On Monday, Democratic leader of the House of Representatives, Hakeem Jeffries from New York, rejected a proposal put forward by House Speaker Mike Johnson from Louisiana, deeming the proposal “not serious and unacceptable.”
The proposal would continue providing short-term funding for the government for six months, with the condition of requiring citizens to provide proof of citizenship when registering to vote.
Jeffries’ rejection indicates that legislators will engage in a battle in the coming weeks over government spending to reach a consensus on a short-term government spending bill, preventing a partial shutdown when the new fiscal year starts on October 1, especially before the presidential election vote on November 5.
Johnson’s idea is to postpone the final decision on year-long spending until after the new president and Congress take office next year. It is speculated that this idea arose from pressure from his Republican caucus members, who may believe that Republicans will be in a more favorable position next year to ensure funding and policy priorities they desire.
However, Jeffries argued that the appropriations process should conclude before the end of this year, and short-term measures should reflect that. Jeffries stated that short-term measures should also avoid “partisan policy changes.”
In a letter to House Democratic members released on Monday, Jeffries wrote, “There is no other viable path forward to protect the health, safety, and economic well-being of hardworking American taxpayers.”
Following the traditional recess period, lawmakers will return to Washington this week after spending most of their time in their hometowns and districts. However, they have not made significant progress in passing over a dozen annual appropriations bills to fund various agencies for the next fiscal year, necessitating approval of a stopgap measure, a short-term funding bill.
Johnson proposed including a provision in the short-term funding bill that would require voters to provide proof of citizenship when registering. Despite making the funding work more complicated, the voter registration measure has been welcomed by House Republicans. The House Freedom Caucus, which typically includes the most conservative members of the House, has advocated for including this measure in the spending bill.
Republicans argue that requiring voters to prove their citizenship will ensure that U.S. elections involve only U.S. citizens, boosting people’s confidence in the U.S. federal election system; whereas Democrats believe that former President Donald Trump has been attempting to undermine this confidence for years.
Democrats argue that non-citizens voting in federal elections is already illegal, and requiring proof of citizenship would disenfranchise millions of Americans who do not have the necessary documentation readily available when they have the opportunity to register.
As illegal immigration across the U.S.-Mexico border has increased during President Biden’s administration, complaints from Trump and other Republicans about non-citizen voting have grown louder. They believe that Democrats allowing illegal immigrants into the country is to incorporate them into the voter rolls, but Democrats argue that non-citizen voting in federal elections is extremely rare.
When Johnson entered the Capitol building on Monday afternoon, he called proof of citizenship a “battle for justice.” He stated that even if only a small fraction of individuals who illegally enter the U.S. ultimately register to vote, “they are subverting the electoral system, and that is a serious matter.”
Not only did Senate Democrats come out against Johnson’s proposal, but officials from the Biden administration also opposed the bill. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin exerted pressure and warned that long-lasting continuing resolutions, such as the current resolution the House will vote on this week, would harm the readiness of the military.
Austin wrote in a letter to the chairmen and ranking members of the appropriations committees in both chambers, “These actions not only add unnecessary stress to service members and their families, but also enhance the capability of our adversaries as delaying billions of dollars in funding in a timely manner undermines our readiness and hampers our ability to respond to contingencies.”
(This article is referenced from reports by the Associated Press)