Skip to content

Infrastructure and Voting Rights: A Brief Explainer

Just in case you're confused:

  • Joe Biden's infrastructure bill can be passed by reconciliation, which means it only needs 50 votes (plus Kamala Harris) to pass in the Senate. It currently has 49, so all Biden needs to do is win Joe Manchin's vote by showing that he's done his honest best to bring Republicans on board but they refuse to cooperate.
  • The voting rights bill cannot be passed by reconciliation, so it needs 60 votes in the Senate. This is never going to happen. The only way to pass this bill is to kill the filibuster, which is opposed not just by Manchin, but probably by several other Democrats who are keeping a low profile.

Roughly speaking, what this means is that an infrastructure bill of some kind remains a possibility. A voting rights bill has never been a serious possibility and still isn't.

30 thoughts on “Infrastructure and Voting Rights: A Brief Explainer

  1. kenalovell

    There's an old saw about 'the wish being father to the thought', and that's the only explanation I can find for the excitement on the left about all the wonderful bills they were going to pass now they had the barest of majorities in Congress.

    Joe Manchin once said he might endorse Trump for re-election. He voted to confirm both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. He opposed weakening the filibuster for judicial confirmations in 2013. There were never any rational grounds for expecting him to embrace a progressive agenda, let alone to gut the filibuster. The danger for Democrats now is that they will engage in unproductive recriminations and defeatism, instead of concentrating on whatever small incemental achievements can be obtained through regular order.

    1. MontyTheClipArtMongoose

      What I need to know: if Andrew Yang pulls off the win in NYC mayoral election, will that reenergize the dirtbaggiest of the defeatist trustfund left, & stoke their minions to get out & vote for Democrats, or will it generate further division & reinvigorate the #walkaway Russophilia of the Green Party moment?

      On the one hand, Andrew Yang is a white-acting model minority who eschews #idpol, supports UBI, & stood alone as the only Democrat presidential candidate in 2019-20 who said he would be open to pardoning Donald Trump (whom he does not support). On the other hand, he is a suitwearing technocratic businessman & by that very lifestyle is at odds with the fairtrade, pesticide-free, vegan food coop life of #OurRevolution.

      This could go either way.

        1. philosophical ron

          Like monkeys banging on typewriters, eventually the clip art will momentarily be aligned with reality.

  2. Jasper_in_Boston

    A voting rights bill has never been a serious possibility and still isn't.

    Agreed. For that we need 50 Democratic senators willing to do things without McConnell's permission. Who knows, maybe in 2023 we'll get there. It's not super-likely, but the GOP is sitting on some potentially pretty vulnerable seats. So we'll see.

    Roughly speaking, what this means is that an infrastructure bill of some kind remains a possibility.

    I'd guess that's so. But I've seen next to nothing in the way of serious analysis as to Machin's intention on this score. Which suggests to me nobody really knows. I would hope logic would indicate he'll support another big spending package, as long as it's got plenty of goodies for West Virginia*, because a strong economy in 2024 is going to help anybody with a "D" next to their name, Joe Manchin included. But who knows?

    *Remember the cornhusker kickback in 2010? Dead-eyed MAGA zealots obviously won't be swayed by pork for Manchin's constituents. For them it'll simply be more proof he's a CCP-loving, AOC-style socialist. One just hopes such voters aren't in excess supply in West Virginia.

    1. Austin

      “Who knows, maybe in 2023 we'll get there. It's not super-likely, but the GOP is sitting on some potentially pretty vulnerable seats. So we'll see.”

      Assumes the GOP isn’t currently changing the rules in those states to allow the legislatures to more easily overturn the results of those elections. Or to challenge more votes. Or generally to just thwart the will of the people if that will indicates an upswing in Democratic Party support.

      1. Jasper_in_Boston

        I don't assume next year's election will be free of Republican interference, no. Nor do I assume they will get away with subverting the results. I'm simply suggesting Senate math indicates Democrats could conceivably add to their majority. But sure, GOP cheating or legalized elections rigging remains a real and scary prospect. For 2024 also.

      1. Jasper_in_Boston

        Indeed.

        My point was this particular bit of pork didn't go over well in the intended, recipient state, Nebraska. Which seemed at the time to mean that, for many right wing True Believers, the benefits of targeted dollars from Washington don't hold a candle to the thrill of advancing the principles of movement conservatism (perhaps that should be updated to "movement MAGA"). But maybe the fever has peaked (earmarks are rumored to be making a comeback) and/or maybe West Virginians are more sensible about this sort of thing than Nebraskans. I hope so.

  3. hollywood

    Manchin won't vote for the Voting Rights bill.
    Manchin won't vote to end the filibuster.
    What's the likelihood he will vote to pass an infrastructure bill by reconciliation? I'd say nil. McConnell must have some compromising information/photos.

  4. Justin

    Democrats ought to stop pretending they have a domestic agenda beyond just managing the chaos. This country is ungovernable. All they can do is prevent some political catastrophe for a bit. Half the country just wants to ignore politicians for a while and the other half wants to burn it all down. These are not the conditions under which even modest changes are possible.

  5. 7g6sd2fqz4

    What is the obsession with explaining so-called political realities to progressives as though they don’t understand? To quote Mr. Drum: Trust me, they get it. It’s their job to talk about the things that *should* be rather than to complain about the limits of the status quo.

    1. MontyTheClipArtMongoose

      Because they don't understand.

      The fauxgressive left are the motherfuckers who thought electing Bernie president in 2016 would have given America a strongman leader, no different than MAGA thought would be the result of electing Trump.

  6. chaboard

    "The only way to pass this bill is to kill the filibuster, "

    Not quite the 'only' way. There's also the possibility of restricting the DOMAIN of the filibuster - which is essentially what the budget reconciliation law does. They could conceivably carve out a 'democracy reconciliation' exemption for anything related directly to the conduct of democracy.

    No, that's not going to happen now either. But it's important to keep all the options in mind going forward.

    1. Jasper_in_Boston

      Manchin has all but but given a firm "no way, no how" on a carve-out for an elections integrity bill. I include an "all but" simply because Manchin's own words are that he would not support "weakening" the filibuster, and, politicians being the slippery eels they are, you could kinda imagine Manchin supporting a carve-out for a more narrowly focused voting/elections bill (perhaps one focusing primarily on gerrymandering and, say, voting by mail) if he first got a few Republicans on board (and then claiming this doesn't really "weaken" the filibuster).

      But in any event voting rights legislation appears to be dead until the next Congress.

      1. Austin

        Maybe we should erect a memorial in DC to Manchin after his eventual death. In it, we can place the ashes of our founding documents like the Declaration and the Constitution, since they’ll be rendered obsolete once permanent one-party dominance is achieved by Republicans.

    2. KenSchulz

      I have heard this carve-out suggested, but I haven't heard anyone explain how the Democrats could stop a future Republican Senate from passing draconian voter-suppression laws to 'protect democracy' from 'voter fraud', with fifty-some votes.

  7. Loxley

    'A voting rights bill has never been a serious possibility and still isn't.'

    More Explicitly: the GOP hates democracy and has managed to cement its Minority Rule to ensure its demise in America.

    Mitch McConnell is a Traitor to the Constitution, and now Manchin is enabling him. But then, Garland is doing the same for Donald Trump, another obvious traitor.

  8. bigcrouton

    I think it's quite possible Joe Manchin will support a $1 trillion dollar infrastructure bill passed through reconciliation. His cover for WV voters will be that this is what Donald Trump promised so Dems are just fulfilling that promise. The pay-for will be a 15% minimum corporate tax and stronger tax enforcement. It will all seem very reasonable and Joe Biden will have something to crow about. As for voting rights, Dems are just going to have to work through new restrictions passed in red states. Stacy Abrams for voting rights czar?

    1. Jasper_in_Boston

      I think it's quite possible Joe Manchin will support a $1 trillion dollar infrastructure bill passed through reconciliation.

      I think it's possible, too. But seemingly only a few weeks ago (not long after the parliamentarian's favorable ruling) there was talk of not one but TWO large bills, totaling north of $3 trillion if memory serves.

  9. TriassicSands

    "A voting rights bill has never been a serious possibility and still isn't." -- KD

    Manchin is just saving the Democrats from the disgust and disappointment of having the SCOTUS rule provision after provision unconstitutional.

  10. lawnorder

    The bottom line here is that the Democrats are very well positioned to increase their grip on both Houses of Congress in 2022. Trump has the unwavering support of 25-30% of the population, and is despised by most of the rest of the population, including over a third of his own party, but he won't go away. The result is that the 2022 election is likely to become a referendum on Trumpism even though Trump is not running, and if that happens the Republicans lose big.

    Further, the Democrats have already managed one very popular bill over unanimous Republican opposition. It's the pocket book issues that really swing votes, and the Democrats can do them under reconciliation. Things like the Voting Rights Act are really only noticed by the smallish portion of the population that pays attention to political issues, so whether it passes or not is not likely to swing many votes.

    In short, if the Democrats simply stay the course, continue to use reconciliation to do popular money things, and let the Republicans continue blasting away at their own feet, the only thing that could plausibly prevent them from strengthening their hold on Congress in 2022 is a completely unexpected recession.

    1. Jasper_in_Boston

      the only thing that could plausibly prevent them from strengthening their hold on Congress in 2022 is a completely unexpected recession.

      I think it's possible they'll pick a Senate seat or two, and maybe a few House seats, as well, but I fear your optimism isn't realistic. Only once since WW2 have Democrats managed a midterm House gain when they've had the White House, mostly because Democratic turnout tends to be unreliable when they're not in opposition. It remains to be seen how well Democrats turn out when Trump isn't in the White House. But the biggest reason to temper optimism is GOP gerrymandering, which has been proceeding apace since the census results came in: next year's election will reflect partisan redistricting, and everything I've read suggests Democrats will need a larger-than-ever popular vote win just to avoid losing House seats.

      Democrats could have a good midterm, sure. I think a ruling affecting Roe could help them. And there's a good chance by the fall of next year the economy will be in strong recovery mode (and the pandemic will be over). So here's to hoping. But it's early yet, and certainly conventional wisdom suggests having a good midterm will be a struggle for Democrats, as it almost always is.

      1. lawnorder

        The House is already heavily gerrymandered in Republican controlled states; the next wave of redistricting literally can't make it much worse. Further, there is a great weakness to gerrymandering. The basic principle involves drawing district boundaries is such a way that "our" side will win lots of districts by small margins while "their" side will win few districts by large margins, giving "our" side more seats even with fewer total votes. This makes "our" side vulnerable to quite small shifts in voter preference.

        My view is that Trumpism has already shifted voter preferences, which is why the Democrats won the House in 2018 and 2020 despite gerrymandering. However, that shifting process is not over; Trump is going to continue to drive people away from the Republican Party. That means that lots of Republican seats could fall to the the Trump driven shift in preferences.

        1. Jasper_in_Boston

          The House is already heavily gerrymandered in Republican controlled states...

          Sure, but there's no law of physics suggesting Republicans can't push this effect even further, for another cycle or two (for one thing the technology seems to have gotten better); also, there's reapportionment, which means GOP-controlled state legislatures in places like Texas, Florida and NC have more seats to work with. Sam Wang suggests GOP has a likely eight seat pickup advantage next year because of these two factors:

          https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/31/us/politics/gerrymander-census-democrats-republicans.html

          Again, I definitely don't think midterm losses for Democrats are a foregone conclusion. And obviously gerrymandering doesn't affect Senate races. Maybe the GOP brand really is so tattered that some of these structural and historical advantages won't amount to much. But the bulk of the experts who have been studying this stuff a long time seem to think otherwise.

          Anyway, I sincerely hope your optimism is borne out.

  11. DrTalc

    There's not going to be an infrastructure bill, at least one that looks anything like Biden's proposal. Possibly, might be some $500 billion bill with lots of subsidies for business.

    The last stimulus bill is you're going to get.

  12. skeptonomist

    Manchin may hold out for some "bipartisanship", maybe even 10 Republican votes. But that may not be totally impossible for a compromise bill. Some Republicans such as Romney are at least pretending that they would consider a bill. Infrastructure spending would go to big-business projects, which Rebublicans should like, and also there would be jobs in their states. As Kevin says, voting rights was never a possibility - Republicans get nothing from it. They were also not going to support increasing corporate taxes, so giving this up is the minimum that Biden would have to do to get any Republican votes.

Comments are closed.