President Biden plans to deliver a hard-hitting speech on voting rights in Atlanta on Tuesday, saying the issue is fundamental to America, calling for passage of sweeping legislation and denouncing in detail the impact of voting restrictions in states like Georgia.
As always, this is a bit mysterious. A Republican filibuster is assured, which means Democrats need 60 votes for passage, which they'll never get. Nor can the legislation be passed under reconciliation rules, which would require only 51 votes. Literally the only way to pass this legislation is to abolish the filibuster, and Democrats don't have the votes for that either.
So why push so hard on it? Is it political theater, designed to show progressives that Biden did everything he could possibly do? Is it designed to embarrass Republicans for voting against it? I've never been clear on what's going on.
What's more, it's also not clear what the legislation would really accomplish. Consider voter turnout in presidential elections since 1980:
Democrats have been (successfully) broadening voting laws all this time, while Republicans have been fighting them. The result has been nothing. The trendline for voter turnout has been dead flat for 40 years.
Here's the same chart, but with every state represented:
The point of this is that it doesn't show a lot of variance. Turnout is higher than average in some states and lower in others, but for the most part all of them are moving right along with the national average. Nothing special has happened thanks to either Democratic liberalization (motor voter law, early voting, etc.) or Republican suppression (photo IDs, caging lists).
The place where you'd expect to see some divergence is in Southern states. Here's what they look like:
This is confusing to read, but the takeaway is simple: even in the South, nearly all states have basically followed the national trend. There are four exceptions (heavier lines) that started out well below the national average and then climbed above it. Of those, three have become steadily less Republican and more Democratic over the years, which might explain the change in turnout. The fourth is South Carolina, and I don't know what their story is.
Still, if you take this all together it doesn't seem as though any of the hundreds of voting measures that have become law over the past few decades have accomplished much. The biggest one was the motor voter act in 1993, which required states to offer registration both at DMV offices and by mail. But it had no apparent effect on turnout at all.¹
This is a very broad look at things, and perhaps a more sophisticated analysis would show some subtle changes. But they'd be pretty subtle. What's more, they'd be kind of pointless anyway since recent research challenges the conventional wisdom that high turnout helps Democrats and low turnout helps Republicans. In fact, it turns out that increased or decreased turnout doesn't help or hurt either party by more than a hair.
So here we have some legislation that's morally laudable but can't pass and wouldn't do a lot of good even if it did. What really matters is either (a) passing a narrower bill that might get Republican support, or (b) introducing a bill that focuses solely on how votes are counted, which might truly embarrass Republicans if they voted against it.²
I don't understand what's going on and I never have. Perhaps it will all become clear once the current bills are put up to a vote.
¹You might be thinking that voter laws do have an effect, but Democratic and Republican efforts simply cancel each other out. That's possible. But research into specific types of voter laws seldom show high effectiveness. Nor do things differ much in red vs. blue states, even though they presumably enact only their preferred subset of voter laws. And of course there's the evidence of motor voter, a huge change that produced almost no effect.
Turnout aside, it's possible—maybe—that liberalized voter laws make voting more convenient, but there's not much rigorous research to demonstrate that, and in any case the effect would have to be very small in order to have no knock-on effects on ultimate voter turnout.
²And they would vote against it. Undermining the vote counting process is too essential to their Trumpish brand these days. But at least this is something that would make a decent campaign issue since most centrists are pretty appalled when they hear about this, even if they approve of voter ID and other "anti-fraud" measures.
C'mon Kevin
Washington State has had mail in voting for 9 election cycles and turnout is routinely in the upper 70% to 85% range. WITH LITTLE TO NO FRAUD
In today's American dream world where we want pandemics cured with a pill, where we want driverless cars, making voting easier would certainly increase voter turnout. Washington state proves it.
And with todays technology generating a code for each mail ballot that ties it to a specific voter is easy.
But, republicans don't want EASY. They see the numbers of registered (I)'s increasing year after year, So do the (D)'s.
Neither party TRUSTS an I voter and NOBODY trusts an (I) politician. If voting became easier they might find more and more people are sick of the two parties that are increasingly polarized.
The RNC and the DNC do NOT want to find out how Americans feel. They want to tell us how we're supposed to feel
Why? Well, it is clear republicans are going to limit voting everywhere, every time as much as they can. They have flat out said they don't like 'those' people voting.
They sure don't pass voting stuff that matters. All for show. Yet, you whine. Maybe, it's all a game.
-1 continued released felon disenfranchisement in Florida (due court costs (which were not part of the overwhelmingly approved felon voting rights restoration ballot referendum))
And meanwhile down here in Georgia, Biden is taking the blame from voting rights groups for his refusal to wave his magic presidential wand, magically eliminate the filibuster, and make every problem go away: https://www.11alive.com/article/news/politics/president-joe-biden-vice-president-kamala-harris-visit-atlanta-tuesday/85-c73e95cf-990f-4e53-97bb-3559168933c5
Massive own goal by Abrams and these other groups in Georgia, imho. They could have invited Biden to have a conversation with them about their concerns behind closed doors, but instead they've given the right-wing media a huge gift, with Fox headlines screaming that Dems are abandoning Biden-Harris in droves heading into 2022.
Another bit of coverage of Biden’s trip to Atlanta: https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/01/10/politics/georgia-voting-rights-advocates-biden-visit/index.html
Is that the #CaboCrew?
Fuck Jemele Hill with Colin Cowherd's lightly used Donald Trump buttplug.
Because Biden is beholden to the Black Caucus. A large reason Obama didn't want him running as President.
I agree most of these laws are irrelevant. They may have some effect on voting, but it is wide and dispersed. More likely whiney negros living in the past. Ignorant to the world around them. Kevin, this answers your "question" on lack of unity: Black male resentment. It turns swing voters off. Until the Democrats reject it and get rid of the East coast establishment, the party is meh. Trump probably saved it in hospice care sorta way.
Third chart has 3/13 southern states above 60% at the start and in '96 and 12/13 above at the end.
Sometimes you do something because it is the right thing to do.
Because it is right? Give me a break. Because it panders to the Black Caucus. Just be honest.
"The next few days, when these bills come to a vote, will mark a turning point in this nation," Biden will say in Georgia, according to excerpts shared by the White House. "Will we choose democracy over autocracy, light over shadow, justice over injustice? I know where I stand. I will not yield. I will not flinch. I will defend your right to vote and our democracy against all enemies foreign and domestic. And so the question is where will the institution of United States Senate stand?”
This is what Biden says he is doing.
If you resent the Black Caucus for burning political capital, just say so. You perhaps resent it too when Democrats stand up for women's health right. And who cares about immigrants amirite?
Just be honest -- maybe the Republicans are the better party for you.
Women's health??? What does that mean??? You just are muttering dialectical nonsense. That is my point. Black Caucus types which are overbearing are the ones gunhoe on this. For others, they could care less.
You are feeding a troll.
It can't be honest. It's a semi-literate, racist, and anti-semitic troll. It leaves its droppings only to get attention. Please don't feed the troll.
-- Because he's late to this particular party and needs to show show constituent groups how much he cares?
-- Because he really does care about it and really thinks it's the right thing to do?
-- Because it's a way to try to pressure Manchinema to give in on a talking filibuster?
There are other possibilities, but off the top of my head these are the leading ones.
On the first one I'd look to what Clyburn wants. I don't know what that is, but Biden owes his comeback in the primaries and his ultimate win to Clyburn and black voters and he really needs to make at least an extraordinary gesture in that direction to retain any credibility with them. I think he has a pretty consistent record on voting rights, which could be relevant to the second point.
On the third one, it seems to me that some version of a talking filibuster is the best of all worlds for majority and minority and there could be some element of pushing the two recalcitrants in that direction. Everybody who follows this knows how obstructionist the gop is, but the obstruction is completely silent so you can't get any video bites actually showing it, and without any dramatization all it does is make Ds look ineffectual. OTOH, you could get great campaign videos if they had to talk out loud against going to a vote. And the minority would still be able to make their own clips for local and party consumption, the way they do in the House when nobody's there, and it would still work for them the same way, but they'd have to do it in full view. They'd hate to give up the leverage of silent destruction, but they'd keep that much. And McConnell is wily and unscrupulous enough to find a way to make that work for them.
Who knows what Manchinema will actually go for on any given day, but to me that looks like one possible aim, especially if you pair it with Schumer's announced schedule.
I strongly favor going for the talking filibuster, and one with real teeth - no reading from the phone book or Dr. Seuss. The filibuster is not after all a thing, it is the absence of a thing - the Senate has no standing rule limiting debate. So make the minority actually debate, actually speak to the bill. If the minority wants to oppose the will of the majority, require them to put their reasons before the public.
Limit quotations of published material; allow only handwritten notes and a limited number of clippings and graphics (posters or slides) per speaker.
And make the majority be present and listen. If they aren’t present, the clock stops.
I could agree, if any Senator could raise a point of order if a speaking Senator fails to be germane. If the violator loses the ruling and appeal, s/he would be required to yield.
So if I understand the logic here, judging from a lack of rigorous statistical evidence Democratic attempts to liberalize voting might not cancel out Republican attempts to suppress it, so therefore we shouldn't try.
Is this the argument you're making?
OK. I've now officially had it with Kevin. Individual states are now coming up with laws and plans to restrict voting. Christ, just about the entire Republican Party .has embraced the big lie that the voting totals from 2020 are fraudulent. They very much don't want my vote to count.
Without national voting standards, whatever remains of our democracy is kaput. Some states are making it very hard for some Democrats to vote. They will be sending Congressional delegations to Washington where they will pass laws for the entire nation, not just their own state. It is a national issue, not a states' rights issue.
Yeah, Kevin, it probably can't be done because S&M. But it should be done, and the President should go to the mat for democracy in trying to do it. We all should. I don't get it. You hide behind those graphs of yours and don't seem to notice what people actually say and do. Their intentions are clear. They want minority white rule by making it harder for Democrats to vote.
Now I know why Spadesofgrey likes your site.
I agree with what Kevin has on this topic here and earlier: stuff like photo ID laws, absentee ballots and early voting move the turnout needle a little bit here and there, but don't really make or break anything. The really dangerous thing Republicans are doing in places like Georgia and Arizona is allowing legislatures where they have more or less permanent majorities to overturn or not recognize the popular vote if they feel like it. That's how "democracy" works in places like Iran and the window to try to stop it before the GOP tries to steal the 22 and 24 elections is closing fast.
I don’t see any obstacle to invoking the guarantee clause to require states to count every legally-cast vote in federal elections, and to make it a federal crime to willfully fail to count any ballot showing clear intent, without proof of fraud. I leave it to the lawyers to figure out how to word this so as not to preclude the NPVIC.
In particular, an overvote for one office should only invalidate that vote, correct votes on the same ballot must be counted; and similarly for other errors.
What jte21 said.
Past efforts haven't worked. But the new ones deliberately take control from those who refused Trump's demands to "Find him a few more votes" and replacing them with more pliable/reliably Trumpy controllers. Assuming that won't have any effect is suicidal.
End gerrymandering. More people get interested in interesting elections. Better yet, if the candidates engage in candid discussions of the issues.
It's not clear whether turnout is measured as a percent of registered voters, or as a percent of registerable voters. Many of the various voter laws discussed are laws designed to make it easier (Democrats) or harder (Republicans) to register. Those laws are expected to affect the size of the registered voter pool, but can't be expected to affect the percentage of registered voters that actually vote. If turnout is measured as a percent of registered voters, this may explain why changing voter laws doesn't affect turnout.
It would be interesting to see how the percentage of registerable, but unregistered, potential voters has changed with the various laws. The motor voter law, for instance, should have increased the proportion of registered eligibles.
Good point.
It's not clear whether turnout is measured as a percent of registered voters, or as a percent of registerable voters.
It'a generally the latter. Kevin's charts are no exception.
And the last two presidential elections have been decided by a hair. Perhaps two hairs.
Yes!
Data you are not showing but should:
1. The number of states which are gerrymandered to the point of permanent GOP control (which influences their representation in the house).
2. The difference between popular vote total of either party and their representation in the House over time.
>The difference between popular vote total of either party and their representation in the House over time.
And representation in the state legislature.
+1
Why? Because he needs to get better numbers with Dems and get them to vote in November. How else will he do that?
I'm not surprised to see that it's hard to detect any impact of changes in voting laws. I believe that, for the most part, these laws are working at the margins, not broadly reshaping the electorate.
We have reached a point where very close elections are common and sometimes are decisive in giving control of legislatures to one party or the other. A law that drives down participation for the other side's voters by a couple of percentage points translates to permanent dominance for the party that passes it.
+1
+1
it is 100% theater for progressives that will not pass and will not embarrass republicans in the least.
In this case, Political Theatre is just fine. It's called "Leadership". Pointing out that there is a problem that needs to be addressed is important whether or not one thinks the political environment will allow the problem to be addressed.
+1
The object isn't to embarrass Republicans but to get Democrats angry if it doesn't pass.
> What's more, they'd be kind of pointless anyway since recent research challenges the conventional wisdom that high turnout helps Democrats and low turnout helps Republicans. In fact, it turns out that increased or decreased turnout doesn't help or hurt either party by more than a hair.
This pretty much misses the point. The point is that laws are being passed that selectively make it more difficult for Democrats to vote. And the selectivity doesn't need to have a broad easily measured effect. Suppressing 1% of the Democrat vote is plenty.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2021/10/26/voter-suppression-or-voter-expansion-whats-happening-and-does-it-matter/
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voting-laws-roundup-october-2021
I read a bit about the history of the ‘guarantee clause’ of the Constitution: https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/article-iv/clauses/42
In several cases brought to the Supreme Court, the questions were ruled non-justiciable, effectively leaving it to Congress to decide what is a ‘republican form of government’. ISTM that this would be Congress’ opportunity to introduce anti-gerrymandering bills for state leglatures. They’ll never get 60 votes for cloture, of course, but it will put Senators and Representatives on record. Given the self-sorting of Democrats into urban areas, Democrats could hardly lose.
… legislatures …
As others have pointed out these new sets of law making it harder to vote are not the biggest threats here. So on that narrow score I agree with Drum.
But, again as others have noted, those aren't the major issues addressed by the federal laws. Gerrymandering and empowering very partisan state legislatures with just tossing votes based on little or no evidence for any reason to do so are the big current threats that the federal bills address.
Now what I haven't seen the bills propenents address is why the bills would survive a challenge with this Republican SCOTUS. I mean a less Republican SCOTUS decreed huge parts of the VRA which had recently been reupped by 98-0 Senate vote unconstitutional because Roberts decreed racism no longer exists.
I heard (most) of Biden's speech earlier today, and it struck me - pretty clearly - as a campaign speech. Perhaps it was, in fact, the beginning of the (visible) 2022 (midterm) campaign season. And I would say it was a pretty good campaign speech for Dems in that it spelled out the current "deplorable" state of the GOP in stark terms. Biden attempted to alert the country, as clearly as he could, that the current GOP is more extreme than Strom Thurmond, and that's saying something.
Another (and perhaps related) reason for Biden's speech strikes me, honestly, as pretty obvious: setting the narrative. I suspect that Biden (and maybe a lot of his admin) really did hope that trump would fade away. Instead, trump has been pressing his "big lie" narrative relentlessly. At this point, are there any Republicans left (other than Liz Cheney) who will even question Trump's narrative? Someone with a high profile eventually has to push back strongly, and I guess Biden finally decided that he had to fill that role whether he liked it or not. Doing so, I suspect, provides cover for others to do the same. Even if the press wants to cling to "both sides" coverage until its dying breath, at least now it can report the factual version of reality presented by Biden as it came out of his own mouth.
And it's impossible, in my opinion, to calculate the influence and importance of narrative, but I have no doubt that to at least some extent, if not to a big extent, narrative does drive press coverage and ultimately influence elections.
Ah, this comment aged like milk.
Nice post. Let the narrative and campaign begin. It's always difficult to know if Schumer means what he says, but I have heard that he will call votes on voting rights as early as tomorrow (Wednesday).
Despite its likely failure, I hope he sticks to his guns and calls a vote on filibuster reform/elimination. I want Manchin and Sinema on the record if they fail to protect democracy. If nothing else, that will intensify the narrative and earn them scorn on their way to a well-deserved ignominy.
Now, the press abandoning "both sides" coverage? THAT I will have to see to believe. I haven't seen it yet, anywhere in this country. If you run across a paper that has eliminated this modus operandi, let me know.
Like there is a narrative. Trump lies. Everybody knows it. The only democracy at stake is your fantasies and delusions of his followers who are dumber than the con man. Threat to Democracy??? Please.
My type of politics is a far larger threat. Destruction of capital markets and modern liberalism is the goal. Remember this, the left hegelian movement were the skeptics of the last 1500 years of European history. Grievances run deep, deeper than you will ever know.
After reading some of your posts for about a month, I think it is you who is dumber than "the con man". Just saying.
And deeply aggrieved, too. That's a bad combination. Dumb and unhappy.
A majority of Republicans believe the president was illegitimately elected. A violent mob successfully delayed the certification of the electoral vote for the first time in history. Both these facts are unique and should deeply worry everyone.
The "far larger threat" you (sort of) describe is pure loony tunes.
I think it's a combination of A) Biden not wanting to waste political capital bucking his own left flank and B) realizing that the failure of said legislation will likely stoke the anger of Democrats vis-a-vis Republicans, and hopefully help turnout this fall.
Large swaths of progressives and Democrats possess an unshakeable belief that fighting voter suppression efforts by the right is a critical priority upon which the fate of democracy depends. No Democratic president would be well-advised to fight this.
Large swath of idiots. Voter suppression isn't what they think. Nobody likes them. Stop trying to force your views via the Democratic party. Maybe said party will get more votes.
A roughly 20% difference of voter turnout between states seems pretty significant to me when many races are decided by very small margins. It doesn't seem farfetched to suggest that real policy differences have something to do with it.
It may well be political theater but President Biden has to act out the role slated for him because the alternative, to do nothing and shrug and say "It can't be done." is even worse. And even if its all about politics, so what? Staking out a strong position and blaming the GOP for their blocking these bills is important for 2022 and has to be done. Because the alternative is wallowing in the fact that many Dems (not just two) stand in the way of fillerbuster? That's not good politics. And if negotiations for BBB are pretty much moribund at this point, what's Biden and Congress supposed to do? Go home and phone it in for the rest of year? My Lord, we're only in mid-January!
The reason Biden finds himself in this position is the apocalyptic turn many Left have taken, both activists and writers and the rest intelligensia. I've seen this behavior on the Right for so long that it becomes second nature for them but now it's there on the Left for the first time since the late 60's/early 70s and for an administration basically Center-Left in its approach, well they're going to catch hell for it as you saw yesterday. I don't know how many times it needs to be said Presidents don't have magic wands when it comes to passing legislation in this day and age but apparently it never sinks into the activist crowd. They would be better organizing for city council and school board races but there's something about Presidency that draws them like a light draws moths. Call it the West Wingeffect I don't know but it's still true even after Obama Administration should have wisened them up.
If the end result of even a little Presidential lobbying is a taking fillibuster and ECA reform, hell that's actually damn good. But have to try, no, not try, do first, not use the fillibuster as an excuse for inaction. You're not going to draw too many voters that way.
Pingback: Democratic Inaction Will Lead Us Back to Austerity – Smart Again