have Expanded Opportunities To Register To Vote
The For The People Act Would Have Permitted Online And Same-Day Voter Registration. According to Congressional Quarterly, the For the People Act would “require states to allow online and same-day registration.” [Congressional Quarterly, 3/3/21]
The For The People Act Would Have Allowed States To Have At Least 15 Days Of Early Voting. According to Congressional Quarterly, the For the People Act would “allow early voting at least 15 days before election day.” [Congressional Quarterly, 3/3/21]
The For The People Act Would Have Allowed States To Automatically Register Voters. According to Congressional Quarterly, the For the People Act would “automatically register eligible voters.” [Congressional Quarterly, 3/3/21]
2021: Mace Voted Against An Amendment That Would Have Required Certain Polling Locations To Stay Open For An Extended Four Hours Outside The Typical Working Hours Of 9 AM To 5 PM. In March 2021, Mace voted against en bloc amendments no.4 to the For The People Act which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, “require states to run polling locations that are open for at least four hours outside of the period between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.” The vote was on adoption of amendments. The House adopted the amendments by a vote of 223-208. [House Vote 58, 3/3/21; Congressional Quarterly, 3/3/21; Congressional Actions, H.Amdt. 23; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1]
2021: Mace Voted Against An Amendment That Would Have Required Election Officials To Consider Linguistic Preferences When Posting Polling Location Notices. In March 2021, Mace voted against en bloc amendments no.3 to the For The People Act which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, “require election officials to take the linguistic preferences of voters in the jurisdiction into account when posting required notices at polling locations.” The vote was on adoption of amendments. The House adopted the amendments by a vote of 221-207. [House Vote 55, 3/2/21; Congressional Quarterly, 3/2/21; Congressional Actions, H.Amdt. 20; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1]
2021: Mace Voted Against An Amendment That Would Have Allowed College Campuses To Serve As Polling Locations. In March 2021, Mace voted against en block amendments no. 1 to the For The People Act which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, “require states to ensure that polling places that allow early voting be located on campuses of higher education institutions.” The vote was on adoption of amendments. The House adopted the amendments by a vote of 218-210. [House Vote 52, 3/2/21; Congressional Quarterly, 3/2/21; Congressional Actions, H.Amdt. 16; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1]
2022: Mace Voted Against The Freedom To Vote Act. In January 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Mace voted against concurring in the Senate amendment with a House amendment to the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act, which in part would “expand disclosure requirements for large campaign contributions, require candidates and political committees to report foreign contacts to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and prohibit the creation of corporations to conceal foreign election contributions.” The vote was on a motion to concur. The House agreed to the motion by a vote of 220-203, thus the bill was sent to the Senate. The Senate subsequently failed to invoke cloture. [House Vote 9, 1/13/22; Congressional Quarterly, 1/13/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 5746]
The Freedom To Vote Act Would Have Strengthened Anti-Discrimination Enforcement Under The Voting Rights Act
The Freedom To Vote Act Would Have Strengthened Anti-Discrimination Enforcement By Restoring Preclearance Requirements Under The Voting Rights Act. According to Congressional Quarterly, “Among other provisions to strengthen anti-discrimination enforcement authorities in relation to voting practices, the bill would effectively restore preclearance requirements under the Voting Rights Act for any changes to voting practices in states and localities with a history of voting rights violations in the previous 25 years. It would establish formulas to identify such jurisdictions, which would be required to submit proposed changes to the Justice Department for preclearance before implementation.” The vote was on a motion to concur. The House agreed to the motion by a vote of 220-203, thus the bill was sent to the Senate. The Senate subsequently failed to invoke cloture. [House Vote 9, 1/13/22; Congressional Quarterly, 1/13/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 5746]
The Freedom To Vote Act Would Have Required States To Have A Specific Governmental Interest For Implementing Election Changes That Could Substantially Affect Voting Rights. According to Congressional Quarterly, “The new language would require states to have an important and specific government interest if they want to implement election changes that would substantially impair the right to vote or have the vote be counted. And those election changes would have to be the least restrictive way of accomplishing that interest.” [Congressional Quarterly, 1/13/22]
2021: Mace Voted Against The For The People Act. In March 2021, Mace voted against the For The People Act. The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 220-210. The Senate did not take substantive action on the bill. [House Vote 62, 3/3/21; Congressional Quarterly, 3/3/21; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1]
The For The People Act Would Have Increased Voter Access And Awareness For Students And People With Disabilities. According to Congressional Quarterly, the For the People Act would “require a number of activities to improve voter access and awareness for students and individuals with disabilities.” [Congressional Quarterly, 3/3/21]
2021: Mace Voted Against An Amendment That Would Apply Voter Registration And Protection Laws To U.S. Territories. In March 2021, Mace voted against en bloc amendments no.3 to the For The People Act which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, “apply a number of laws related to voter registration and protections to U.S. territories.” The vote was on adoption of amendments. The House adopted the amendments by a vote of 221-207. [House Vote 55, 3/2/21; Congressional Quarterly, 3/2/21; Congressional Actions, H.Amdt. 20; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1]
The John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act Would Have Restored Preclearance Requirements Under The Voting Rights Act For Voting Practices In States And Localities With A History Of Voter Suppression. According to Congressional Quarterly, the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act would “strengthen anti-discrimination enforcement authorities in relation to voting practices. The bill would effectively restore preclearance requirements under the Voting Rights Act for any changes to voting practices in states and localities with a history of voting rights violations within the previous 25 years.” [Congressional Quarterly, 8/24/21]
2022: Mace Voted Against The Freedom To Vote Act. In January 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Mace voted against concurring in the Senate amendment with a House amendment to the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act, which in part would “expand disclosure requirements for large campaign contributions, require candidates and political committees to report foreign contacts to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and prohibit the creation of corporations to conceal foreign election contributions.” The vote was on a motion to concur. The House agreed to the motion by a vote of 220-203, thus the bill was sent to the Senate. The Senate subsequently failed to invoke cloture. [House Vote 9, 1/13/22; Congressional Quarterly, 1/13/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 5746]
The Freedom To Vote Act Would Have Made Elections And Democracy Fairer
The Freedom To Vote Act Would Have Prohibited Partisan Gerrymandering. According to NPR, “The measure would also outlaw partisan gerrymandering — that is, drawing congressional boundaries to the political advantage of one party or another — and would limit the ways states can purge people from voting rolls.” [NPR, 1/18/22]
The Freedom To Vote Act Would Have Established A Small Donor Matching System For House Candidates, In Which The Election Assistance And Innovation Fund Would Match Contributions Up To $200 At A Six-To-One Ratio. According to NPR, “A small donor matching system would be set up for House candidates. A new Election Assistance and Innovation Fund would match contributions up to $200 at a 6:1 ratio. The fund would not use taxpayer dollars and instead be financed through assessments paid on fines, penalties and settlements for certain tax crimes and corporate malfeasance.” [NPR, 1/18/22]
The Freedom To Vote Act Would Have Required States And Localities To Provide Public Notice Of Voting Procedure Changes Within 180 Days Of A Federal Election. According to Congressional Quarterly, the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act, would “require states and localities to provide public notice regarding any changes to voting procedures made within 180 days of a federal election, and regarding updated demographic data following any electoral district boundary changes.” The vote was on a motion to concur. The House agreed to the motion by a vote of 220-203, thus the bill was sent to the Senate. The Senate subsequently failed to invoke cloture. [House Vote 9, 1/13/22; Congressional Quarterly, 1/13/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 5746]
2021: Mace Voted Against The For The People Act. In March 2021, Mace voted against the For The People Act. The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 220-210. The Senate did not take substantive action on the bill. [House Vote 62, 3/3/21; Congressional Quarterly, 3/3/21; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1]
The For The People Act Would Have Required States To Establish Contingency Plans To Allow Voting During A State Of Emergency, Including A Natural Disaster Or Pandemic. According to Congressional Quarterly, the For the People Act would “require states to establish contingency plans to enable voting during an emergency, including a natural disaster or infectious disease.” The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 220-210. The Senate did not take substantive action on the bill. [House Vote 62, 3/3/21; Congressional Quarterly, 3/3/21; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1]
The For The People Act Would Have Permitted Convicted Felons To Participate In Elections After Serving Their Sentences
The For The People Act Would Have Permitted Convicting Felons To Participate In Elections After Serving Their Sentences. According to Congressional Quarterly, the For the People Act would “allow convicted felons to vote after serving their prison sentences.” [Congressional Quarterly, 3/3/21]
2021: Mace Voted Against An Amendment That Would Have Allowed Incarcerated Felons To Vote During Elections. In March 2021, Mace voted against an amendment to the For The People Act which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, “strike language that would allow the denial of voting rights to individuals serving felony sentences in correctional institutions at the time of an election.” The vote was on adoption of an amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 97-328. [House Vote 53, 3/2/21; Congressional Quarterly, 3/2/21; Congressional Actions, H.Amdt. 18; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1]
2022: Mace Voted Against The Freedom To Vote Act. In January 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Mace voted against concurring in the Senate amendment with a House amendment to the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act, which in part would “expand disclosure requirements for large campaign contributions, require candidates and political committees to report foreign contacts to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and prohibit the creation of corporations to conceal foreign election contributions.” The vote was on a motion to concur. The House agreed to the motion by a vote of 220-203, thus the bill was sent to the Senate. The Senate subsequently failed to invoke cloture. [House Vote 9, 1/13/22; Congressional Quarterly, 1/13/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 5746]
The Freedom To Vote Act Would Have Required The Replacement Of Outdated Voting Machines With Machines That Provide Voters Paper Receipts Of Their Ballots. According to NPR, “The measure would also strengthen the Federal Election Commission’s ability to investigate charges of campaign abuses and require that states replace outdated voting machines with ones that, among other things, provide voters with paper records of their ballots.” [NPR, 1/18/22]
2021: Mace Voted Against The For The People Act. In March 2021, Mace voted against the For The People Act. The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 220-210. The Senate did not take substantive action on the bill. [House Vote 62, 3/3/21; Congressional Quarterly, 3/3/21; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1]
The For The People Act Would Have Required Votes To Be Made On Paper Ballots. According to Congressional Quarterly, the For the People Act would “require all votes to be made via paper ballots.” [Congressional Quarterly, 3/3/21]
2022: Mace Voted Against The Freedom To Vote Act. In January 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Mace voted against concurring in the Senate amendment with a House amendment to the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act, which in part would “expand disclosure requirements for large campaign contributions, require candidates and political committees to report foreign contacts to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and prohibit the creation of corporations to conceal foreign election contributions.” The vote was on a motion to concur. The House agreed to the motion by a vote of 220-203, thus the bill was sent to the Senate. The Senate subsequently failed to invoke cloture. [House Vote 9, 1/13/22; Congressional Quarterly, 1/13/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 5746]
The Freedom To Vote Act Would Have Regulated Campaign Finance By Limiting Dark Money By Political Action Committees And Requiring Groups That Spend Over $10,000 To Disclose Their Donors
The Freedom To Vote Act Would Regulate Campaign Finance By Limiting Dark Money By Political Action Committees And Requiring Groups That Spend Over $10,000 To Disclose Their Donors. According to NPR, “It would also impose new rules on how campaigns are paid for by limiting the use of so-called dark money by political action committees. Any group that spends more than $10,000 to influence an election would be required to disclose all donors.” [NPR, 1/18/22]
The Freedom To Vote Act Would Have Required Additional Campaign Finance Disclosures
The Freedom To Vote Act Would Have Required Additional Campaign Finance Disclosures. According to Congressional Quarterly, “The bill also includes provisions that would require more disclosures of political money. It would toughen prohibitions on foreign nationals’ spending on elections, including on ballot initiatives, and would require additional disclosures of the sources of money for groups that spend to influence elections.” [Congressional Quarterly, 1/13/22]
The Freedom To Vote Act Would Have Required Additional Disclosures On Money Sources For Political Groups Spending To Influence Elections
The Freedom To Vote Act Would Have Required Additional Disclosures On Money Sources For Political Groups That Spend To Influence Elections. According to Congressional Quarterly, “The bill also includes provisions that would require more disclosures of political money. It would toughen prohibitions on foreign nationals’ spending on elections, including on ballot initiatives, and would require additional disclosures of the sources of money for groups that spend to influence elections.” [Congressional Quarterly, 1/13/22]
2022: Mace Voted Against The Freedom To Vote Act. In January 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Mace voted against concurring in the Senate amendment with a House amendment to the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act, which in part would “expand disclosure requirements for large campaign contributions, require candidates and political committees to report foreign contacts to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and prohibit the creation of corporations to conceal foreign election contributions.” The vote was on a motion to concur. The House agreed to the motion by a vote of 220-203, thus the bill was sent to the Senate. The Senate subsequently failed to invoke cloture. [House Vote 9, 1/13/22; Congressional Quarterly, 1/13/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 5746]
The Freedom To Vote Act Would Have Fortified The Federal Election Commission’s Authority To Investigate Campaign Abuse Charges
The Freedom To Vote Act Would Have Fortified The Federal Election Commission’s Authority To Investigate Campaign Abuse Charges. According to NPR, “The measure would also strengthen the Federal Election Commission’s ability to investigate charges of campaign abuses and require that states replace outdated voting machines with ones that, among other things, provide voters with paper records of their ballots.” [NPR, 1/18/22]
The Freedom To Vote Act Would Have Strengthened Prohibitions On Foreign Spending In Elections
The Freedom To Vote Act Would Have Strengthened Prohibitions On Foreign Spending On Elections, Including Ballot Initiatives. According to Congressional Quarterly, “The bill also includes provisions that would require more disclosures of political money. It would toughen prohibitions on foreign nationals’ spending on elections, including on ballot initiatives, and would require additional disclosures of the sources of money for groups that spend to influence elections.” [Congressional Quarterly, 1/13/22]
2021: Mace Voted Against The For The People Act. In March 2021, Mace voted against the For The People Act. The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 220-210. The Senate did not take substantive action on the bill. [House Vote 62, 3/3/21; Congressional Quarterly, 3/3/21; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1]
The For The People Act Would Have Required The Department Of Homeland Security To Assess Cyber Threats To Election Systems Before Any Election. According to Congressional Quarterly, the For the People Act would “require the Homeland Security Department to assess cyber threats to the election system prior to any election.” The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 220-210. The Senate did not take substantive action on the bill. [House Vote 62, 3/3/21; Congressional Quarterly, 3/3/21; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1]
2021: Mace Voted For An Amendment That Would Strike A Provision That Would Protect U.S. Democratic Institutions From Activities That Undermine Integrity Such As Cyber Attacks, Disinformation, And Influence Operations. In March 2021, Mace voted for an amendment to For The People Act which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, “strike from the bill a section that would require the creation of a national strategy to protect against cyber attacks, influence operations, disinformation campaigns and other activities that could undermine the security and integrity of U.S. democratic institutions, and that would establish a commission to counter efforts to undermine democratic institutions within the United States.” The vote was on adoption of an amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 207-218. [House Vote 54, 3/2/21; Congressional Quarterly, 3/2/21; Congressional Actions, H.Amdt. 19; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1]
2021: Mace Effectively Voted Against Prohibiting Campaigns From Accepting Opposition Research Donated By Foreign Entities. In March 2021, Mace voted against the manager’s amendment to the For The People Act which would according to Congressional Quarterly, “clarify that the definition of ‘thing of value’ with regard to the statutory prohibition on foreign donations to political campaigns includes provision of opposition research, polling, or other non-public information on a candidate for the purpose of influencing an election.” The vote was on the adoption of the rule. The House adopted the rule by a vote of 218-207, thus automatically adopting the manager’s amendment. [House Vote 51, 3/1/21; Congressional Quarterly, 3/1/21; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 179]
2021: Mace Effectively Voted Against An Amendment That Would Have Prohibited Campaigns From Accepting Opposition Research Donated By Foreign Entities. In March 2021, Mace effectively voted against the manager’s amendment to the For The People Act which would according to Congressional Quarterly, “require mail-in ballots to use the Postal Service barcode service; clarify that the definition of ‘thing of value’ with regard to the statutory prohibition on foreign donations to political campaigns includes provision of opposition research, polling, or other non-public information on a candidate for the purpose of influencing an election; remove provisions in the bill that would provide for the inadmissibility or deportation of undocumented immigrants reasonably believed to have interfered or intend to interfere in U.S. elections; and require the Federal Election Commission to collect information and initiate a rulemaking process to establish a new designation and classification for separate segregated funds, which are a type of PAC financially supported by a corporation or labor organization.” The vote was on a motion to order the previous question. The House agreed to the motion by a vote of 220-201. [House Vote 50, 3/1/21; Congressional Quarterly, 3/1/21; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 179]
2022: Mace Voted Against Appropriating $400 Million To The Election Assistance Commission For FY 2023 For Federal Election Security Grants. In July 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Mace voted against the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2023, which would provide “$400 million for Election Assistance Commission federal election security grants.” The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote 220-207, thus the bill was sent to the Senate. The Senate did not take substantive action on the legislation. Congress passed and signed into law the FY 2023 Budget through H.R. 2617. [House Vote 383, 7/20/22; Congressional Quarterly, 7/20/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 8294]
2022: Mace Voted Against Appropriating $402.1 Billion In FY 2023 Discretionary Funding For Various Agencies. In July 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Mace voted against the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2023, which would “provide roughly $402.1 billion in scored discretionary funding for six of the 12 fiscal 2023 appropriations bills, including $168.5 billion for the Transportation and Housing and Urban Development departments and related agencies; $27.2 billion for the Agriculture Department and related agencies; $56.3 billion for the Energy Department and federal water projects; $29.8 billion for the Treasury Department, federal judiciary and executive agencies; $44.8 billion for the Interior Department, Environmental Protection Agency and related agencies; and $150.5 billion for the Veterans Affairs Department, military construction and related agencies.” The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote 220-207, thus the bill was sent to the Senate. The Senate did not take substantive action on the legislation. Congress passed and signed into law the FY 2023 Budget through H.R. 2617. [House Vote 383, 7/20/22; Congressional Quarterly, 7/20/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 8294]
Mace Disapproved Of D.C.’s November 2022 Ordinance That Would Allow Non-Citizens and Foreign Citizens Who Live In D.C., Including Undocumented Immigrants, To Vote In Local D.C. Elections
2023: Mace Voted To Disapprove D.C.’s November 2022 Ordinance That Would Allow Non-Citizens, Including Undocumented Immigrants, To Vote In Local D.C. Elections Starting In 2024. In February 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly, Mace voted for a resolution that would “establish congressional disapproval of, effectively repealing, the November 2022 District of Columbia Council legislation allowing noncitizens, including undocumented immigrants, to vote in local D.C. elections beginning in 2024.” The vote was on passage. The House passed the resolution by a vote of 260 to 162, thus the resolution was sent to the Senate. [House Vote 118, 2/9/23; Congressional Quarterly, 2/9/23; Congressional Actions, H.J.Res. 24]
2023: Mace Effectively Voted To Disapprove D.C.’s Voting Eligibility Law. In February 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly, Mace voted for the “adoption of the rule (H Res 97) that would provide for consideration of […] a joint resolution (H J Res 24) disapproving the D.C. Council voting eligibility law.” The vote was on the adoption of the rule. The House adopted the rule by a vote of 217 to 208. [House Vote 109, 2/7/23; Congressional Quarterly, 2/7/23; Congressional Actions, H.J. Res. 24; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 97]
2023: Mace Effectively Voted To Disapprove D.C.’s Voting Eligibility Law. In February 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly, Mace voted for the “motion to order the previous question (thus ending debate and possibility of amendment) on the rule (H Res 97) that would provide for consideration of […] a joint resolution (H J Res 24) disapproving the D.C. Council voting eligibility law.” The vote was on a motion to order the previous question. The House agreed to the motion by a vote of 217 to 208. [House Vote 108, 2/7/23; Congressional Quarterly, 2/7/23; Congressional Actions, H.J. Res. 24; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 97]
2021: Mace Voted Against Granting Statehood To The District Of Columbia, Which Would Grant Governmental Representation In Congress, Allow Residents To Participate In Federal Elections, And Repeal The 23rd Amendment Of The Constitution. In April 2021, Mace voted against the Washington, D.C. Admission Act of 2021 which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, “provide for the establishment of most of the current District of Columbia as the 51st state in the Union, to be known as Washington, Douglass Commonwealth. It would require, within 30 days of enactment, an election for two senators and one representative for the state in Congress. It would then require the president to issue a proclamation announcing the election results, at which point the state would be admitted into the Union. The bill would define the territory and boundaries of a revised District of Columbia, which would remain under federal control -- including the White House, Capitol building, Supreme Court, and federal office buildings located adjacent to the National Mall and Capitol. All other territory of the current district would be part of the new state. It would provide that district executive, legislative and judicial officers at the time of admission would serve in the respective offices of the state; the state would be considered the legal successor to the district in continued judicial proceedings; and the federal government would retain control of lands currently held for defense or Coast Guard purposes. It would prohibit federal law enforcement agencies from enforcing state laws without state authorization. It would also allow residents of the new federal district to vote in federal elections by absentee ballot in their last state of residence and provide for the repeal of the 23rd amendment to the Constitution, which granted District of Columbia residents the right to vote in presidential elections.” The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 216-208. The Senate did not take substantive action on the bill. [House Vote 132, 4/22/21; Congressional Quarterly, 4/22/21; Congressional Actions, H.R. 51]
2022: Mace Voted Against The Ensuring A Fair And Accurate Census Act, Which Specified Responsibilities For The Census Bureau Director And Deputy Director, Required The Commerce Department To Submit Census Questions To Congress At Least 2 Years In Advance, And Establish 5-Year Budgets For The Bureau. In September 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Mace voted against the Ensuring a Fair and Accurate Census Act, which would “include a number of provisions related to Census Bureau organization, operations, oversight and budgeting. Among provisions related to bureau organization, it would specify that the bureau director is responsible for all operational, statistical or technical decisions related to the decennial census; create and specify eligibility and duties for a deputy director position to be filled with a career appointee; and specify that all bureau positions are career civil service positions other than the director and up to three other positions. It would statutorily establish four advisory committees on statistical quality standards; emerging census challenges; issues related to inclusion of certain populations, such as race and ethnicity, language and migrant populations; and the 2030 census. Among other provisions, it would require the Commerce Department to submit all questions to be included in each decennial census to Congress at least two years in advance, beginning with the 2030 census, and to publish and submit to Congress biannual reports on operational plans for the next census. It would require the Census Bureau to submit estimated costs of its operations for inclusion in the Commerce Department's annual budget request beginning with fiscal 2027, and to submit to Congress lifecycle cost estimates for the next census every ten years beginning no later than 2026.” The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 220-208. The Senate did not take substantive action on the bill. [House Vote 435, 9/15/22; Congressional Quarterly, 9/15/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 8326]