Congressional Record/Volume 167/Issue 4/Senate/Counting of Electoral Ballots/Arizona Objection Debate/Casey Speech

Congressional Record, Volume 167, Number 4
Congress
Speech in opposition to the Objection against the counting of Arizona’s electoral votes by Robert Patrick Casey
3640121Congressional Record, Volume 167, Number 4 — Speech in opposition to the Objection against the counting of Arizona’s electoral votesRobert Patrick Casey

Mr. Casey. Mr. President, I rise tonight to defend the people of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania—to defend the more than 6.9 million voters who voted in this election—and to condemn, in the strongest possible terms, this attempt to disenfranchise the voters of Pennsylvania based upon a lie, a falsehood. That same lie sowed the seeds of today’s violence and today’s lawlessness here in the Capitol.

One of my constituents, Susan, from Lehigh Valley—the community of our State where Senator Toomey lives—recently wrote to my office and, perhaps, said it best:

We cannot allow ANYBODY to overturn the legal votes of the citizens of Pennsylvania. This would be the ultimate destruction of our democracy.

Susan had it right. We cannot allow “ANYBODY”—and she put that word in all caps—to overturn the legal votes of the people of our State.

Let me address the allegation regarding the Pennsylvania Constitution and the general assembly and somehow that the general assembly didn’t have the authority to enact “no excuse mail-in voting”—that process—for the people of our State.

First, the law in question, Act 77, was passed in 2019 and was implemented without any serious question as to its constitutionality. The law was passed by a Republican-controlled general assembly, house and senate. It was only after the 2020 election, when it became clear that President-Elect Joe Biden won Pennsylvania by a little more than 80,000 votes, that some Republican politicians in our State decided to challenge the constitutionality of the law.

Second, Act 77 is plainly constitutional. My colleagues allege that the State constitution requires in-person voting except under limited circumstances. This is not true. While Pennsylvania lays out specific situations in which absentee voting is required, there is no in-person requirement in our State constitution. The constitution sets a floor, not a ceiling, for this type of voting.

Third, apart from the argument made by my colleague, there is bipartisan agreement across our State—at the local, State, and Federal levels—that our election was fair, secure, and lawful. On Monday, my colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Toomey, wrote in an op-ed: “The evidence is overwhelming that Joe Biden won this election.”

There is simply no evidence to justify the outrageous claims of widespread voter fraud or election irregularities that have been suggested by those seeking to overturn the election. There have been 60 cases in court after court, all throughout our State and throughout the country, including in the Supreme Court, that have dealt with this bizarre argument that we know is based upon that lie.

In one court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Judge Bibas, appointed by President Trump, wrote:

The campaign’s claims have no merit. The United States has free and fair elections, which are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.

So said Judge Bibas.

Finally, a word about those election officials who did such work. These election officials all across our State—Republicans and Democrats from red counties and blue counties—did their jobs. They are patriots, and these objections are an attack on these Pennsylvania public servants. I will give you one example from Republican Commissioner Al Schmidt, of Philadelphia.

He wrote:

There really should not be a disagreement, regardless of party affiliation, when we’re talking about counting votes … by eligible voters. It is not a very controversial thing or, at least, it shouldn’t be.

After election day, Commissioner Al Schmidt, his family, and his colleagues were subjected to death threats simply because he was trying to do his job with integrity. It calls to mind that great line from “America the Beautiful”: “O beautiful for patriot dream, That sees beyond the years.”

These election officials, like so many of our patriots—and we heard from Senator Duckworth tonight, a real patriot—did their jobs. Let’s support these patriots. Vote against this objection.

I yield the floor.