Democrats in the House have passed HR1, an extensive package of voting reforms designed to fight back against the voter suppression efforts of Republicans. I find myself in an odd position about this: I firmly support passage of the bill, but I don't really care that much what's in it. Let me explain with a chart:
The chart starts in 1992, right before the motor voter law was passed. It goes through 2016, and thus includes all of the various Republican state laws enacted over the past couple of decades to restrict voting.
The results are pretty obvious: Voter turnout has been steady; Black voter turnout has gone up a bit; and both early voting and mail voting have increased. Roughly speaking, all those Republican voter suppression efforts just haven't had much impact on a national level.
On a national level. This is the key. On the level of individual states, it's likely that Republican efforts have been more successful. And this obviously makes a difference in Senate races, in the Electoral College, and in gerrymandering of House districts.
So here's the thing: it's absurd that state political parties are essentially able to control the voting process to their own advantage. No other democratic country that I know of allows this. Voting in national elections should be regulated at the national level, just as the Constitution suggests:
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations...
Congress should set the rules for registration and voting and they should be the same for every state. This is so obvious that it barely even needs to be defended.
HR1 would do this. But once we've agreed to national rules, what should those rules be? It's here that I think we have a lot of leeway. As the chart above shows us, national voting has been pretty steady despite the hundreds of individual laws passed over the past couple of decades. Things like Sunday voting, early voting, mail voting, ID requirements, and so forth haven't had a big impact. I'd be perfectly happy to compromise considerably on those details as long as the resulting rules applied equally to every state and territory.
Needless to say, this would also put a stop to the tidal wave of state lawsuits that consume so much time after every election. Very often these cases turn on state legislatures that have tried to change the voting rules at the last minute in a desperate effort to squeeze out a few extra votes for their party, and a national law would put an end to that.
I think it's unlikely that HR1 will pass in the Senate. No matter what it includes, Republicans will conclude that they have a better chance of winning by allowing Republican states to create their own rules. But you never know. It's possible that Democrats could attract a dozen or so Republicans by insisting on national rules but making substantial concessions on the details of the rules. My take—subject to correction from experts—is that Democrats will be in good shape as long as they know what the rules are;¹ Republicans will be satisfied if we agree to some of their hobbyhorses; and the country will be far better off if voting regulations are national. We should give it a try and see if Republicans are willing to put their money where their mouths are.
¹As an example, photo ID laws are one of the worst examples of Republicans trying to suppress the votes of groups that vote Democratic. And yet, it turns out their effect was minimal. The reason is that once Democrats understood the new rules, they were able to turn that into higher energy among Black and Brown voters to get to the polls. On net, then, photo ID laws worked in both directions and had only the smallest effect on election results.
Uh... because Republicans don't believe in compromise, and they don't believe anyone other than Republicans should have the right to vote?
As an addendum: no Republican would vote for a Democrat-sponsored VRA, *even if it contained measures that Republicans advocated*, because the Senator would be primaried out of office for collaborating with liberals.
As someone who has lived his entire life in Washington and Oregon all I have to say is we ain't giving up vote by mail, and I assume Utah, Colorado and Hawaii feel the same way.
I'm not sure that I understand the point of Kevin's post. Insofar as I'm aware, there is no Republican compromise offer on the table at this time. Kevin is proposing that we should compromise and then negotiating with himself about what we should give to Republicans in return for their support.
The first, quite obvious problem, is that there is no negotiating partner today and little reason for Republicans to participate in the process when Democrats are whittling down their own proposals without any help from the GOP.
The second problem, closely related problem, is that if a Republican should express even the slightest interest in compromise the Democratic proposal, that initial Democratic proposal is the merest shadow of itself and really, at that point, to meet Republicans half way is to settle for table scraps.
The time for negotiations is when there's somebody on the other side making a reasonable good-faith offer. Until then, Democrats should focus on the asshole Joe Manchin who's opposed to the entire Democratic agenda and is determined to see the party defeated in 2022.
Yeah, I'm so old I can recall a very similar approach when writing the ACA -- lots of compromised positions to lure GOP support (that never materialized). I can't say I understand Kevin's point either.
You remember incorrectly. The compromises were to get the votes of Blue Dog Democrats like Joe Lieberman and Max Baucus. If any progressive knows the secret to electing a progressive in a state that voted Trump over Biden by 39 percentage points, go for it. Otherwise, we’ve got to live with Joe Manchin.
The secret is to get other Democrats elected elsewhere, or, otherwise, to get other Republicans to fail elsewhere, which isn't as hard as it used to be because by now it's obvious to everyone failure is their brand, even to the people who vote for them because of it.
If it weren't to the point that Manchin is a net negative I might agree. We're stuck with this ugly arrangement for two more years, but we'd better find a way to ditch it as soon as possible. We need a caucus that doesn't include people we cannot turn our backs on.
All I see when I look at Manchin is an opportunist. I don't see a man who lives and breathes core democratic party principles.
Manchin and Sinema: Mavericks™
Why do you say Manchin is a "net negative"? He's voted against one cabinet nominee (who attacked---with reason---Manchin's daughter). He's made his vote for the COVID relief act conditional on cutting a trivial (in the grand scheme) amount of funding. He voted (twice) to convict Trump of high crimes and misdemeanors.
He's clearly one of the most conservative members of the Democratic caucus but he's a reliable Democratic vote on most issues. Isn't that a "net positive" compared with the alternative?
C'mon Bear
You want everyone to vote in lock step while representing the Big Tent?
That won't and cannot happen.
Manchin represents a RED State - if he was NOT there we'd still have Mitch McConnell leading the senate.
The election was a victory for DEMs but not as much as was needed. We need at least 3 or 4 more DEM senators to allow cover for those who represent conservative states
Otherwise we turn into a US senate defined by urban elites versus flyover country and we will be perpetually beset by the problems we have now.
According to Politifact, Pelosi's office had a fact sheet made up about the ACA that said 147 GOP amendments made it into the final Senate bill. Starting from a position of preserving private insurance was even chosen as a middle ground to encourage bipartisan support.
There was never a chance that the Blue Dog Democrats would have voted for a bill that replaced private insurance with a government-run program. The major compromise that progressives criticize most often - dropping a public option - was a concession to the Blue Dogs.
Republicans will never compromise because the core message of their never-ending campaign is that Democrats are evil, baby-killing, objectively pro-terrorists who hate the troops and are determined to destroy America, outlaw Christianity, and force people to eat nutritious foods. You can't broadcast that message to your supporters every day, then sit down and cut a deal.
I am waiting for somebody to say this to the cable news heads who keep nagging Democratic guests about Joe Biden's tragic failure to achieve bipartisan unity.
+1. Standard ploy of authoritarian parties to demonize/dehumanize opponents, in order to rationalize illegal, unConstitutional, even violent actions against them.
Elections are won and lost by a few tens of thousands of votes among upwards of a hundred million cast. The trends shown in the graph have nowhere near the fine resolution you need to base any cogent conclusions on them.
And importantly, the anti voter laws tend to be concentrated in low population swing states that have smaller overall minority populations to begin with. Obviously a rule that depresses black turnout 5% in wisconsin isn't going to budge the national average.
Some Southern state like Georgia and North Carolina or even Texas are coming into play now. Republicans will try to stop this. They won't compromise - why should they?
Congress could start by outlawing caucuses and voice votes, both of which are ridiculous.
Why, in your view, are they both ridiculous?
Not sure, but my quick scan of HR1 this morning showed that it includes automatic voter registration + universal vote-by-mail provisions. These two provisions sort of make voter ID requirements obsolete. The only time I've had to present photo ID here in Wisconsin is when I signed up for permanent absentee vote-by-mail ten years ago.
Still, the whole point of requiring photo ID to vote is simply to suppress the vote by making it harder to get to the booth after you've waited in line to vote. Voter ID is the most pernicious barrier to having free and open elections. For the People says enough of this crap. In a way, it's the key to the whole idea of the bill: make it easier for people to vote; not harder.
The notion that Democrats should give a rats tail about what Republicans want in the bill, after the past 40 years of their southern strategy and voter suppression, also violates the spirit of the act. Fact: Republicans do not want democracy; they just want power by hook or crook or anyway they can get it. There will never be 10 Republican votes for the For the People act, regardless of what Democrats might choose to give away. Hard to believe Drum here doesn't know that. Everyone else in the country over 12 years old does.
Republicans can't compromise on HR 1. As they themselves have said, they would never again win a national election if every eligible voter voted. The only way the party can survive is by dissuading or outright preventing people from voting. HR 1 is inherently anathematic to them.
+1
@Steve_OH
👍
My attitude on this is the same as on many things:
First, pass everything through reconciliation that we possibly can.
After that, sure, negotiate with Republicans. What is there to lose? If we actually get a decent deal and pass it, great. Failing that, look for opportunities to highlight the insanity of the filibuster: "Look, we had a bipartisan deal that got 55 votes in the Senate, but it still got filibustered." Keep nudging reluctant Democrats toward getting rid of the stupid thing.
Most of this stuff is great, but the provision getting rid of partisan gerrymandering is kind of everything. It would profoundly alter the political landscape... not only would 50/50 states stop having insanely lopsided representation, Republicans would never win a House election again until they climbed off of the crazy train and tacked back to the center right.
Yes but that will be much, much harder to do. That cannot be done at the federal level, the Supreme Court has basically ruled that states can do whatever they want as long as they don't foolishly say the quiet parts out loud. The only way to fix things is to do it state by state and even then sneaky folks will propose faux non-partisan amendments like they did in Virginia.
Unfortunately, Mr. Drum, we don’t know what the counterfactual would look like. And the fact is that it has taken extraordinary efforts by Democrats, aided fortuitously by Republican incompetence in the face of an epidemic, to gain control of the White House and Senate by very slim margins. That is too close for comfort.
I agree with the comment or s that there are no good faith offers from Republicans anyway. Further, there should not be any compromise on voting rights; not in a country whose basic law aspires to a ‘more perfect Union’. Not in a country with one of the lowest participation rates in the developed world. We need to be about abolishing obstacles and hindrances to voting, not forcing citizens to struggle to overcome them.
+++ I look for evidence that there is a rational element of the republican party remaining, from which reasonable compromises would be offered, and I do not see any - not one. This is especially true in the post rhetoric phase and republicans actually vote.
*commenters*
I think the best strategy is to target states on ballot and voting accessibility based on the ADA, then tailor a bill to address ballot and voting accessibility.
La Ruedilla* would lead the opposition to this.
*Madison Cawthorn
I've little hope for a compromise but we ought to. The way things are going the next four national elections will result in Democratic majorities, but Republicans will win at least two of them in the electoral college. Both parties are going to complain about fraud and it's only going to get worse, if that's possible.
I think the Carter-Baker report could be the basis for a compromise, after being updated for new technology. Trade universal registration for universal photo-id (phased in with outreach for isolated population and make a national system available for absentee voting (covering military, citizens living abroad, and anyone the states wants to add).
It might well be true that universal registration won't really help Democrats and universal photo id won't prevent any fraud, but both improve our faith in the election system. Doing nothing is just asking for more disasters.
I expect that universal photo ID will restore Republican voters’ confidence in the integrity of our elections, about as well as Obama’s deporting undocumented people restored their confidence in border integrity. The GOP has spent decades undermining Americans’ trust in government, science, and expertise in general. More recently, they have demonized Democrats, ‘Washington insiders’ and ‘elites’. Sowing mistrust is a core piece of their strategy; it discourages citizens from political participation, even to as small a degree as voting, and that is their goal - the fewer people vote, the better for Republicans. If the facts on vote fraud - it is all but nonexistent - do not assuage doubts about election integrity, no act of Congress will.
Thank you! It's a fools errand to expect that the GOP will play by Marquis of Queensberry Rules. Instead we need to deliver on items like the COVID bill when we can via reconciliation, work with the Democrats who oppose removing the filibuster to get them to see the light and if they seem impervious to any arguments work to get a Democratic majority in 2022 that will support removing the filibuster.
Republicans aren't negotiating.
They're telegraphing.
When will the media stop using the word negotiate in exchange for what Republicans are actually doing?
I imagine some things can happen.
I imagine some things are unlikely to happen.
I imagine some things will never happen even if flying pigs have a snowball fight in hell.
A compromise with Republicans on voting reform is in the third category. I can't imagine why anyone would want to waste time talking about it.
The expected number of GOP Senate votes to pass a massively popular Covid relief package is approximately 0. Why would anybody think Dems can get 10 or more Senate votes for reform that ensures voting rights from the same party that is working on hundreds of state bills designed to curtail voting rights?
Bold prediction: A "compromise" will not happen. Voting reform will only happen if Democrats find a way around the filibuster (which is in the second category above).
Sadly, cynically I agree with your post. I wish it weren't so but it is right now.
"As the chart above shows us, national voting has been pretty steady despite the hundreds of individual laws passed over the past couple of decades. Things like Sunday voting, early voting, mail voting, ID requirements, and so forth haven't had a big impact. "
So...Sunday voting, early voting, and mail voting may very well have added 5 million votes. But ID requirements may have removed 5 million votes.
And so passing a law that *strengthens* the additions and *weakens* the reductions will not have much of an impact?
Am I missing something?
Similarly with voter ID laws. They may cause 1 million people to not vote, but inspire 2 million other people to vote for the first time. That does not negate the fact that they *cause 1 million people not to vote*. Not to mention the inspiration will likely fade over time.
Yeah, the bridge went out, so it takes me an hour longer to get to work. But I leave an hour earlier, so everything is just fine! No need to repair that silly bridge!
As long as it's the party of trump rather than of Lincoln, any cooperation is tantamount to capitulation.
Kevin, you are overthinking this. We need the easiest way to vote everywhere. Nothing the Dems give in on will result in additional Rep support. They no longer believe in Democracy.
^^^Congress should set the rules for registration and voting and they should be the same for every state. This is so obvious that it barely even needs to be defended.^^^
There are a lot of things that Congress "should" (or would) do if the Republican Party believed in democratic (small "d") values. They. Do. Not.
And, no, it's not at all "obvious" that anything "should" be done that would help the Ant-Constitutional Socialist Party (aka Democrats) win elections. At a fundamental level, that's what this is all about: many/most Republicans genuinely believe what Democrats espouse isn't allowed by the Constitution, ERGO they don't possess a right to win elections and govern and ERGO any/and all manner of cheating, law-breaking, bad faith and so on is permissible (maybe even obligatory) to prevent Democrats from winning. After all, doing so (in their view) is literally the same as defending the Constitution.
This has been today's episode of Kevin Drum's "Actually, everything is fine".
I defer to BalloonJuice in this matter.
Indeed! It sort of reminds me of:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDAmPIq29ro
Have you been watching Republicans lately? Remember the Affordable Care Act? Republicans will take all the concessions you care to make and then vote against it anyway. They'll do what McConnell tells them to do.
Sure, why not? But in the interests of clarifying our terms of debate, here's my rough-and-ready definition of "compromising with Republicans" on voting rights (and other legislation): accepting your amendment in exchange for your vote.
If Republicans aren't going to vote for a bill, then their amendments get stripped out. Does that work as a definition of "compromise" for purpose of this discussion?
The footnote demonstrates the unfairness: you say Black and Brown democrats have shown success in overcoming republican-imposed hurdles that target them so what's the big deal? But WHY should they be put in the position where they/we have to overcome ANY hurdles that target them???