… already enacted by this Congress pursuant to the very Same provision, Article 1, Section 4, Clause 1, Under the very same provision. And yet they don't oppose those. In fact, The only reason, Mr. President, that this law even became necessary, what first got us thinking about it has to do with this expansive, absurdly incorrect interpretation of the NVRA made by the Supreme Court back in 2013. I say it was absurdly incorrect, and it was, and it remains that today. But it nonetheless remains conclusive over the dissent of my former boss, Justice Alito, who wrote a masterful dissent explaining why that interpretation was wrong. (1:29:58–1:30:17)
CLAIM
Asserts that the proposed law was prompted by a 2013 Supreme Court interpretation of the NVRA.
This is an excerpt from a raw transcript. The assertions have not been audited or verified. Tap the video to view the source footage and understand the context.
