Jeff Sessions on Government Reform Republican Jr Senator (AL)

1986: Voting Rights Act of 1965 is "intrusive legislation"

The South has changed; no longer any need to monitor voting

Democrats and civil-rights groups charge that Republican-run state governments across the South responded with a spate of laws making it harder to vote. As a senator Sessions has opposed calls for Congress to step in and restore federal powers over voting laws, saying in 2014: "To pass a law in the U.S. Congress that provides penalties only to some states and not to others can only be justified for the most extraordinary circumstances. And the justification no longer exists."

Committed to principled, non-activist judges

Supreme Court exceeds its authority and needs reining in

ALITO: I agree that overreaching by the courts can undermine respect for law. Nobody elects us. Our job is to interpret the Constitution, it has a meaning, and you apply it to the situations that come up.

SESSIONS: I feel that the court on some very important issues is exceeding its authority. People are calling on me and those of us in Congress to do something about it.

ALITO: I think your policy views are much more legitimate than the policy views of the judiciary because members of Congress are elected for the purpose of formulating and implementing public policy and members of the judiciary are appointed for the purpose of interpreting and applying the law.

Voted NO on Congressional pay raise.

Makes appropriations to the Senate for FY2010 for:
1. expense allowances;
2. representation allowances for the Majority and Minority Leaders;
3. salaries of specified officers, employees, and committees (including the Committee on Appropriations);
4. agency contributions for employee benefits;
5. inquiries and investigations;
6. the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control;
7. the Offices of the Secretary and of the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate;
8. miscellaneous items;
9. the Senators' Official Personnel and Office Expense Account; and
10. official mail costs.

Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Rep. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (D, FL-20): We, as Members of Congress, have responsibility not just for the institution, but for the staff that work for this institution, and to preserve the facilities that help support this institution. We have endeavored to do that responsibly, and I believe we have accomplished that goal.

Opponent's argument to vote No:Rep. SCALISE (R, LA-1): It's a sad day when someone attempts to cut spending in a bill that grows government by the size of 7%, and it's not allowed to be debated on this House floor. Some of their Members actually used the term "nonsense" and "foolishness" when describing our amendments to cut spending; they call that a delaying tactic. Well, I think Americans all across this country want more of those types of delaying tactics to slow down this runaway train of massive Federal spending. Every dollar we spend from today all the way through the end of this year is borrowed money. We don't have that money. We need to control what we're spending.

Voted NO on providing a US House seat for the District of Columbia.

• The District of Columbia shall be considered a Congressional district for purposes of representation in the House of Representatives.
• DC shall not be considered a State for purposes of representation in the US Senate.
• Reapportionment [census-based House seats] shall apply with respect to DC in the same manner as it applies to a State, except that DC may not receive more than one Member.
• Effective with the 112th Congress, the House of Representatives shall be composed of 437 Members, including the Member representing DC.
• The State of Utah is entitled to one additional Representative pursuant to this reapportionment.

Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Sen. ORRIN HATCH (R-UT): I am cosponsoring the legislation to provide a House seat for DC and an additional House seat for Utah. Representation and suffrage are so central to the American system of self-government that America's founders warned that limiting suffrage would risk another revolution and could prevent ratification of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held in 1820 that Congress' legislative authority over DC allows taxation of DC. Do opponents of giving DC a House seat believe that DC is suitable for taxation but not for representation?

Opponent's argument to vote No:Sen. JOHN McCAIN (R-AZ): I make a constitutional point of order against this bill on the grounds that it violates article I, section 2, of the Constitution. I appreciate the frustration felt by the residents of DC at the absence of a vote in Congress. According to many experts, DC is not a State, so therefore is not entitled to that representation. Also, one has to raise the obvious question: If DC is entitled to a Representative, why isn't Puerto Rico, which would probably entail 9 or 10 Members of Congress? [With regards to the seat for Utah], this is obviously partisan horse-trading.

Voted NO on granting the District of Columbia a seat in Congress.

• Considers D.C. a congressional district for purposes of representation in the House.
• D.C. shall not be considered a state for representation in the Senate.
• Limits D.C. to one Member under any reapportionment.
• Increases membership of the House from 435 to 437.
• Entitles Utah to one additional Representative until the next census, and modifies the reapportionment formula thereafter.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

Sen. BYRD: In 1978, I voted for H.J. Res. 554, that proposed amending the Constitution to provide for representation of D.C. [That amendment passed the Senate but was not ratified by the States]. While I recognize that others believe that the Constitution authorizes the Congress to "exercise exclusive legislation" over D.C., the historical intent of the Founders on this point is unclear. I oppose S.1257, because I doubt that our Nation's Founding Fathers ever intended that the Congress should be able to change the text of the Constitution by passing a simple bill.

Proponents support voting YES because:

Sen. HATCH. There are conservative and liberal advocates on both sides of this issue,and think most people know Utah was not treated fairly after the last census. For those who are so sure this is unconstitutional, [we include an] expedited provision that will get us to the Supreme Court to make an appropriate decision. It will never pass as a constitutional amendment. There are 600,000 people in D.C., never contemplated by the Founders of this country to be without the right to vote. They are the only people in this country who do not have a right to vote for their own representative in the House. This bill would remedy that situation.

Voted YES on requiring photo ID to vote in federal elections.

Proponents support voting YES because:

Sen. DOLE. I am proposing a commonsense measure to uphold the integrity of Federal elections. My amendment to require voters to show photo identification at the polls would go a long way in minimizing potential for voter fraud. When a fraudulent vote is cast and counted, the vote of a legitimate voter is cancelled. This is wrong, and my amendment would help ensure that one of the hallmarks of our democracy, our free and fair elections, is protected. Opinion polls repeatedly confirm that Americans overwhelmingly support this initiative.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

Sen. FEINSTEIN. If one would want to suppress the vote in the 2008 election, one would vote for this because this measure goes into effect January 1, 2008. It provides that everybody who votes essentially would have to have a photo ID. If you want to suppress the minority vote, the elderly vote, the poor vote, this is exactly the way to do it. Many of these people do not have driver's licenses. This amendment would cost hundreds of millions of dollars to actually carry out. It goes into effect--surprise--January 1, 2008 [to affect the presidential election]. I urge a "no" vote.

Voted NO on allowing some lobbyist gifts to Congress.

Proponents of the amendment say to vote NAY on the tabling motion because:
• Using the term "registered lobbyist'' will create a huge loophole. The Ethics Committee treats the actual listed lobbyists as registered lobbyists, but not the organization.
• So, for example, a company can give a Senator free tickets to a show or a baseball game, as long as a lobbyist doesn't actually offer or handle them. If the lobbyist's secretary makes the call, that would be permitted.
• If these companies can still give gifts, we won't have a real lobbyist gift ban. We won't be able to look the American people in the eye and say, "We just banned gifts from lobbyists,'' because we didn't.

Opponents of the amendment say to vote YEA on the tabling motion because:
• I can tolerate not accepting gifts from lobbyists. But this amendment goes a step further which is problematic.

  For example, I am a big fan of McDonald's. What about the kids working behind the counter? Would they be considered registered lobbyists because McDonald's has lobbyists? Would I not be able to go to lunch with my longtime friend who owns 12 McDonald's?

• Every company in the Fortune 1000 employs a lobbyist, either a private firm or an in-house lobbyist. Under this amendment, every person who works for Exxon, Wal-Mart, Home Depot, and countless other businesses that employ lobbyists in Washington would be considered registered lobbyists.
• If we want to ban the CEO and chairman of the board of the company from paying for a meal, or the head of a labor union, do that specifically. But this is so broadly developed I think it goes way beyond that.

Voted NO on establishing the Senate Office of Public Integrity.

Proponents of the bill say to vote YEA because:
• We have heard from the media about the bribes and scandals, but we have heard only silence from the House Ethics Committee. One of the greatest travesties of these scandals is not what Congress did, but what it didn't do.
• The American people perceive the entire ethics system--House and Senate--to be broken. We can pass all the ethics reforms we want--gift bans, travel bans, lobbying restrictions--but none of them will make a difference if there isn't a nonpartisan, independent body that will help us enforce those laws.
• The Office of Public Integrity established in this amendment would provide a voice that cannot be silenced by political pressures. It would have the power to initiate independent investigations and bring its findings to the Ethics Committees in a transparent manner.

Opponents of the bill say to vote NAY because:
• The Constitution gave us not only the right but the duty to create our own rules, including the rules concerning our ethics. They are enforced internally by the Senate itself.
• The decisions made under this amendment would be no different than right now. The final decision will be made by the Senate Ethics Committee. All this really does is find a way to further publicize that complaints have been made.
• We have people accusing us almost daily of having done something wrong and publishing it through blogs and all that. I think we should be very careful in setting up another tool for these bloggers to create more charges against the Senate.
• I cannot support an amendment that either replaces the Senate Ethics Committee or adds another layer to our already expensive and time-consuming process. I urge the Senate to defeat this provision.

Voted NO on banning "soft money" contributions and restricting issue ads.

Voted YES on require photo ID (not just signature) for voter registration.

Voted NO on banning campaign donations from unions & corporations.

Voted NO on funding for National Endowment for the Arts.

Voted NO on favoring 1997 McCain-Feingold overhaul of campaign finance.

Ensure delivery of absentee ballots for troops overseas.

A bill to improve procedures for the collection and delivery of absentee ballots of absent overseas uniformed services voters. Congress makes the following findings:

1. In the defense of freedom, members of the United States Armed Forces are routinely deployed to overseas locations.
2. We live in what senior Army leaders have referred to as an 'era of persistent conflict'.
3. The right to vote is one of the most basic and fundamental rights enjoyed by Americans, and one which the members of the Armed Forces bravely defend.
4. The ability of the members of the Armed Forces to vote while serving overseas has been hampered by numerous factors, including inadequate processes for ensuring their timely receipt of absentee ballots, delivery methods that are typically slow and antiquated, and a myriad of absentee voting procedures that are often confusing.
5. The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, which requires the States to allow absentee voting for members of the Armed Forces and other specified groups of United States citizens, was intended to protect the voting rights of members of the Armed Forces.
6. 992,034 absentee ballots were requested in the 2006 general election. However, less than one-third of such ballots were ultimately received by local election officials, evidencing an unacceptable failure of the current absentee ballot system.
7. Modern technology continues to rapidly advance, greatly expanding the range of potential solutions to these problems and increasing the ability to remove obstacles encountered by overseas members of the Armed Forces in the past in trying to cast their votes; [specifically]:

• Collection- establish procedures for collecting absentee ballots
• Ensuring Delivery Prior to Closing of Polls- ensure that any absentee ballot which is collected prior to the applicable deadline is delivered prior to the time established by the State for the closing of the polls on the date of the election.

Ban paid voter registration.

A bill to amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to establish standards for the distribution of voter registration application forms and to require organizations to register with the State prior to the distribution of such forms.

Prohibits any individual from distributing, for compensation, a voter registration application form for federal elections in a state if the individual:
1. has been convicted of a felony under any state or federal law;
2. does not sign and print legibly the individual's name on the form;
3. does not provide identifying information to the proper election official; or
4. does not certify, under penalty of perjury, that he or she has not received financial compensation based on the number of voter registration application forms submitted by the individual to an election official upon completion by the applicant, and that the information provided by the individual is accurate to the best of the individual's knowledge.

Establishes criminal penalties for: (1) individuals not meeting such standards; and (2) anyone who employs such an individual knowingly, or who should reasonably be expected to know the individual is ineligible.

Click here for definitions & background information on Government Reform. Click here for a Wikipedia profile of Jeff Sessions. Click here for a Ballotpedia profile of Jeff Sessions. Click here for SenateMatch quiz answers by Jeff Sessions. Click here for a summary of Jeff Sessions's positions on all issues. Click here for issue positions of other AL politicians. Click here for issue statements from AL primary archives. Click here for issue statements from AL secondary archives.
Other candidates on Government Reform:		Jeff Sessions on other issues:
AL Gubernatorial: Chris Countryman David Carrington Kay Ivey Parker Griffith Robert Bentley Stacy Lee George Tommy Battle Walt Maddox AL Senatorial: Arnold Mooney Bradley Byrne Doug Jones John Merrill John Rogers Luther Strange Marcus Bowman Richard Shelby Ron Crumpton Roy Moore Tommy Tuberville AL politicians AL Archives	Senate races 2019-20: AK: Sullivan(R,incumbent) vs.Gross(I) vs.Blatchford(D) AL: Jones(D,incumbent) vs.Tuberville(R) vs.Sessions(R) vs.Moore(R) vs.Rogers(D) vs.Merrill(R) AR: Cotton(R,incumbent) vs.Harrington(L) vs.Whitfield(I) vs.Mahony(D) AZ: McSally(R,incumbent) vs.Kelly(D) CO: Gardner(R,incumbent) vs.Hickenlooper(D) vs.Madden(D) vs.Baer(D) vs.Walsh(D) vs.Johnston(D) vs.Romanoff(D) vs.Burnes(D) vs.Williams(D) DE: Coons(D,incumbent) vs.Scarane(D) vs.Witzke(R) vs.DeMartino(R) GA-2: Isakson(R,resigned) Loeffler(R,appointed) vs.Warnock(D) vs.Collins(R) vs.Tarver(D) vs.Carter(D) vs.Lieberman(D) vs.Grayson(R) vs.Stovall(I) vs.Buckley(L) GA-6: Perdue(R,incumbent) vs.Ossoff(D) vs.Hazel(L) vs.Tomlinson(D) vs.Terry(D) IA: Ernst(R,incumbent) vs.Greenfield(D) vs.Graham(D) vs.Mauro(D) vs.Franken(D) ID: Risch(R,incumbent) vs.Jordan(D) vs.Harris(D) IL: Durbin(D,incumbent) vs.Curran(R) vs.Stava-Murray(D) KS: Roberts(R,retiring) vs.Marshall(R) vs.Bollier(D) vs.LaTurner(R) vs.Wagle(R) vs.Kobach(R) vs.Lindstrom(R) vs.Grissom(D) KY: McConnell(R,incumbent) vs.McGrath(D) vs.Morgan(R) vs.Cox(D) vs.Tobin(D) vs.Booker(D) LA: Cassidy(R,incumbent) vs.Perkins(D) vs.Pierce(D)	MA: Markey(D,incumbent) vs.O`Connor(R) vs.Ayyadurai(R) vs.Kennedy(D) vs.Liss-Riordan(D) ME: Collins(R,incumbent) vs.Gideon(D) vs.Sweet(D) vs.Rice(D) MI: Peters(D,incumbent) vs.James(R) vs.Squier(G) MN: Smith(D,incumbent) vs.Lewis(R) vs.Overby(G) vs.Carlson(D) MS: Hyde-Smith(R,incumbent) vs.Espy(D) vs.Bohren(D) MT: Daines(R,incumbent) vs.Bullock(D) vs.Collins(D) vs.Driscoll(R) vs.Mues(D) vs.Geise(L) NC: Tillis(R,incumbent) vs.Cunningham(D) vs.E.Smith(D) vs.S.Smith(R) vs.Tucker(R) vs.Mansfield(D) NE: Sasse(R,incumbent) vs.Janicek(R) NH: Shaheen(D,incumbent) vs.Messner(R) vs.Martin(D) vs.Bolduc(R) vs.O'Brien(R) NJ: Booker(D,incumbent) vs.Mehta(R) vs.Singh(R) vs.Meissner(R) NM: Udall(D,retiring) vs.Lujan(D) vs.Ronchetti(R) vs.Walsh(L) vs.Clarkson(R) vs.Oliver(D) vs.Rich(R) OK: Inhofe(R,incumbent) vs.Broyles(D) vs.Workman(D) OR: Merkley(D,incumbent) vs.Perkins(R) vs.Romero(R) RI: Reed(D,incumbent) vs.Waters(R) SC: Graham(R,incumbent) vs.Harrison(D) vs.Tinubu(D) SD: Rounds(R,incumbent) vs.Ahlers(D) vs.Borglum(R) TN: Alexander(R,retiring) vs.Hagerty(R) vs.Bradshaw(D) vs.Sethi(R) vs.Mackler(D) vs.Crim(R) TX: Cornyn(R,incumbent) vs.Hegar(D) vs.Hernandez(D) vs.Bell(D) vs.Ramirez(D) vs.West(D) VA: Warner(D,incumbent) vs.Taylor(R) vs.Gade(R) WV: Capito(R,incumbent) vs.Swearengin(D) vs.Ojeda(D) WY: Enzi(R,retiring) vs.Lummis(R) vs.Ben-David(D) vs.Ludwig(D)	Abortion Budget/Economy Civil Rights Corporations Crime Drugs Education Energy/Oil Environment Families Foreign Policy Free Trade Govt. Reform Gun Control Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Jobs Principles Social Security Tax Reform Technology War/Peace Welfare Other Senators Senate Votes (analysis) Bill Sponsorships Affiliations Policy Reports Group Ratings
Contact info: Email Contact Form Fax Number: 202-224-3149 Mailing Address: Senate Office SR-326, Washington, DC 20510