Sean Casten, US House 6th District 2022 Primary Election Questionnaire

US House of Representatives 6th Congressional District candidate Sean Casten answered Shaw Local’s election questionnaire for the US House primary election.

Voting ends for the primary election on the evening of June 28.

Full Name: Sean Casten

What office are you seeking? Congress (IL-06)

What offices, if any, have you previously held? I’ve served in Congress since 2019, representing IL-06.

City: Downers Grove

Occupation: I serve in Congress.

Education: B.A. in Molecular Biology and Biochemistry from Middlebury College

Master in Engineering Management from Dartmouth College

Master in Biochemical Engineering from Dartmouth College

Campaign Website: www.castenforcongress.com

What is your position re-establishing the Child Tax Credit at $3,500 per child as set in the American Rescue Plan?

The Child Tax Credit is one of the most impactful things we have done as members of Congress. For an awful lot of families who are trying to choose between rent, diapers, and prescription medicine, the extra $300 a month will help ensure no parent has to make that painful choice. It is transformative. This pandemic has forced millions of parents to choose between taking care of their children or paying the bills--and with women’s labor market participation currently where it was in 1989, the child tax credit helps ensure we don’t lose 30 years of progress.

One constituent recently told me, “These monthly payments have allowed me to find a new job while keeping a roof over my family’s heads by making small payments towards my rent which is several months behind.” These are the stories that I keep hearing regarding the Child Tax Credit.

And let’s not forget the overall impact; the Child Tax Credit can help over 2.5 million Illinois children, lifting $153,000 children out of poverty across our state. The families of nearly 70% of children in the 6th District are eligible, and 37,150 households will receive an average benefit of $2,600.

I support re-establishing the Child Tax Credit at $3,500 per child as set in the American Rescue Plan, and I’m sure we have the votes in the House to do so. I wish I could say the same about the Senate.

Do you believe that corporations pay enough in taxes?

No, but I also think that our tax code was written for a pre-globalization era and needs more dramatic overhaul than just raising US corporate tax rates. When most US corporations sold most of their product in the US, there was a mutual interest in the US government supporting those corporations and those corporations paying to ensure that the government had the resources to provide the infrastructure, workforce and legal system on which their businesses depended. In our globalized era, multinational corporations not only depend on global markets, but can “shop” for the lowest cost tax jurisdiction in which to declare their taxable profits. This has created a global race to the bottom that provides short term gains to corporations in the near term, but hurts everyone in the long term.

To that end, one of the most important and under-appreciated features of the Build Back Better Act, was the imposition of a 15 percent minimum tax on corporate book income for corporations with profits over $1 billion, effective for tax years beginning after December 31, 2022. This, coupled with Secretary Yellen’s efforts to develop international tax harmonization and global minimum tax rates is an overdue and necessary first step towards bringing US tax policy into the modern globalized age.

Would you support increases or decreases in the amount of taxes corporations pay? Why?

I support increases as noted above, but the key metric to track is the effective tax rate, and it needs to address loopholes and tax avoidance schemes that are affected by international policies. At least 55 of the largest corporations in America paid no federal corporate income taxes in their most recent fiscal year (2021) despite enjoying substantial pretax profits in the United States, and despite facing non-zero nominal tax rates.

Do the rich, defined as the wealthiest 1%, pay enough in taxes?

No, they do not. Warren Buffet has famously said he pays lower tax rates than his secretary—that is not right, and our tax code should be amended to ensure the wealthiest 1% pay their fair share. But, this problem is equally rooted in our tax code as it is in the enforcement of our tax laws.

Charles Rettig, the IRS Commissioner appointed by President Trump, has said that the IRS undercollect roughly $1 trillion taxes per year. The IRS has been outgunned by tax avoidance schemes. And, the IRS often turns a blind eye to high-income earners’ tax avoidance due to the lack of resources to fully pursue these individuals.

All of that is to say that no, the wealthiest 1% do not pay enough in taxes. But, the best first step to take is to provide the IRS with the resources necessary to allow them to fully collect the taxes that are owed.

Would you support changes in the tax code that would increase or decrease their tax burden? Why?

Yes, starting with fully funding the IRS to ensure that they have the resources to prosecute tax avoidance. The IRS has testified to Congress that the annual gap between taxes due and taxes paid is $1 trillion per year. The failure to provide the IRS with the resources they need to do their job means that most tax dodging goes unaudited, and when the IRS does do their audits they prioritize the simplest cases - e.g., they preferentially audit the lowest income filers. We should absolutely raise top marginal tax rates, but we also should ensure our current tax laws are enforced.

Do you support raising taxes on capital gains and dividends? Why?

Our tax code has long provided a lower tax rate for returns on investments as opposed to salary income in order to provide a relative incentive for reinvestments into our economy. This is appropriate and I think we should maintain a lower tax rate on capital gains and dividends than ordinary income.

However, it is hard to make the policy argument that this incentive should apply to investments in off-shore activities, and increasingly hard to justify the inequities created by a system wherein the very wealthy earn virtually all of their annual income from investment activity; a CEO should not have a tax incentive to take their compensation in stock options rather than W-2 income.

So yes, we should raise capital gains and dividend taxes but need to make those increases in coordination with our income tax structure so as to maintain the incentives to reinvest in the US economy while eliminating existing loopholes.

The COVID-19 pandemic saw a breakdown in this country’s supply chain. What would you propose to fix it?

Our economy has never before shifted so rapidly from services to consumer goods and back again as it did during the COVID-19 pandemic. That placed demand surges on manufacturing capacity, inventory balances, and shipping infrastructure that was outside of any public or private sector experience / planning horizon. It was also global, and not wholly, or even mostly due to US policy.

I was proud to work to pass the COMPETES ACT through the House, which makes historic investments to surge production of American-made semiconductors, tackles supply chain vulnerabilities to make more goods in America, bolsters America’s scientific research and technological leadership, and strengthens America’s economic and national security at home and abroad.

We also need to acknowledge that we need to make it easier for Americans to re-enter the workforce (especially women, who are too often held back by the absence of affordable, quality childcare), and are long-overdue to make reforms in our immigration policy to ensure that the best and the brightest from around the world are able to come to the United States and help grow our economy in response to these changes.

How would you bring back manufacturing jobs?

For my entire adult life, it has been an economic axiom that as long as consumer prices are falling, everything else is good. We have allowed factories to relocate to low-wage countries as long as they provide Americans with cheaper TVs, clothes and call centers. This has contributed to the hollowing out of our economy, since the manufacturing sector is the only sector that creates quality, good paying jobs across all skill levels.

The good news is that both the public and private sector are working to fix this. The COMPETES Act and Infrastructure and Jobs Act will begin to restore our manufacturing base. Businesses are now planning their operations to accommodate greater demand volatility, which will put more spare capacity in the system. The surge in job creation over the last 2 years is the beginning of this structural realignment.

That said, we have to confront the fact that our economy is already creating jobs faster than it is creating workers. This has helped push wages up, but is unsustainable in the long term. We have to continue to restore US manufacturing, but need to couple that with (a) the provision of affordable, universal childcare to ensure that women (and stay at home dads) have the option to participate in the workforce, (b) investments in vocational training and retraining to prepare today’s workforce for tomorrow’s economy and, perhaps most importantly, (c) reform our immigration system to make sure that we attract the workers we need to meet this labor demand.

What plans do you have to help the lower and middle class?

The economic interventions we implemented in our economy through the CARES Act and American Jobs Plan (AJP) were informed by our history, and by the 2008 recovery which disportionately relied on monetary rather than fiscal policy. Our actions to use fiscal policy to provide money directly to the neediest in our society (whether through Economic Impact Payments, expanded Child Tax Credits, or the PPP program that sent money to businesses but required them to spend the preponderance of that money on payroll expense) worked. We also intentionally crafted the AJP to provide significant amounts of money directly to the states who have responsibility for so many of the social services - education, police, trash collection, Medicaid, etc. - on which the poorest among us depend.

The rise in incomes in the bottom quartile and economic stimulus proved what we already knew; namely, that providing people with economic security so that they don’t have to choose between food, rent, childcare and education is the only rising tide that truly lifts all boats.

Do you support the idea that government can require immunizations against COVID-19 or other communicable diseases?

Yes, except for people who have a legitimate medical exemption. The fact is that vaccines save lives. Hundreds of thousands of Americans died over the past 2 years even after the vaccine was available. As Charles Gaba has shown, the death rates by county track quite closely not only to those with lower vaccination rates, but also to those counties where their elected leadership were blocking masks, calling COVID a hoax and otherwise raising skepticism about our public health system.

There are those who have suggested that vaccines should be a matter of personal preference in the spirit of individual liberty. This logic doesn’t hold water for communicable diseases. If you choose not to exercise, the only person who’s health suffers is you. If you choose not to get vaccinated, you risk not only your own life, but everyone you come into contact with once infected. We need to act in the interest of the greater public good.

How do you feel about mask mandates?

It depends on the nature of the viral spread and overall public health measures. Early on, there was a fear that COVID could be spread through surface contact and we invested heavily in hand sanitizers and more regular cleaning of indoor spaces. As we learned that COVID spreads primarily through air, it is appropriate that our mitigation strategy shifted to masking. Mask mandates were appropriate when the virus was spreading and the risk of hospitalization and death remained high.

As more of the population has been vaccinated or developed other durable immunity and to the extent that the current strains of the virus have similar modes of transmissibility it is appropriate to ease back on those mandates. But in all cases, those decisions should be made by public health experts, not by politicians.

Is America prepared for either another round of the current pandemic, or the next one?

In terms of federal policy, yes. The prior administration famously ignored the pandemic preparedness recommendations handed over by the Obama administration and gutted the task force it stood up. Our office was inundated with requests to try and figure out how FEMA was allocating PPE, ventilators and other health-related materiel, which always seemed to be prioritized based on politics rather than public health. I am confident that the current White House places scientific expertise and public health over politics. I remain troubled that we have not been able to secure continuing COVID relief funding (both domestic and internationally) but hope that we can find a political path with the Senate to resolve those issues soon.

It’s important for all of us in this moment to prioritize science but also to acknowledge the politics and remain empathetic to all our fellow Americans. When your actions today determine how many Americans will still be alive in 6 months, it behooves us all to lead with love.

Do you support new laws or regulations to safeguard people in the event of another pandemic?

Yes, to the extent necessary and justified by science.

Should Medicare be expanded to include dental coverage for older Americans?

Yes. I lead a letter urging the expansion of Medicare to include dental, vision, and hearing services in the Build Back Better Act. Expanding Medicare has support from overwhelming bipartisan majorities of the American people.

Medicare today does not cover dental, vision, or hearing services, with very limited exceptions. Because few people have supplemental insurance covering these additional services, among people who received care, 75 percent of their costs of dental and hearing services and 60 percent of their costs of vision services were paid out of pocket. On average, annual out-ofpocket spending was $914 for hearing care, $874 for dental care, and $230 for vision care. As a result, among Medicare beneficiaries, 75 percent of people who needed a hearing aid did not have one; 70 percent of people who had trouble eating because of their teeth did not go to the dentist in the past year; and 43 percent of people who had trouble seeing did not have an eye exam in the past year.

What are the top two threats to our national security?

1. The global rise of authoritarianism. Putin is the most obvious example of this, but numerous countries from Iran to China to Hungary are actively pushing back on the post WWII consensus in support of democracy and rule of law. The opposition is advocating for the type of world that led to WWII, where nations put their own interest above those of global stability, where the leaders of those countries elevate their own self-interests over those of the people they serve and where racism and xenophobia are weaponized in support of both. The rise of Marine LePen in France, Brexit in the UK and January 6 in the United States proves that none of us are immune from these pressures. Indeed, within the US the rise of authoritarianism runs the risk not only of domestic destabilization but also of weakening / eliminating the United States’ ability and authority to continue to be the leading defender and advocate on the global state for democratic values.

2. Climate change. 20 years ago, national security experts were warning that climate change was one of the biggest threats to global security because of its potential to cause economic disruption, refugee crises and political destabilization. Since those early warnings, we have seen crop failure and droughts across North Africa and the Levant that has contributed to the rise of Isis and collapse of Syria. We have seen masses of refugees fleeing Honduran hurricane damage at our southern border. We are starting to see some of the same pressures domestically as coastal flooding and wildfires destroy communities and force relocations, with resulting political tensions around the equities due to those who are displaced from those who live in the areas they are migrating to. There is broad international agreement about the need to create global financial programs to mitigate the effects of these relocations and to address the causes of climate change to mitigate the scope of upheaval, but we are doing far too little so far, and the issue remains too politicized in the United States to ensure that we can move proactively now, lest we face much harder reactive choices in the future.

What should be done to eliminate them?

See previous answer.

What is your position on climate change and what should be done about it?

Climate change is the existential threat to the survival of our species. Addressing climate change is also a massive economic opportunity, since anything we do to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels also ensures that we reduce the amount of money we spend on fossil fuels. The United Kingdom generates twice as many dollars of economic activity per Btu of primary energy use as the United States. Switzerland generates three times as much. Achieving those levels in the United States would unlock massive wealth AND go a long way towards providing a stable planet for future generations.

However, it is not enough. We need to do three things to address climate change:

(a) Cut US primary energy use per dollar of GDP by a factor of at least 3, to achieve levels already achieved by Switzerland;

(b) Invest in a massive R&D effort to develop technologies to make materials that currently depend on fossil fuels as a chemical input (the so called “hard-to-decarbonize” sectors, because without these technologies we have no way to get to zero marginal GHG emissions, and;

The first of these will generate tremendous wealth, while lowering energy prices, since anything we do to reduce energy use per dollar of economic activity gives us more economic value with less expense. We have sustained this level of economic inefficiency primarily because of the distorting influence of fossil fuel subsidies - according to the International Monetary Fund, the United States subsidizes the fossil fuel sector by $650B/year. Let’s remove those subsidies and finally unlock the power of our private sector to preferentially deploy capital in a cleaner and cheaper energy system.

The second also has tremendous potential to create additional wealth while also lowering energy prices. There are lab scale technologies today to use photosynthetic processes to convert nitrogen and water into ammonia fertilizers - a process that currently uses natural gas. There are early stage technologies to replace metallurgical coke with green hydrogen in steel blast furnaces. These technologies may not succeed, but we need them, or something like them soon if we are to avert climate disaster and maintain our current quality of life. I introduced and passed the Clean Industrial Technology Act to stand up and fund an agency within the DOE specifically to develop and deploy these technologies.

The third is going to be really hard, and will likely require massive investment. We are already well above the level of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere that can sustain our species and modern lifestyle. The last time CO2 levels were this high, sea levels were 8 meters higher. It is not a question of if we are on track to that future; it is only a matter of when. Avoiding that fate requires pulling much of the current CO2 permanently out of the atmosphere. There are a number of ways we can do that through agricultural changes that would move CO2 from the atmosphere into our soils. However, since so much of the CO2 in our atmosphere today came from carbon that was, until recently, deep underground in oil, gas and coal deposits it is hard to see how to accomplish this necessary goal without a significant investment in direct air capture technology that permanently re-sequesters that CO2 in deep underground reservoirs. The scope and cost of those investments is massive, and frightening. But the bigger, and quicker we can accomplish the first two goals the less we will have to rely on this latter fix. And when the only other choice is extinction, we ought to get started.

What is your position on nuclear energy expansion?

I fully support the continued operation and expansion of our nuclear fleet. Indeed,it is hard to envision how we get to a zero-CO2 economy without a significant source of baseload, zero-carbon nuclear power generation.

We of course need to ensure safe operation of these plants and safe nuclear waste storage, but the track record of the industry shows our ability to do so.

However, the deployment of new nuclear power generation has been bedeviled for nearly 4 decades by the consistent failure of the industry to build plants on-time or on-budget. Capital markets are much more willing to invest in solar, gas, wind, or even coal plants that present lower construction cost risk. I have worked with the DOE Loan Program Office to help facilitate the funding and development of so-called “small modular reactors” that - in theory - could be produced at lower and more reliable cost, but we are at least 5 years away from having the first SMR on-line and fully-commissioned, with enough operating hours under its belt to attract significant at-risk private capital. I have also introduced the Energy Price Act to encourage the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to modify our wholesale electricity markets to better incentivize the construction of zero-carbon power generation sources, including but not limited nuclear energy.

Should America invest in other forms of renewable energy? Please explain.

Yes, and I am quite confident that the private sector will. Indeed, they already are; the decline in coal-fired power generation and rise of wind, solar, geothermal and battery storage is not because of a government mandate, but because they are better investments. This shift is coming largely in spite of federal policy, which continues to massively distort private capital allocation decisions through $650 billion/year of fossil energy subsidies. Just imagine how fast we could drive our energy policy into the future if we took our foot off the brake!

Government has a role to develop those next-generation technologies and provide initial demonstration capital to de-risk those early investments. However - as noted in the prior answers - the higher energy productivity achieved by many of our trading partners shows that this is primarily a technology deployment, not development problem. Removing subsidies will accelerate the deployment of existing, proven clean-energy technologies.

This is also why I introduced and passed on the House floor the Climate Risk Disclosure Act which directs the SEC to develop standard reporting protocols that would require all public companies to disclose their GHG emissions and exposure to a changing climate. The SEC is now implementing this rule, and once they are complete it will provide private investors who want to hedge their climate risk with better tools to do so. This will, in turn further accelerate the deployment of clean energy technology.

Should pregnant women have the right to get an abortion?

Yes, without exception. I co-sponsored the Women’s Health Protection Act and the Abortion is Health Care Everywhere Act to ensure women always have the right to make their own health care choices.

There is no evidence that reducing access to abortion reduces the incidence of abortion. Nearly 1 in 3 American women will have an abortion before they turn 45. This is true in red states and blue states, across all religions and races. However, women who do not have access to full maternal health services are forced to secure those abortions from providers that put their health and safety at risk.

I’m 100% pro-choice.

Is the immigration system a problem in this country? If so, what is your plan to fix it?

When Ronald Reagan said that the day America stops welcoming immigrants is the day we stop being Americans, he was exactly right. DACA protects the immigration status of 700,000 American residents who came to this country as children and have known no other home. In Illinois, our more than 33,000 Dreamers are students, entrepreneurs, members of the armed services, and health care workers and who’ve fought tirelessly on the frontlines of this pandemic to keep the rest of us safe. By making the DACA program permanent and giving DREAMers a path to citizenship, we will fuel our economic recovery and reinvigorate our communities for years to come.

I voted to pass H.R. 6, the American Dream and Promise Act, and H.R. 1603, the Farm Workforce Modernization Act, two landmark pieces of legislation to modernize and reform our immigration system and secure permanent protections and a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who have been, and will continue to be, key to the economic recovery of our nation.

We should increase our capacity to screen and process asylum seekers so as not to turn away people who are fleeing human rights atrocities and ready to contribute and present no risk to public safety. We should eliminate the country-specific quota system and replace it with one that allocates quotas based on skills gaps in the US economy. For students who come to US universities to study and earn advanced degrees, we should offer them a green card with their diploma.

Do American cities have a crime problem?

There is no doubt that crime is rising, especially in urban areas. Our streets are less safe than they were a decade ago.

We need to cut down on the flow of guns in Chicago, and are vastly overdue to pass federal gun trafficking laws so that Chicagoans aren’t put at risk by lax gun laws in Indiana and Wisconsin. My bill, the Gun Trafficker Detection Act does that, and I’ve led a request with Congresswoman Robin Kelly asking House leadership to take up a slate of gun control bills before the end of this session. We also need to make sure that our police departments have the training and resources to enforce laws on the books, and the accountability to ensure that law is applied equally to all.

If so, what is your suggestion to solve it?

See previous answer.

Should police officers have qualified immunity in cases involving alleged excessive force or other misconduct?

No they should not. But it is important that people understand what qualified immunity is. The doctrine of qualified immunity says that law enforcement officers cannot be held personally liable for constitutional violations. In other words, if a police officer subjects you to excessive force that materially reduces your future earning potential, you cannot sue the police officer for financial damages.

Many have argued that taking away qualified immunity would make it harder for police to do their jobs, but this flies in the face of our Constitution itself. What is the purpose of the 4th, 5th or 8th amendment to the Constitution if they do not apply to law enforcement professionals? And what public purpose is served by making municipalities and taxpayers responsible for financial damages that were created by a police officer who failed to uphold our Constitution?

The Constitution only works if its protections apply equally to all. Qualified immunity stands in opposition to that principle, and that is why I voted to pass H.R. 1280, the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act which would, among other things eliminate qualified immunity for law enforcement so as to curb the potential for police brutality and build greater trust between law enforcement and our communities.

Are there any limits to the Second Amendment?

Our country has too many guns, too many gun deaths and both are the direct result of courts that have taken a wildly excessive and expansive interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. The so-called “originalist” members of the Supreme Court have manufactured an entire view of the Second amendment that is at odds with our founders’ intent.

In the body of the Constitution, our founders gave Congress the sole authority to call forth, organize, arm and discipline a militia which would be used to “execute the laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.” One must assume that the Second amendment’s reference to a “well regulated militia” uses the word “militia” to have the same meaning as in the body of the document, and thereby constrains the rights enumerated in the latter part of the sentence.

This was precisely the point made by Justice Stevens in his dissent to the Heller v District of Columbia decision. He also noted that our founders considered early versions of this amendment that would have provided a religious exemption to the “right to bear arms”, because “bearing arms” was understood by our founders to be a compulsory obligation, in the service of the aforementioned militia.

To be sure, Justice Stevens’ dissent was a dissent from the majority decision. That 5-4 majority ruled that one did not have to be a member of a militia in order to bear arms (as the term “bear” is understood today). But the Supreme Court isn’t infallible. So yes, I believe, like Justice Steven’s does, that there are limits to the 2nd Amendment.

Do you support any restrictions on gun purchases or other stricter gun control measures including citizens’ access to military style weaponry?

As noted in my prior answer, I’m of the opinion that our courts have taken a far too expansive view, prioritizing the interest of gun manufacturers and dealers over the interest of Americans. No one needs an assault rifle for self-defense. No one needs high capacity magazines to hunt. And unless you are drafted or enlisted to serve our nation in a war, there is no reason for you to have access to weapons of war. Period, full stop.

Illinois, along with many states across the country, have legalized marijuana making it legal for people to buy and use it. Marijuana, however, is still illegal at the federal level. Do you support legalizing marijuana nationally? Why or why not?

I support legalization of marijuana. I supported the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act which will expunge the records of those harmed by cannabis criminalization, create opportunities for all to participate in the legal cannabis industry and decriminalize cannabis at the federal level. I have also supported the SAFE Banking Act, to remove the prohibitions on banks holding deposits or otherwise processing transactions by individuals or businesses in the marijuana industry. These federal prohibitions have forced otherwise legal growers and dispensaries to operate on an all-cash basis, increasing the risk of criminal activity in the sector.

Did Joe Biden win the 2020 election?

Yes, President Biden was fairly and democratically elected. And I can’t believe we even have to ask this question.

Would you have voted to ratify his presidency?

Yes. I did without reservation.

What is your position on the Jan. 6, 2021 riot at the U.S. Capitol?

January 6, 2021 was only the second time in our nation’s history when Americans took up arms against their government and were not immediately recognized as traitors - with the last time being the attack on Fort Sumter.

We take an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. On January 6th, the President of the United States disobeyed that oath. As did his advisors. As did the members of Congress who incited the crowd that morning. As did 139 of my own colleagues — twothirds of the House Republican Conference — who, after watching the assault on the Capitol, voted with the mob in an attempt to achieve by law what the mob had failed to achieve by force.

As I said to a colleague the next week, this would be easy to deal with if there were only a few of them. It is hard - and all the more urgent - precisely because there are so many.

There must be truth. There must be accountability. And the more that feels partisan, the more important it is that we double down in this moment to defend our democracy.

Those of us who were in the Capitol complex on January 6th, and who have tried to explain what happened to a divided country in the months since are acutely aware of that tension. It’s not lost on me what a high bar that is. But the alternative - decades of reconstruction, historical revisionism and denial - is too steep a price. The times have found us.

Was it an insurrection?

Yes.

Should people convicted of a crime related to their participation in the riot ever be pardoned?

Our justice system is predicated on the concept of rehabilitation and redemption. It doesn’t always work that way, but I would not presume that those who have committed this particular crime are incapable of repentance, nor would I stipulate that our justice system should not have the ability to make that judgment on a case-by-case basis. This applies equally to pardons issued by any future President. However, it is something else entirely to suggest - as the former President has - that a future President should issue blanket pardons on the grounds that the actions on January 6 were not criminal. Providing assistance and support to those who attack our country - whether from within or from without - is a violation of the oath of office.

Should voters be required to show an ID to vote?

As a practical matter, there are virtually no instances of voter fraud that would be prevented by voter ID laws. One cannot register to vote without showing proof of age and residency.

The more common (and, sadly) more effective way to frustrate the will of a democratic majority is through voter suppression. In recent times, it has taken the form of fewer polling places in certain communities, changes in polling hours and voter ID laws. Requiring that all voters show a driver’s license is an effective way to ensure that demographics who can’t afford cars are less likely to vote. Requiring a photo ID is an effective way to disenfranchise people who don’t have driver’s licenses, or college IDs or otherwise rely on non-photo identifications (social security cards, library cards, etc.).

So as a general matter, it is appropriate to require IDs in order to register to vote, but one should not need to show an ID in order to vote.

Would you, as a member of Congress, ever vote against certifying presidential electoral votes submitted by states’ official voting authorities?

I will always vote to certify elections that are in line with the will of the majority of voters in each state after a free and fair election – whether I like the result or not. But given the efforts that multiple Republican-controlled states are now undergoing to change their own laws and electors to give the ability to overturn the will of the majority in their states, I cannot say that I would never categorically oppose those results. I wish that wasn’t something we had to worry about, but so long as one political party has such a large anti-democratic wing we must remain vigilant.