I couldn't find a thread on HR1/For the People act (2020) or John Lewis voting right. HR1 was seen as dead with Manchin firmly against it (see his oped). Machin now has released what he would support. Manchin proposes changes to Democrats' voting rights bill - CBS News Voting Legislation Support Memo (2).pdf - Google Drive VOTING LEGISLATION The right to vote is fundamental to our American democracy and protecting that right should not be about party or politics. Congressional action on federal voting rights legislation must be the result of both Democrats and Republicans coming together to find a pathway forward or we risk further dividing and destroying the republic we swore to protect and defend as elected officials. Below are areas of support and additions for Federal Voting Legislation and updates to the John Lewis Voting Rights Act. Voting Legislation For the People Act Compromise 1. Make election day a public holiday (New) 2. Mandate at least 15 consecutive days of early voting for federal elections (include 2 weekends) 3. Ban partisan gerrymandering and use computer models (New) 4. Require voter ID with allowable alternatives (utility bill, etc.) to prove identity to vote (New) 5. Automatic registration through DMV, with option to opt out. 6. Require states to promote access to voter registration and voting for persons with disabilities and older individuals. 7. Prohibit providing false information about elections to hinder or discourage voting and increases penalties for voter intimidation. 8. Require states to send absentee by mail ballots to eligible voters before an election if voter is not able to vote in person during early voting or election day due to eligible circumstance and allow civil penalty for failure. (New) 9. Require the Election Assistance Commission to develop model training programs and award grants for training. 10.Require states to notify an individual, not later than 7 seven days before election, if his/her polling place has changed. Absentee ballots shall be carried expeditiously and free of postage. Require the Attorney General to develop a state-based response system and hotline that provides information on voting. 11.Allow for maintenance of voter rolls by utilizing information derived from state and federal documents. 12.Establish standards for election vendors based on cybersecurity concerns. 13.Allow provisional ballots to count for all eligible races regardless of precinct. Campaign Finance 1. Amend the Federal Election Campaign Act to create a reporting requirement for disclosing reportable foreign contacts. 2. DISCLOSE Act 3. Honest Ads Act 4. Create “coordinated spender” category to ensure single-candidate super PACs do not operate as arms of campaigns. Ethics 1. Increase resources for FARA office, creates FARA investigation and enforcement unit in Department of Justice and provides authority to impose civil penalties. 2. Require all Presidential appointees to recuse themselves from any matter in which a party is the President, the President’s spouse or an entity in which the President or President’s spouse has a substantial interest. 3. Prevent lobbyists from working on behalf of foreign entities. 4. Require the President and the Vice President, within 30 days of taking office, to divest financial interests that pose a conflict of interest or disclose information about their business interests. Executive Branch Reforms 1. Require the disclosure of individual tax returns and certain business tax returns by Presidents and Vice Presidents, as well as candidates for the President and Vice President. Updated John Lewis Voting Rights Act 1. Decrease the Attorney General’s authority to deem a state or locality’s actions a voting rights violation without a judicial finding of discrimination. (appeal process/hands of the court) 2. Remove Consent Decree as a definition of a violation. o Otherwise it removes the incentive to enter into an agreement; and o There is a concern that savvy lawyers could go into cash strapped localities and file suits knowing that localities don’t have the money to litigate and will enter into a settlement agreement. These same savvy lawyers could go around to other local communities and rack up voting rights violations to get a locality or state into preclearance. 3. Needs to have objective measures for determining whether a state or locality has a pattern of discrimination. The new language allows for determinations without accounting for voter participation or registration data. 4. Concern that the Injunctive relief standard is too subjective as it requires the complaint to “raise a serious question.” 5. There needs to be clarity on how states or localities exit out of preclearance. I think it's a very good list. It still cannot pass due to the filibuster, but now with him on-board and his statement that he's willing to make filibuster reform - he's going to have to back that up when indeed the Rep won't support his version.
I think it's a good list too. I like the part about many forms of ID as in principle I'm not against voter ID but think it's onerous if limited to just state issued driver's license or equivalent state issued ID given the problems that many poorer, rural and elderly people have with getting and maintaining those ID. Unless it is under the "injunctive relief" issue I still think the biggest thing that needs to be addressed in these laws is how states could potentially overrule their own elections and allow their legislatures to decide them. I have strong doubts this will get 60 votes but I think Democratic leadership should be willing to accept this to get Manchin and other reluctant Democrats to test Republican willingness. If this is put to a vote and Republicans filibuster that will remove any excuse from Manchin regarding reforming the filibuster.
I think that’s where an updated John Lewis act can help. Machin has stated he support a version that apply a uniform standard equally to all 50 states (to get around the SC ruling as well).
Its a good start but not perfect. Unless the list of acceptable ID alternatives isn't exhaustive, there still are people it would unfairly prevent voting. Limiting the alternatives to things like utilities bills seem to move us back to land ownership requirements for voting, since many people don't get utilities bills. There must be some additional fair and easy to get document that doesn't require someone to travel large distance, cost or have internet access. That removes the challenge facing older Americans and poor Americans to register to vote. I think a big roadblock to this modified voting legislation is the prohibition of partisan gerrymandering... as republicans will never agree to prevent that. But if he (and Democrats) place that stake in the ground and republicans block it, it shows manchin and other so-called bipartisan requirements are futile... and hopefully he balls up and rejoins Democrat efforts to overturn/limit filibustering.
"Democrats are wasting their own time and credibility on voting rights": https://theweek.com/politics/1001777/democrats-for-the-people-act-vote-senate excerpt: But there is a danger that voters will see futile gestures as empty gestures. If Democrats are loudly lamenting that the end of democracy is near, but the best they can do is a useless messaging vote, it might not be unreasonable for Americans to assume that maybe the danger is not so imminent. more at the link
S1 is indeed already doomed and I find it a lost opportunity that he is also wasting time talking about that and didn't mention of the one that Machin support with many progressive already on board.
Beside above @Os Trigonum, the vote tomorrow is not on any policy but on if the senate would start debate on voting rights. https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/schumer-republican-debate-voting-bill-for-the-people “Tomorrow, the Senate will also take a crucial vote on whether to start debate on major voting rights legislation,” Schumer said Monday afternoon from the Senate floor. “I want to say that again — tomorrow the Senate will take a vote on whether to start debate on legislation to protect Americans’ voting rights. It’s not a vote on any particular policy.”
Imagine thinking that fighting for the right to vote was a “waste of time.” Yes it’s a waste of time for someone who supports the MAGA regime who are clearly over the Democratic process. For the rest of Western Democracy, we tend to disagree.
50/50 procedural vote to bring up the S1 for debate failed. Manchin should now see that it's clear Republican has zero interest in entertaining voting right legislation he supports. Next up, if not filibuster changes, what else? Manchin said he planned to vote yes to debate the updated voting legislation after finding "common ground with my Democratic colleagues on a new version of the bill that ensures our elections are fair, accessible and secure." "These reasonable changes have moved the bill forward and to a place worthy of debate on the Senate floor," he said. "This process would allow both Republicans and Democrats to offer amendments to further change the bill. Unfortunately, my Republican colleagues refused to allow debate of this legislation despite the reasonable changes made to focus the bill on the core issues facing our democracy."
"Democrats signal a shift toward accepting voter ID laws": https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...d24d54-d36e-11eb-ae54-515e2f63d37d_story.html excerpt: Prominent Democrats have increasingly softened their opposition to voter identification requirements in recent days, signaling a new openness to measures that activists have long vilified as an insidious method of keeping minorities from the ballot box. Former Georgia gubernatorial candidate and voting rights advocate Stacey Abrams threw her support last week behind a voting rights compromise proposal by Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.) that includes voter identification requirements. On Monday, former president Barack Obama said Manchin’s compromise, including the voter ID requirement, didn’t offer anything “particularly controversial.” The White House also signaled support for Manchin’s package as “a step forward.” Sen. Raphael G. Warnock (D-Ga.), meanwhile, told The Washington Post recently he could support some form of voter ID, saying, “I don’t know anybody who believes that people shouldn’t have to prove that they are who they say they are.” The Democratic shifts are in part a strategic effort to win broader support for their voting rights push while seeking to put Republicans on the defensive. Voter ID laws have proved popular despite Democratic arguments that they amount to voter suppression, and some activists have concluded that they do less to suppress the vote than they initially feared. The Democrats’ support for Manchin’s compromise comes amid a defeat for H.R. 1, a far more sweeping Democratic voting rights bill, on a procedural vote in the Senate on Tuesday. That bill would have required states to offer same-day voter registration for federal elections, let voters make changes to their registration at the polls and empowered nonpartisan commissions to draw lines for states’ congressional maps. That For the People Act failed amid unified opposition from Senate Republicans, who argued it was a Democratic power grab and an effort to wrest away states’ control of their voting practices. In a Senate split 50-50 between the parties, it fell fall short of the 60 votes required for most legislation to advance. Manchin’s surprise decision to offer a compromise package last week — including Democratic priorities such as automatic voter registration and 15 days of early voting, along with the GOP-favored ID requirements — gave Democrats something to rally around and a potential path forward. But it required them to embrace, or at least tolerate, an idea they had long derided. Their willingness to do so reflected their eagerness to find a way to make any progress on an issue the party sees as existential, as Republicans — spurred by former president Donald Trump’s baseless complaints that fraud cost him the past election — are restricting voting in a growing number of states while blunting Democratic efforts to fight back. more at the link
One argument I've made is that if we require ID's to vote there should be much more effort for states to help all citizens get ID's. Even without that this should still be an issue that states are addressing given how many services are being tied to ID's. Considering they've already blocked it and McConnell stated even before the vote that Republicans wouldn't vote for this shows that they have never been interested in the issue.
Most of the issues with Voter Id laws where that they were sprung on folks leading up to elections and had minimal recourse for those that would have issues obtaining an ID. I have no issue with needing an ID if people are given time to actually get them in time for elections.
My take is any new requirements for voting should be enforced in the next round of elections rather than the nearest one coming up. That way we know any voter id bills are in good faith rather than to surprise voters for a upcoming election realizing that can't vote.
My god, the depths of cruz's lies... the party that enacted laws to counter "souls to the polls" has the nerve to bring up Jim Crow laws?
A Threat to Our Democracy: Election Subversion in the 2021 Legislative Session - Voting Rights Lab by Voting Rights Lab September 29, 2021 2021 has been a historic year for voting rights, with some discouraging setbacks occurring in state legislatures across the country. From Texas to Florida to Georgia, millions of voters have watched as state lawmakers around the country erect new and unnecessary barriers to the ballot box, adopting policies that will curtail participation in our democracy. These efforts to restrict voter access have been fueled by rampant disinformation campaigns, which ran for months ahead of the 2020 election, successfully invalidating the election results in the minds of millions of Americans. The spread of disinformation has not only created a window for lawmakers to pass restrictive laws. It has degraded trust in our elections system so severely that even efforts to modernize and expand access to our election system invite accusations of fraud – as we saw in Georgia or in the recent California recall election. In this climate of distrust, a quiet but deeply disturbing legislative trend has emerged – one that threatens not just voter access but the most elemental foundations of our democracy: bills shifting the allocation of power in election administration to partisan actors, criminalizing non-partisan elections administrators and initiating sham election reviews to instill further doubt in elections. The Big Picture So far this session, more than 180 bills shifting election authority have been introduced. These new laws have taken a variety of forms. Some give partisan actors more power to shape and control election outcomes, or limit the autonomy of local election officials. Some give partisan poll watchers the ability to intimidate and harass voters. Others criminalize election workers for simply doing their jobs. The most concerning bills would enable partisan state legislatures to overturn election results. And, of course, several states are conducting, or considering conducting, highly partisan and unnecessary reviews of election results – some of which only apply to, or specifically target, certain counties. Election subversion bills have either been enacted or seen significant momentum in key battleground states, including Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Wisconsin, and others. Taken together, these actions – legislative and otherwise – threaten to inject partisanship where it never belongs: into our election systems themselves. This dangerous crop of legislation has driven toward several alarming outcomes: Legislatures interfering with nonpartisan local election administration and consolidating power to administer and determine elections results themselves. Lawmakers proposing or initiating costly, highly partisan election reviews that undermine election security and erode trust in our election system. Legislatures accelerating the mass exodus of experienced election officials by imposing chilling criminal penalties, crippling civil penalties, and parroting disinformation that results in serious safety threats. The impact of election subversion legislation, if it takes hold, is likely to be felt far beyond the 2022 midterms and 2024 presidential election. The following is a breakdown of the types of election subversion legislation taking shape around the country. ... Increased Partisanship in Election Administration Seventeen state legislatures have introduced bills that would allow the legislature or other partisan actors to exert greater control over the conduct of elections, or that would otherwise interfere with local election administration.1 In the most extreme cases, partisan actors could usurp the role of state or local election officials, or simply certify the winner of their choice in a given election. .. Partisan Election Reviews At least seven states have initiated or are trying to initiate reviews of the 2020 election despite a lack of evidence of wrongdoing. Generally, these investigations would be conducted by partisan actors or third parties hired by partisan actors. .. Criminalization of Election Officials & Civil Causes of Action Sixteen state legislatures have introduced legislation threatening election officials with felony prosecution, or creating misdemeanor penalties for even inadvertent, technical noncompliance with election rules.2 Other states have introduced legislation creating civil causes of actions and penalties for election officials. The threat of financial or criminal sanction will likely deter local officials from taking necessary action to ensure voters have sufficient access to the democratic process – and will accelerate the mass exodus of experienced election officials. .. Against the Will of the People As state lawmakers accelerate shifts in election authority, national polling shows bipartisan opposition to policies that increase partisanship in election administration or undermine the safety of election administrators. A recent poll commissioned by Secure Democracy and Protect Democracy found that: 85% of voters would support a law to ensure that officials cannot influence election procedures to benefit a particular candidate or political party. 83% of voters believe that the federal government should pass laws to ensure that partisan officials cannot influence election outcomes. 67% of voters support making it more difficult for Members of Congress to object to Electoral College votes based on their personal preference. The poll also found that voters are concerned about increased threats to election officials and workers: 79% of voters support allowing election officials to request that a court step in to protect them from intimidation. 78% of voters support issuing guidelines to election administrators on how to respond to intimidation or interference with the voting and ballot-counting processes. 78% of voters are concerned about the increase in threats of violence and intimidation facing election workers. 71% of voters are concerned about the challenge of recruiting enough election workers due to concerns over threats of violence and intimidation. ... Federal Defense Against Election Subversion On September 14, Democrats in the U.S. Senate introduced the Freedom to Vote Act. Among its provisions, the bill would create nationwide standards for early voting, mail voting, voting restoration, voter identification, and voter registration. It would also help protect against some election subversion tactics. Some protections against election subversion in the Freedom to Vote Act include: Allowing statewide election administrators to suspend, remove, or relieve the duties of a local election administrator only based on gross negligence, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office. Making intimidation, threats, or coercion of an election official a federal offense. Extending existing protections for the preservation of election records and papers to electronic records and election equipment. Preventing poll watchers from coming within eight feet of a voter or ballot at a polling location or a ballot during processing, scanning, tabulation, canvassing, or certification. Mandating that election officials conduct systematic, non-partisan, random, risk-limiting audits following each election. ... Track the Election Subversion Trend When Voting Rights Lab launched a few years ago, we knew we’d be busy tracking many disturbing, and oftentimes veiled efforts to suppress the vote of historically excluded Americans. What we couldn’t have anticipated at that time was that current officeholders would warp the election process itself, opening the door to partisan interference while ballots are cast and counted. Unchecked, this trend could destroy the credibility of our election system as a whole. You can follow this trend in real time using the shifts in election authority, observation process and observer qualifications,election official crimes, and reviews of certified 2020 election results sections of our State Voting Rights Tracker. You can also use this election subversion resource that is regularly updated by Voting Rights Lab experts.
