News Home

January 6^th was a day of significance not only for the United States, but also for the entire world. Throughout the day, my focus was on my oath to the Constitution and preserving the promise of the United States. When I made my decision to object, I did so out of an abiding respect for the Constitution – the founding document that has been cemented in this great Republic for more than 230 years. If there are clear violations to the Constitution, they must be examined, assessed, and a verdict must be rendered. Anything less is an abdication of the duties I swore an oath to uphold. Of course, this was a monumental decision, and one that carries the appropriate justifications for an objection.

In the case of Pennsylvania, I could not vote in good conscience to certify electors from the state given the blatant contravention of state law that occurred. In Pennsylvania, following a lawsuit that was spearheaded by a Democrat national elections lawyer, the Democrat Secretary of State asked the state supreme court to approve a measure that would allow the use of ballot-return drop boxes that were anonymous, prolonging the ballot-receipt deadline, and striking the election-day postmark requirement. Specifically, these actions give rise to violations of Article II, Section I of the Constitution, and they open the floodgates to more allegations of voter fraud. Simply put: these violations carry the merits for an objection, and they pose a direct threat to the Constitution. I take that threat very seriously, and it’s one that cannot go unheeded.

In the case of Arizona, I could not vote in good conscience to de-certify the electors from the state. While the allegations of irregularities in Arizona’s presidential election are of grave concern, I do not believe they represent a violation of Article II, Section I of the Constitution. The changes to Arizona state law in dispute was a direct result to judicial review under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. I disagree with the decisions of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; however, it is not the role of Congress to reject certification of a state’s electors when the subject in dispute—Arizona state law—was a direct result of federal judicial review.

Other states have been subjected to irregularities and allegations of voter fraud and that is of grave concern to me. But the process enforced yesterday left no room for objections on those grounds as they solely fall within the jurisdiction of state governments. State governments must do more, and we should all be pursuing greater transparency in free and fair elections as well. To be clear, I believe that all citizens should stand up for transparency in our elections. In court rooms. State legislatures. Town halls. I first sought to solve these issues in federal court when I joined my colleagues in signing the Amicus Brief to delay the certification of states that had their legislative powers usurped by fringe operators at the state level. We need to continue to fight within all the appropriate mediums to ensure that the integrity of our elections process is not subjected to further discord.

Let me be clear, the process that was before Congress did not carry the objective of subverting the principles of federalism. Subjectivity and conjecture had no place in this process. That’s why we should only be engaging in this process when there are clear violations to the Constitution. If the American people are to have confidence in elections now and in the future, the Constitution must not be forsaken. Without question, I am committed to restoring the confidence of the American people and upholding the Constitutional principles that guide this great Republic. That is my solemn duty every single day. I take my oath to protect and defend the Constitution very seriously and sitting idly by while it’s trampled over is simply unacceptable.