December 4, 2023

To Ensure Election Integrity, Ramaswamy Urges Federal Standards

DES MOINES, IOWA—National requirements, together with requiring an ID to vote and making Election Day a nationwide vacation, are wanted to make sure free and fair elections, says Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy. 

While states usually run elections, the federal authorities has set minimal requirements beneath the Help America Vote Act of 2001, and previous to that, the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, to make sure election integrity. 

“The federal government should set minimal standards. You have historical precedents for that, dating back 20 years. The federal government can set minimal standards,” Ramaswamy informed The Daily Signal Friday after collaborating within the Thanksgiving Family Forum, an occasion internet hosting three Republican presidential contenders and staged by the Iowa-based Family Leader. The Daily Signal was the media sponsor. 

The different GOP presidential contenders on the discussion board have been Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley. Former President Donald Trump didn’t settle for an invite to joint the discussion board. 

“Making an election a national holiday is important, single-day voting on Election Day as a national holiday, with paper ballots and government-issued ID to match the voter file—that’s the standards I want to be done in national elections,” Ramaswamy stated. 

Ramaswamy, who based the pharmaceutical firm Roivant Sciences, additionally staked out positions on abortion, Big Tech, and border safety. 

Although voters in his dwelling state of Ohio authorised a state constitutional amendment for abortion with out restrictions by the ninth month of being pregnant, he stated that’s no motive for pro-lifers to again down. 

He stated if pro-life advocates had provided an alternate modification, Ohio voters would have “flocked to it.”

“We need to offer an alternative of our own. I think that’s part of what was missing,” Ramaswamy stated. “If there was a different amendment that was on the table in my home state of Ohio, people would have gone for it, flocked for it. The reality is that that didn’t exist. That’s why we lost.”

He added that ought to be seen as classes realized for the motion.

“I don’t think the right answer is to compromise on our principles,” he stated. “So, I think, stand for principles, but in a way that unites the country.” 

During the discussion board, Ramaswamy, Haley, and DeSantis all expressed their robust support for shielding life. 

On the unlawful immigration border crisis, Ramaswamy stated the federal authorities ought to take a extra aggressive strategy. 

“Use our military to secure the border,” Ramaswamy stated. “Use aquatic barriers on the southern border. End federal funding for sanctuary cities and end any funding or foreign aid to Central American countries until they’ve dealt with their end of the problem. End birthright citizenship for illegal migrants, for whom the Constitution was never intended to apply.”

Sanctuary cities are jurisdictions that refuse, as a matter of public coverage, to cooperate with federal immigration authorities. 

Birthright citizenship happens when unlawful immigrants enter the United States and have kids, who routinely turn out to be residents beneath present regulation by advantage of being born within the nation. The Supreme Court decided in an 1898 case that the 14th Amendment utilized to anybody born on U.S. soil despite the fact that the language of the modification doesn’t specify this.

Ramaswamy says the best way to carry Big Tech firms accountable for censorship is to amend present federal regulation, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects social media platforms from being held chargeable for the content material customers posts.

“My answer is, Section 230 should be an opt-in statute,” he stated. 

Social media platforms have favored some political and social content material over others, appearing as a writer. Companies that choose in to the legal responsibility protections ought to be prohibited from censoring content material, he stated. 

“If you opt in to it, then you are bound by the same constraints as the government itself, including the First Amendment. If not, there is the free market. You’re free, and you don’t get special liability protection. If you want special liability protection, you are bound by the same standards as the government. That’s the First Amendment.” 

Have an opinion about this text? To pontificate, please e-mail, and we’ll take into account publishing your edited remarks in our common “We Hear You” function. Remember to incorporate the URL or headline of the article plus your title and city and/or state.