Garnering bipartisan support in the Senate for the For the People Act — the prerequisite for Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin's favorable vote — will be a nearly impossible task. And not just because the parties are predisposed to oppose one another's initiatives.
Since its inception, the sweeping election reform legislation commonly known as HR 1 has been clouded in partisanship, and seen by many GOP critics as a Democratic pipe dream. Here are three major conservative arguments against the bill.
HR 1 would federalize elections
While proponents of the bill say it would set minimum standards for voting and election administration, many conservatives are strongly against this so-called "federalization" of elections. They argue the rules for American elections should remain decentralized so state and local officials can follow the best practices for their jurisdictions.
In a March report on HR 1, R Street Institute experts Anthony Marcum and Jonathan Bydlak wrote that decentralized elections also offer a security advantage. "It is challenging to organize an attack that penetrates thousands of jurisdictions, which mostly operate on different systems or procedures," they wrote.
HR 1 would curtail the rights to free speech and association
The campaign finance portion of the bill includes provisions that would impose stronger and broader disclosure requirements on political advocacy nonprofits. Opponents say this would have a "chilling effect" on free speech because it would impinge on the privacy of major donors to political causes.
"The legislation will subject private citizens to intimidation and harassment for their private and political beliefs," a coalition of more than 130 conservatives wrote in a February letter to Congress.
Conservatives aren't the only ones with First Amendment concerns. The left-leaning American Civil Liberties Union also repeatedly criticized certain campaign finance provisions included in HR 1. The organization has sent letters to Congress in 2019 and this year ahead of key votes on the legislation.
In its most recent letter, the ACLU wrote: "We continue to have significant constitutional concerns with the bill, particularly the ways it would restrict nonprofit organizations' advocacy about issues of national importance, such as immigration, racist police violence, voting rights, and reproductive freedom when that advocacy merely mentions candidates for federal office."
HR 1 would weaken election security and integrity
Conservatives have raised the alarm over certain provisions in the legislation that they say would loosen voting rules and create incentives for fraud. For instance, HR 1 would permit voters to "designate any person" to return a completed and sealed absentee ballot to an official drop off location. Critics warn this could lead to so-called "ballot harvesting" in which partisan operatives could go door to door and solicit votes.
Another concern is that expansions like same-day voter registration would be difficult to implement and maintain in rural areas with unreliable internet access. "A person could show up at a poll, sign a registration form and cast a vote without any checks to ensure the person was actually eligible to vote," Henry Olsen, a conservative columnist for The Washington Post, wrote in March.
U.S. President Donald Trump boards Air Force One on August 14, 2026 at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland. Trump is traveling to Long Island to tour law enforcement facilities in Nassau County and rally support for local Republican candidates ahead of the upcoming midterm elections
Travel Far Enough, You Meet Yourself
Is it possible that our President has simply not traveled enough?
Born and raised in Queens and attending Fordham University in the Bronx, Donald Trump has no record of traveling outside New York until he was over 20, when he transferred to a college in the neighboring state of Pennsylvania. Were his formative years amiss, then, in his learning about other places and other people?
Is his view akin to the famous New Yorker cover by Saul Steinberg, an illustration of the United States with New York City as the epicenter of the country and the Hudson River the border of the known world? We can now at least add Washington, D.C., and Mar-a-Lago to the map of “the realm.”
Our President has now traveled some, but what we recommend is another kind of travel. Not a state-sponsored trip or a venture to scout locations for future Trump Towers. This would be a genuine travel experience, enriching and eye-opening, showcasing other cultures and ways of living.
It will extend far beyond viewing military parades, hobnobbing with such “understanding” world leaders as Kim Jong Un, or taking tea with the King.
WHERE, then, should the President go? As Elon Musk’s Starship spacecraft is not yet ready to take passengers to Mars, perhaps he could explore our own vast country?
Maybe he could travel to “flyover country,” the farming states, where his ying-yanging tariffs and trade restrictions have played havoc with rural economies. Or possibly to California, number one in homeless U. S. citizens, and while there, regale homeless veterans (approximately 32,500 nationwide) with tales of his brave exploits invading and bombing foreign countries.
Or he might tour the Great Lakes, and rename the other four?
WHEN should he go? This will be tough, as he is very busy building his ballroom and renaming bodies of water.
How about a trip in early November, around the midterm elections? Despite the long-discredited accusation of widespread voter fraud, it would be reassuring to know he might be so caught up divvying out ladles of soup in a soup kitchen somewhere that he wouldn’t remember to deploy the military for “election security.”
HOW will he travel? He should definitely not take his Qatari-donated, newly renovated 747, especially after last time, when he had to be smuggled off clandestinely in a catering truck. It’s unlikely any traveling companions, like the Secretary of State or of the Treasury, are going to fall for the ruse a second time. Besides, we may need those people. No more decoys!
Perhaps the President could fly commercially, although this likely would expose him to undue suffering. Without gold bathroom fixtures and maple wood floors, the trip will be no “Luxury Experience.” If only he still had his “Trump Shuttle,” bought with a massive loan he later defaulted on, saying then, “I’m smart. I got out at a good time.”
Considering the potential pitfalls, maybe it’s best the President travel incognito, disguised perhaps as an elderly woman wearing a lot of bronzer.
Wherever, whenever, however: our President needs a vacation.
Moreover, we need a vacation from him.
If the President refuses our travel suggestions, here’s another idea:
Let’s get him a pet! He has never owned a pet. As we know with our children, pets teach essential life lessons: compassion and empathy; they instill a sense of responsibility. There is a well-established connection between those who can care for a pet and those who can care for people.
So, which pet should we choose? A puppy? A kitten? A boa constrictor?
Imagine, the President may even decide he likes having a pet. After all, what is more obedient than a well-trained dog, besides possibly the Cabinet? And what is more docile than a sweet kitten, other than plausibly the Supreme Court?
The President may even become more mellow with a pet afoot and less likely to slap tariffs on our allies, or attempt to annex our neighbors, or bully our Congress. (Realizing, of course, a bully requires active participation from the bullied to maintain his status.)
Maybe we should do both: get the President a pet and devise a travel plan for him. (Do you think we could possibly convince him to leave his phone at home?)
Let’s go for it! After all:
Travel far enough, you meet yourself. (David Mitchell)
And for our President, that would likely be the most profound discovery of all.
Amy Lockard is an Iowa resident who regularly contributes to regional newspapers and periodicals. She is working on the second of a four-book fictional series based on Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice."