Yuval Levin is on the right track about election reform. He says—and I agree—that detailed rules about things like days of voting, photo IDs, and mail ballots aren't really that important, especially since it's clear that no legislation addressing these things can possibly pass. Instead, we should try to pass a bill limited to the truly pressing issue of preventing partisan manipulation of the vote after an election:
Democrats and Republicans should turn to narrowly tailored legislation focused on postelection administration. Such a bill could, for instance, limit the ability of state officials to remove local election administrators without cause, and prohibit the harassment of election workers (as happened, for example, in Georgia after the 2020 election). It could mandate a mechanism for postelection audits while requiring a clear standard for rendering election results final.
It could provide for uniform transparency procedures and codify the role of election monitors. It could prescribe an oath for all election administrators committing to transparently and impartially obey the law. And it could modernize and simplify the Electoral Count Act of 1887, which still governs Congress’s and the vice president’s roles in certifying presidential elections.
Could we get Republicans to vote for something like this? Maybe. It might be worth a try.
Unfortunately, there's one thing that a bill like this—or any other bill—can't address: the possibility of a rogue legislature overturning the popular vote and sending its own slate of presidential electors to Washington DC. This is thanks to the Constitution, which states:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . .
An extreme interpretation of this clause suggests that legislatures can direct the appointment of electors any way it wants. If a legislature decides after the election that the legislature itself should appoint electors, that's perfectly legitimate.
That is, it's legitimate if the Supreme Court agrees that it is. Probably they wouldn't, but you never know with the current gang. And if they decide to ditch 200+ years of precedent and rule that legislatures can do anything they want, no law can stop them. Only a constitutional amendment can.
And what are the odds of getting that passed?
Could we get Republicans to vote for something like this? Maybe. It might be worth a try.
Not a chance ten Senate Republicans will vote for a bill that makes it harder for their party to steal elections. As ever, it comes down to Manchin (and Sinema), though maybe (who knows?) if Romney or Collins join the Democrats, the Dem centrists will feel they have the political cover to do the right thing.
And yes, Article 2 is a problem, and we'd all best hope there are at least five black robes who realize living in an autocracy isn't great for elites like them (ask Jack Ma).
We actually don't know whether Republicans would vote for this, because Democrats, from the very start, decided that voting rights was going to be a partisan issue they used to rile up their base. They never even talked to Republicans about what bipartisan deals are possible. They made a conscious decision- as often happens in Washington- to do nothing and run on the issue.
In actuality, Democrats have a big bargaining chip in voter ID. If Democrats offered Republicans some sort of national voter ID law, they could probably get some electoral reforms in return. But Dem coalition groups hate the thought of such a deal.
If Dems wanted to use voter ID as a bargaining chip it would have be a version that Republicans want, one that disenfranchises minorities. If you propose an equitable version of voter ID (which I think would be a good idea; a sort of universal national ID card) Republicans would only support that in exchange frothier concessions from Democrats.
I am afraid this is a non starter.
Oh, the troll knows that already.
Just wrong. Manchin had been talking to a few Republican Senators for months, and the group actually published a draft: see https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/dem/releases/durbin-leahy-murkowski-manchin-announce-bipartisan-compromise-on-john-lewis-voting-rights-advancement-act
No more Republicans voiced support for the compromise, and it never went further.
Why publicly reveal you are a liar?
Legislatures already do what they want. Capitalism collapse is why you don't see legislature wrangling. States would be bankrupt quickly and it's possible legislators collapse. This is a very fragile financial system. The industrial revolution is over and the illusion capitalism works will die with the liquidation. If they had gone through a orderly liquidation in 2008, it still meant 15% GDP contraction and the slow 2% growth afterwords with little debt. All parties end guys. Shitting on election results would disorderly liquidate capitalism with both New York and Chicago financial markets collapsing in weeks, while the dollar standard ends.
Da Pravda....
Whether democracy is compatible with capitalism (in its current form) is in fact a legitimate issue. If for no other reason that candidates are utterly dependent on funding, and a large source of their funding is corporate.
And I do find it puzzling that corporations do not take a stronger stand in defending democracy against Republican subversion. What happened in 2008 (and in the 1930's) can happen again, and would certainly not be good for their "bottom lines", to put it mildly.
But greed rules, along with its helper forgetfulness. And this is in fact a very fragile financial system.
And I do find it puzzling that corporations do not take a stronger stand in defending democracy against Republican subversion
Agreed, but for a different reason. Corporations are simply groups of people, after all — very rich people (if you're talking mainly about senior executives and major shareholders). The Great Recession wasn't especially tough for them. I'd argue it was actually mostly good: they got to pick up assets at a steep discount.
No, the main reason economic elites should be more concerned about the specter of autocracy is that the status quo — (highly flawed, to be sure) democracy — works just great for people like them. But actual, full-throated autocracies (just ask Jack Ma) are not great for rich folks, though. The rule of law, which is what enables the wealthy to enjoy predictability, would be a terrible thing for your standard issue American billionaire to lose. The stupidity and short-sightedness of the rich is truly mind-boggling.
"Could we get Republicans to vote for something like this?"
No.
Anything proposed by a Democrat will not receive a single Republican vote, not even from anguished moderate Susan Collins.
I'm pretty sure a bill that says "Puppies are good," proposed by a Democrat, would not get Collins' or any other Republican's vote.
There's nothing extreme about it. It's the plain meaning of the clause. It was written, remember, when voters weren't trusted to choose senators; only the state legislatures could do that. It's perfectly consistent to believe they should also decide who represents the interests of the state in the electoral college. Remember also that the college was not originally envisaged as a rubber stamp on an election result, but as a body which would actually exercise independent judgement in selecting a president. What's not for an originalist judge to like?
The best way to do it would be to establish a permanent commission to appoint electoral college members "after taking into account the results of a poll of voters in the state together with an evaluation of the integrity of that poll". The commission could consist of pillars of the community from the legal and business worlds. And if they all happened to be loyal registered Republicans, well that's just how things are in Real America.
States decided to have elections to decide who the electors will be. So the question isn't do states have the right to do it any way they want. The question is do states have the right to do it one way and then, after the fact, change to a different way if they don't like the result?
Generally speaking, if a state has committed to one course they have to see it through. But with this court? Who knows?
But there is also the 14th amendment. Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment requires a state's representation in the House of Representatives to be reduced if the state denies the right to vote to any male citizen aged 21 or older, unless on the basis of "participation in rebellion, or other crime". The reduction is to be proportionate to such people denied a vote. This amendment refers to "the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States" (among other elections). It is the only part of the Constitution currently alluding to electors being selected by popular vote.
On May 8, 1866, during a debate on the Fourteenth Amendment, Thaddeus Stevens, the leader of the Republicans in the House of Representatives, delivered a speech on the amendment's intent. Regarding Section 2, he said:
The second section I consider the most important in the article. It fixes the basis of representation in Congress. If any State shall exclude any of her adult male citizens from the elective franchise, or abridge that right, she shall forfeit her right to representation in the same proportion. The effect of this provision will be either to compel the States to grant universal suffrage or so shear them of their power as to keep them forever in a hopeless minority in the national Government, both legislative and executive.
Arguably, any state that sees their voters vote one way, and decides to throw out that vote and apportion electors another way has violated this part of the 14th Amendment. I think that's a pretty good argument, with the number of voters denied their right being equal to the number of voters in the majority.
I agree with pjcamp1905 and altoid on this thread.
Also, if state legislatures change the rules for allocating electoral votes after the election, it will be widely considered illegitimate. The SC can say what they want, but if they side with the GOP legislatures, they will destroy whatever is left of their own legitimacy.
Will they have the final word? We don't know the makeup of Congress in January 2025, but no Dem Congress (or VP) would sanction such a blatantly fixed "election."
And don't expect blue states or "the people" to sit by idly while Republicans have their way. The response is not easy to predict but it would be unprecedented.
Sadly the SC really doesn't have any legitimacy now. Contrary to their statements (in fact the reason they had to make them in the first place) is that they ARE political hacks
Thanks, I hadn’t heard the 14th Amendment argument before. There is also the Article 4, Section 4 guarantee of ‘a republican form of government’. Several cases brought to the Supreme Court have cited this clause; a few have been decided, others have been deemed non-justiciable, leaving to Congress to determine what is a ‘republican form of government’. A case brought under the 14th Amendment clause would seem to require a Court decision.
Still, it is essential that Democrats retain control of Congress in 2022.
The Fourteenth Amendment doesn't require a vote in presidential elections. The Court said that 9-0 in the 2000 election cases, and that's correct. The Equal Protection Clause does apply to presidential elections, but only if states permit a vote. They can choose electors by some other manner if they wish. And therein lies the constitutional problem.
It's actually fixable (see my first comment- Democrats decided for messaging reasons that they would not pursue any bipartisan remedies) but I doubt Dems would actually support the constitutional fix because fixing the Constitution would also entrench the electoral college and prevent NPV from ever taking effect.
You are wrong about the Democrats not pursuing a bipartisan voting-rights bill, see link to the Senate Judiciary Committee above.
"The question is do states have the right to do it one way and then, after the fact, change to a different way if they don't like the result?
Generally speaking, if a state has committed to one course they have to see it through. But with this court? Who knows?"
Can you please explain where in the Constitution you think there is a rule that states cannot do it one way and then, after the fact, change to a different way if they don't like the result? Or that if a state has committed to one course they have to see it through?
I can see good policy arguments for these positions, but where on earth do you find them in the Constitution?
That is neither what he was implying nor what was asked for, and you know it. You've had two strikes. Third one makes you a troll.
""The question is do states have the right to do it one way and then, after the fact, change to a different way if they don't like the result?: Absolutely not. The constitution is clear that congress has the right to select the day electoral college members are picked. Precedent from the first election says that any state that does not select members on that day get no members. Multiple states were cut out of selecting the president and vice president in 1788 because the were unable to agree on who to select. Otherwise, a state, expecting a close election could fail to select members on election day and then extort whatever price they want if their vote was decisive.
"So the question isn't do states have the right to do it any way they want." Yes, that is indisputed. It was not until after the 1828 election that the majority of states allowed their citizens a role in selecting the president. Colorado was the last state to not have the state legislature select the electoral college members in 1876.
There's nothing extreme about it. It's the plain meaning of the clause.
It's extreme to interpret the clause as allowing state legislatures to change the law in favor of direct legislative appointment of electors after the November election, thereby canceling the decision of that state's voters. No, "extreme" isn't the same as "unthinkable." Maybe they'd get away with it! Who knows?
But sure, the plain meaning of the text clearly allows a state to opt out of holding a popular vote in favor of letting the legislature vote for electors. Indeed, all fourteen states did it this way back in 1788-1789, IIRC.
Sorry to be pedantic, but RI and NC hadn't ratified when the first congress and first president were chosen. We were 11 states until late in 1789 and 12 until May 1790. As far as methods of choosing electors goes, I think even at the start one or two states may have opted for some kind of popular input but that's a guess.
Sure. Good to know.
The termi is illegal. The constitution says congress picks the day electroal college members are selected. Any state that has not finished the casting (counting is allowed post that day) of votes whether from citizens or any other body picked by the legislature prior to that day by that day gets no role in selecting the president as happened in 1788.
Sure. But the constitution doesn't prevent a state legislature from saying GOP electors were selected on election day (citing "irregularities") when, in fact, Democratic electors were selected, eg, Florida, 2000.
MA had a popular vote in 1788.
That's not what I was suggesting. I see no reason why red states shouldn't adopt a PERMANENT measure like the one I outlined to send only Republican voters to the college.
It's the plain meaning for those who are gaming the Constitution and the laws, as so many of our right-wing brethren and sistern have been doing in recent years, straining for novel interpretations that serve their purposes.
Traditional, even canonical, readings of legislatures' intent would say that they register their intent by passing laws beforehand that prescribe how things are to be done, and then follow those laws and procedures, as pjcamp1905 says.
The radical move here is reading the clause to say that legislatures have sole and plenary authority at all times and in all things relating to elections-- that they can set out procedures beforehand and then change their minds after the fact, and that they can do so on their own without involving the executive or anyone else. This same argument is also made about state legislatures' sole authority over congressional redistricting-- no governor involved, no law needed, just a resolution or whatever term would be used for a legislature's decree.
Another term for this would be "arbitrary power." We fought a bitter war for independence in large part so we wouldn't be subject to arbitrary power, and the soul of the rule of law is that our public life is governed according to agreed and published rules that aren't changed arbitrarily.
"Conservatives" used to define themselves as adherents to the rule of law, and our legal system is built on the profoundly conservative notion that texts and laws mean what the preponderance of judges and legal interpreters agree that they mean. But contemporary "conservatives" seem to prefer this kind of strained and over-clever reinterpretation of texts. That's the radical move.
The current supreme court may even let them get away with it. But it's nothing more than gaming the constitution and the laws, and it's being done to try to over-rule the constitution as we've known it.
+!
+1!
That's not really right. You can imagine situations where the Constitution could legitimately permit a state to change elector selection rules after an election- what if a huge natural disaster happens on election day and destroys ballots?
It's not proper for the reason that we are discussing now- to nullify the public's vote- but "not proper" does not mean "not constitutional". The Constitution is 200 years and permits a bunch of bad stuff.
Would that be done by the legislature acting alone, or by the executive responsible for administering elections, or by passing and signing laws?
This whole area of state-level equitable remedies in relation to federal elections may have been somewhat affected by Bush v Gore.
It's pretty clear if you read the entire constitution that this clause is not meant to indicate that the Legislature can act independently of the governor or state constitution. The constitution often says that Congress can or shall do this or that. For example:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"
Literally no one interprets this to mean that Congress can do these things without being subject to a Presidential veto. There's no reason to interpret the state legislature clause differently.
Excellent point, and absolutely accurate.
+1
That view was rejected 9-0 by SCOTUS in Bush v. Palm Beach County. In this context, apparently, "legislature" means "legislature", at least when it comes to state constitutions.
Didn't SCOTUS also say that ruling was a one-off, and not to be construed as precedent?
Why yes, yes it did. And he kows that. Ergo, treat this one as operating purely in bad faith until proven otherwise.
Saves a lot of time.
Yep.
False. Bush v. Palm Beach County was remanded, not resolved, and all the cited laws were signed by the executive, so the question did not even arise.
"Remember also that the college was not originally envisaged as a rubber stamp on an election result, but as a body which would actually exercise independent judgement in selecting a president. " Unfortunately the supreme court just wrote an opinion entirely based on the premise that that wasn't true. The decision that states can force the electoral college members to vote only for the results of the their states popular vote eliminated the electoral college for all intents and purposes.
What will it take for us to accept the fact that this country is broken and band aids are just aren't the answer any more?
That NYT article is filled with some high-level bullshit. For example, this:
Democrats in Washington should see that using one of the narrowest congressional majorities in American history to nationalize election rules in ways opposed by every Republican official — even if it’s well intentioned — would undermine public confidence in elections.
Insisting on a bipartisan solution to stop an openly pro-coup party from destroying democracy is anti-democracy b.s.
Sherrilyn Ifill:
https://twitter.com/JamesFallows/status/1478509793979637761?s=20
It happens often when you take a principled stand & find yourself in a deadlock w/your opponent, that opponent will send an emissary. This emissary will calmly & reasonably tell you that there’s a way out. That your conviction is too strong, he will say, and unreasonable.
By employing the “both sides” framing that effectively robs the holder of the morally sound position of its power by equating it w/the morally indefensible, this emissary will encourage you to abandon the core of your principles & encourage you to settle for a dubious “win.”
The terms of the “win” will not be without any value. But this compromise will demand that you abandon the core of your principled stance & deny what you identified as the core of the issue. If you do it, yr opponents will praise you for yr pragmatism. For “getting things done.”
And so today we have an op-ed by a leader at the conservative American Enterprise Institute suggesting a “compromise,” making its way around high level meetings of White House & Congressional Dems.
Republicans fantasies about voter fraud are refreshingly recognized as fantasy, but voter suppression is also described as fantasy (“both sides”), despite documentation, evidence, and litigation - much of it ongoing.
...
It is anti-democratic, immoral, indefensible, and finds no comparable action on “the other side.” That one political party, which until 2013 also believed this to be true, now abandons this belief is evidence that a deeply corrosive antidemocratic strain has infiltrated politics.
....
Still, there is an argument for getting done whatever can be gotten done, without ‘settling’ for a minimal accomplishment. Hold to principle, make it clear that the fight will continue. Though I am skeptical also that there are ten Republicans who would vote cloture for the slightest strengthening of every citizen’s right to vote, and to have their vote count, and count equally.
Right wing extremists are given the right to turn elections into a joke, no water in six hour long queues is just one example from Georgia, one can find similar abominations being implemented in Texas , Arizona… you name it
…. but those laws is just meant to deceive, they are like the right hand of the magician catching our attention while he is hiding the cards with his left hand. The important part is the one when the Republican legislature in Georgia are allowed to nullify the election if the result still doesn’t pleases them. The important part is the successful campaign in turning “the big lie “ into a truth in the minds of the hard core of Republican voters
The important part is to turn the officers who defended the Capitol into villains and the attackers into victims preparing for a Congress, dominated by the Republicans after a midterm sabotaged by the new laws , to reject a democratic winner in the next presidential election and to once again install Donald J Trump (or a Donald J Trump clone).
All attempts to fight it in court will fail since your Supreme Court is crowded with right wing politicians dressed up in black robes impersonating justices
… and it’s nothing the sane majority can do about it .
Desperate Democrats are searching for salvation in ancient texts since it’s impossible to modernize your archaic Constitution, impossible to have it meet the standard required by a Constitution meant to govern a democracy in the 21th century
A comment from a Swedish troll
The US government is a bizarre construct. It wages war all over the world without any real justification - killing and destroying at will any and all enemies both real and imagined. The republicans have no discernible agenda except, perhaps, more tax cuts. The democrats have little appetite for their stated agenda and so constantly over promise and under deliver.
But war goes on... and on and on.
"WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. led-coalition in Syria struck several launch sites for short-range rockets believed to be intended for attacks on an installation used by U.S. troops in eastern Syria, officials said Tuesday.
The strikes against the launch sites apparently were conducted by U.S. forces, but a statement issued by the coalition did not specify who carried them out. The statement offered few details beyond saying the sites “posed an imminent threat in the vicinity of Green Village, Syria,” and were struck in self defense.
I can’t imagine any federal laws would prevent republicans in states from doing what they want next time. We’ve now passed the point where laws and court rulings matter. I really hope they give it a try in 2024. If they are able to get control of congress in 2023, I suspect they will. Bring it on. Democrats will meekly surrender and appease… in reality, they already have surrendered. And everyone knows it.
Isn’t this a little weird?
Democrats don’t dare to end the ridiculous filibuster simply because if they end up in minority after the midterm will they need it
.... but if they keep it will they not be able to defend the right to vote and in that case will they surly end up in minority
Catch 22?
A comment from a dumbfounded Swede
It is astonishing.
No, it's not weird. The filibuster in place helps Republicans much more than Democrats because Republicans are the party of obstruction. They are not trying to reform government, they are quite happy with things the way they are, thank you. They are not trying to pass new laws, they know they can simply use what is in place to get what they want.
What do they want? It begins with "M", ends with "y", and has an "n" in the middle.
I agreed completely with your previous observations about the inadequacy of our constitution to our current troubles, but it's not "Democrats" who don't dare to end the filibuster, it's Manchin and Sinema and the handful of Republicans who probably do believe that our democracy is in peril but who won't vote to end it. The irony is that you can't end the filibuster (and thus preserve majority rule) if you don't have the majority of votes.
And Nancy Pelosi wants to have a prayer vigil to commemorate her surrender tomorrow. What a flipping idiot! This is embarrassing.
Operationally the GOP does not generally support this legislation. Strategically, helping the Democrats pass anything at this point is likely not in the GOP's interest....sad but true.
So, here is my 'crazy' idea. I think/fear the Build Bank Better bill is dead: Manchin and Sinema will never agree to something that will gain the required support within the rest of the DEM house and senate. So, offer the GOP the following: support/provide ten votes for a skinny voting rights bill and Biden promises no BBB during his first term.
The politics of this 'deal' is complicated: the Democrats get material progress voting rights and also get a political win (and they need a win around now). In contrast, publicly admitting the death of BBB would have material downside within the Democratic base.
Many will think what I propose is foolish. My counter is simple: without my concept, do you not see a real possibility that BOTH voting rights and BBB die?
Then again, there is a clear reason I don't make my living in politics.
But the GQP already has a win on Build Back Better, with Sinema Verite and Manchin firmly on their side. They don't need to give away anything for it. Definitely not on something they've been working day & night since November 2020 on: curtailing the ability to vote from people likely to vote for Democrats.
Why would the GOP agree to my deal?
1. Supporting some form of voting rights might be good for some Republicans such as Collins, Murkowski, Romney, Sasse etc.
2. Biden officially 'killing' BBB would be a HUGE GOP PR win.
3. This deal removes the risk of BBB, somehow, coming back to life.
Why would Democrats agree to a deal, to get a ‘skinny’ voting rights bill? “OK, we’ll let you steal some votes, just not all of them.” Bah!
KenSchulz - if you have two options, nothing or a partial victory, which one would you select? I say, don't let perfect be the enemy of the good.
But there are other options, and one of the options you describe isn’t open, anyway. The Republicans aren’t interested in any deals; a large faction of their constituency thinks Democrats are Satan-worshipping Socialists. A few of them are hinting at compromise, but it’s just a delaying tactic.
I can certainly agree to your last sentence.
A constitutional amendment (or law) that explicitly takes away a state legislature's power to appoint electors would also torpedo the so-called "National Popular Vote" compact that several Democratic states have signed, which allows the state legislature to assign all their electoral votes to the candidate that wins the nationwide popular vote, in contradiction of the actual vote of its own citizens.
If you're looking to propose a constitutional amendment, then do one that gets rid of the electoral college concept IN ITS ENTIRETY.
Restoring democracy to the Senate is next, and much more difficult...
The National Popular Vote (NPV) has two significant challenges EVEN IF it gains enough states to sign on.
1. I am not an attorney, however, I have read there is a constitutional augment that the NPV concept is not constitutional. Given the 6 - 3 balance....
2. I THINK this would break down under some circumstances. Imagine Trump number 2, under the traditional process would lose but under the NPV would win: you honestly think that California would honor the NPV terms?
The odds of 2) in the foreseeable future are near zero. Republicans have won the popular vote only once in the last eight Presidential elections, and that was with the advantage of incumbency. Trump lost twice; losing by a larger margin as an incumbent than running for an open WH.
There is the further question of each state’s laws regarding ‘faithless electors’; actually, I believe only a few states have such laws.
And the odds of Trump defeating Clinton were what exactly? I think we should be careful about projecting the future....
But he lost the popular vote which is the premise of the NPV.
I’ve favored abolishing the EC ever since I found out what it was. But there is no chance of doing that as long as Republicans are so uncompetitive in Presidential-election popular votes.
States have their own constitutions and their own Supreme Courts. In principle legislatures can't do anything they want. Would this be a bar to the legislatures overturning the state votes in any states? Governors might also have a say if they control the National Guard (state militias). What is the status in each state? This looks like a complex problem which I have not seen addressed in the punditry or bloggery.
An astute observation about a key point. But it would be a very messy situation that envisions and encompasses organized violence, as you hint at. Mostly I think the chances of anything fair coming out of state court challenges depend on which party controls how much of the state government and how extreme the right-wingers are.
In PA the state supreme court ruled recently that the state constitution requires fair redistricting at all levels, so there's precedent, and it's being generally accepted by the state gop, which controls the legislature. I don't know that this would prevent the crazies there from trying to send alternative elector slates in 2024, but their leadership doesn't seem prepared to go that far, at least not now.
But what would happen in Michigan, which has a very well-organized "militia" movement and has already seen it deployed inside the state capital building? Who would be surprised to find a big overlap between militia and Guard membership? Would the Guard follow a D governor's orders, even if to enforce a court ruling? And it could get much worse from there.
And this is where we are now that trump has liberated and energized the darker angels of our nature.
I am tired of Kevin's belittling of the need for a strong voting rights bill. Every instinct I have tells me that the absence of one will spell electoral disaster for the only democratic Party that we have.
The probability of getting one at this time seems small. I don't know whether to believe Schumer's statement that he will force a vote on it. But I cling to the hope that he means what he says and will put S&M on the spot and dare them to vote against it.
This is an area where it is time for strong, not incremental, action.
The only ‘strong action’ that is within reach is massive Democratic turnout this fall to expand Democratic margins in both houses of Congress. To that end, the current Congress needs to do whatever it can to protect as much of the vote as possible.
A larger margin in the Senate could lead to reform if not abolition of the filibuster, and the weakening of conservative Democrats like Manchin and Sinema. That opens the opportunity for stronger voting-rights legislation.
It’s an uphill battle, to be sure, but it’s not without precedent - IIRC, FDR was the last President to increase his majorities in the midyear. Best hope for Dems is an ugly Republican civil war (if Trump lives, it will be ugly). Every Democratic candidate needs to badger his/her opponent into taking a position on the Big Lie, and whether state legislatures should be able to flush the votes of all their citizens down the crapper, which is what some of the recent state election laws would allow.
Next year might be too late, even if the Dem Senate majority increases. Most political observers think that odds of a Republican House in 2023 are high. While I do not think that is written in stone, it certainly is more than possible. If so, no voting rights legislation even gets close to the House floor.
This is the time to push our maximum demands. This is the time to put S&M on the spot and make them cast a vote either for or against democracy. They will be forever defined by their choice and make them realize that.
I would definitely support a limited bill aimed at avoiding manipulation or overriding of election boards. Ideally, I'd love it to also add some funding/requirements for polling places, because I've never had to wait more than a few minutes to vote in any jurisdiction, and I don't think anyone else should either.
I'm OK dealing some of the vote suppression gambits later.
The Constitutional problems are scary but probably won't be addressable any time soon. Hope things hold. I'd feel better if we could get establishment Republicans to come out against Trumpian schemes to overturn elections, but fat chance there.
"An extreme interpretation of this clause suggests that legislatures can direct the appointment of electors any way it wants." No reasonable interpretation says they can do this post election. A different provision of the constitution says congress sets the day electors are selected. Once that day arrives, unless the legislature has chosen to select the electors before then, the legislatures role is completely terminated. If the legislature has chosen prior to election day to take it on itself to pick the electoral college members, then, and only then can they select them on election day. If they have not competed that task on election day then their state goes without a role in selecting the president as happened to multiple states in the first election of 1788. (which is a very good reason not to hand the job of picking electoral college members to state legislatures because minority parties have too many means of denying the state a role.)
It seems to me that pjcamp is right that the drafters of the 14th amendment considered public election of electors as a right. The only state where the legislature selected electors after the 1828 election was South Carolina. SC last did it in the 1860 election. After the 14th amendment, only Colorado used this method and they only did it in the election of 1876. Colorado was granted statehood in August 1876 and they didn't have time to organize an election.
Similar wording lies in the 24th amendment: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay poll tax or other tax."
That's two amendments, nearly a hundred years apart, passed by Congress and ratified by the States, that refer to public election of electors as a right. The implication is that it is a well acknowledged right. Do the strict constructionists know how to read?
Not when they can torture a clause to give them the result they want at that moment. They are the Torquemadas of constitutional interpretation.
What about doing what every other advanced country does
Set up a non partisan body that is tasked with ensuring that all eligible voters are registered
That's fine but it doesn't deal with the pending problem: Republican controlled Legislatures in several purple states are enacting legislation that permits them to set aside the popular vote for electors if they don't like the outcome of the election. So if the Democratic, Green, or Anti-Scotch Tape party win the presidential election, they can just set it aside.
Democrats should put forward a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College. Election of the president by popular vote. Take state legislatures out of the mix. Then--here's the key part--debate it and vote on it. This year. Let the congress critters defend their votes to the people.