Tag: election reform

Categories
News

Scholars alarmed at ‘deterioration’ of American democracy

In an open letter, dozens of scholars from prestigious universities warned that American democracy is at risk.

“We, the undersigned, are scholars of democracy who have watched the recent deterioration of U.S. elections and liberal democracy with growing alarm. Specifically, we have watched with deep concern as Republican-led state legislatures across the country have in recent months proposed or implemented what we consider radical changes to core electoral procedures in response to unproven and intentionally destructive allegations of a stolen election. Collectively, these initiatives are transforming several states into political systems that no longer meet the minimum conditions for free and fair elections. Hence, our entire democracy is now at risk,” the scholars write.

The scholars – who span the ideological spectrum and represent universities like Brown, Stanford, Notre Dame with notable names like Norm Ornstein and Larry Sabato – add that:

Statutory changes in large key electoral battleground states are dangerously politicizing the process of electoral administration, with Republican-controlled legislatures giving themselves the power to override electoral outcomes on unproven allegations should Democrats win more votes. They are seeking to restrict access to the ballot, the most basic principle underlying the right of all adult American citizens to participate in our democracy. They are also putting in place criminal sentences and fines meant to intimidate and scare away poll workers and nonpartisan administrators. State legislatures have advanced initiatives that curtail voting methods now preferred by Democratic-leaning constituencies, such as early voting and mail voting. Republican lawmakers have openly talked about ensuring the “purity” and “quality” of the vote, echoing arguments widely used across the Jim Crow South as reasons for restricting the Black vote.

State legislators supporting these changes have cited the urgency of “electoral integrity” and the need to ensure that elections are secure and free of fraud. But by multiple expert judgments, the 2020 election was extremely secure and free of fraud. The reason that Republican voters have concerns is because many Republican officials, led by former President Donald Trump, have manufactured false claims of fraud, claims that have been repeatedly rejected by courts of law, and which Trump’s own lawyers have acknowledged were mere speculation when they testified about them before judges.

In future elections, these laws politicizing the administration and certification of elections could enable some state legislatures or partisan election officials to do what they failed to do in 2020: reverse the outcome of a free and fair election. Further, these laws could entrench extended minority rule, violating the basic and longstanding democratic principle that parties that get the most votes should win elections.

The consequence of these voter suppression laws is that America may soon cease to be a democracy. In fact, the scholars argue that some states “no longer meet the minimum conditions for free and fair elections.”

Florida, Georgia, Arizona, Iowa, and Montana have already passed voter suppression laws that put their status as democracies into doubt. Texas is among the numerous states that is still considering laws to restrict voting.

What can be done?

The scholars argue that the federal government must step in to ensure equal access to the ballot box in order to maintain free and fair elections since state legislatures are moving to undermine democracy within their borders.

The federal government has a history of intervention in order to ensure that voting rights are upheld in jurisdictions where voter suppression is common – particularly in the South. These laws date back at least to Reconstruction and more recently with the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

The scholars write that Congress should pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, although they argue that that “alone is not enough.” They endorse suspending the filibuster in order to pass a new voting rights law and a “comprehensive set of national standards” to maintain election integrity.

They conclude the letter with a warning: “Our democracy is fundamentally at stake. History will judge what we do at this moment.”

Categories
Analysis News

For the People Act aims to build a real American democracy

US Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (C), Democrat of California, speaks alongside Democratic members of the House about H.R.1, the "For the People Act," at the US Capitol in Washington, DC, January 4, 2019. - Democrats announced their first piece of legislation to reform voting rights provisions, ethics reforms and a requirement that presidential candidates release 10 years of tax returns. (Photo credit: SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images)

Praised by many as a sweeping and historic reform to US democracy, House Democrats passed H.R. 1, also known as the For The People Act. The bill passed the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives on March 3, 2021. This is the second time the bill has been voted on by the House. The bill was first introduced and then passed in the newly-Democratic House in March of 2019 but was quickly blocked from ever receiving a vote in the Republican-controlled Senate. The current bill, which aims to greatly expand voting rights, develop a strategy to lower the influence of money in politics, end gerrymandering, foster government transparency, and more, will again face hurdles in the Senate, but this time because of the filibuster. 

So, what’s in the bill? Below, we’ll take a look at a few of the bill’s most important components. 

Voter registration modernization

All states would be required to begin Automatic Voter Registration for federal elections. Eighteen states, plus DC, have already implemented AVR. Voter registration in every state would become opt-out as opposed to the opt-in system most states have. In this case, eligible citizens would need to indicate that they don’t want to be registered to vote. This is likely to be a very insignificant number of people. Some 50 million eligible voters would be added to the rolls.

Voter purging has been one of the main tactics employed by Republicans to suppress Democratic turnout. A state’s ability to purge voters from voter rolls would be greatly curtailed under  H.R. 1. H.R. 1 would not stop all cross-check purges, as there does need to be a system that identifies duplicate registrations, but it aims to stop the abuse of the system through voter suppression purges by putting in place needed protections or so-called conditions on removal of registered voters.

As it becomes harder for Republicans to win majorities, we’ve seen them engage in increasingly brazen voter intimidation tactics. One example, among dozens, is in Michigan in October 2020, where far-right actors were charged with felonies by the state’s Attorney General for voter intimidation where they used racist robocalls to target and intimidate Black voters from voting.  H.R. 1 would ban these and many other deceptive practices and all voter intimidation in federal elections.

H.R. 1 aims to end the disenfranchisement of individuals with previous felony convictions. States would be required to inform citizens of their restored voting rights in writing; however, this does not apply to those who are currently incarcerated. An amendment to H.R. 1 that would have restored the voting rights of those who are currently serving time in prison, failed in a 97-328 House vote. 

The Appeal explains:

Representatives Cori Bush of Missouri and Mondaire Jones of New York, who were both elected to the House last year, proposed an amendment to H.R. 1 that would have allowed those convicted of felonies to vote from within prison. Only Maine, Vermont, and Washington, D.C., enable anyone with a felony conviction to vote from prison, and other states are debating whether to join them. Some other nations, including Canada and Israel, have national mandates that extend voting rights to incarcerated people.

The amendment failed today in a 97-328 vote. Not a single Republican voted for the measure, and it also failed among Democrats. However, activists and lawmakers fighting to expand voting rights say they’re hopeful that the vote was the beginning, rather than the end, of a national debate on voting rights for prisoners.

“This fight is not over—it’s only the beginning,” Bush told The Appeal: Political Report. “The victory was in getting those 97. Look at who those 97 are. They’re a mixture of what our caucus is made of: not just progressives, not just people who claim to be progressive, not just people who look like me.”

Even with the failure of the amendment, this is a monumental step in the right direction and a sign that we are moving closer to voting rights for those who are currently incarcerated.

The end of gerrymandering

Under H.R. 1, partisan gerrymandering would effectively be banned, an extraordinary development for US elections and politics. Independent redistricting commissions would be created in states and they would be tasked with developing plans to redraw districts. The redistricting process would be open to participation and review of the public. Efforts would be made to ensure that the commission equally represents Democrats, Republicans, and even third parties. Most importantly, rules would be put in place to ensure that the political power of communities of color is not diluted, a current practice that ensures Republicans win far more seats than they should based on their vote share.

Limiting the power of big money in politics

The passing of Citizens United in 2010 was a crushing blow to democracy. 11 years and 6 federal election cycles later, we are seeing the consequences of this disastrous Supreme Court decision. Extremely wealthy individuals can now spend unlimited sums of money on Super PACs which can have large impacts on political races.

The intercept explains:

Under the bill, candidates for congressional office could opt into a system that would provide matching funds for small donations. To qualify, the candidate would need to raise $50,000 from at least 1,000 individuals; take no more than $1,000 from any contributor; and spend no more than $50,000 of their own money.

In return, all donations to the candidate up to $200 would be matched with public funds at a 6 to 1 ratio. Thus if you gave $10 to someone running for Congress, they would receive that plus another $60, totaling $70.

The Civil Rights Act of our time

We’ve only covered just a few of the historic components of H.R. 1. Just these components alone would make H.R. 1 one of the most important pieces of legislation in the history of this country besides the 1964 Civil Rights Act. H.R. 1 would not only repair the damage done to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by Republicans in the decades since its passing, but it would greatly expand access to voting and put in place protections against voter suppression in unprecedented ways. The act would help to build a political and electoral system worthy of the 21st century. 

The stakes in passing this historic legislation in the Senate are monumental. As Republican politics continue to become more unpopular with time and as demographics continue to trend against them, they have now completely jettisoned democracy for authoritarian measures even as they already have a structural advantage in the House and the Senate. Let there be no doubt that Republican attempts to further impair US democracy will continue and grow. 

The Washington Post explains the current, broad attack on US democracy in 43 states:

In 43 states across the country, Republican lawmakers have proposed at least 250 laws that would limit mail, early in-person and Election Day voting with such constraints as stricter ID requirements, limited hours or narrower eligibility to vote absentee, according to data compiled as of Feb. 19 by the nonpartisan Brennan Center for Justice. Even more proposals have been introduced since then.

The impact of H.R. 1 not passing the Senate will have immediate effects. It will likely impair Democrats’ chances of holding on to their very slim majorities in the House and Senate in 2022, making passing this type of legislation impossible for many years to come. 

What’s required is filibuster reform. Right now, current Senate rules require 60 votes to break a filibuster. It’s more likely that we will figure out interstellar space travel this year than it would be to find 10 Republicans to help break a filibuster for ground-breaking legislation. It’s also unlikely that we can even eliminate the filibuster outright since conservative Democrats such as Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema have both voiced that they are against eliminating the filibuster. Still, passing H.R. 1, or any other progressive legislation, doesn’t require the elimination of the filibuster. There are ways to reform the filibuster in a way that establishes majoritarianism in the Senate. Our recent article offers a fair compromise on the filibuster. The Washington Post article referenced above also offers proposals for filibuster reform.

We must pass H.R. 1 — for the people and for the survival of our democracy.

Photo Credit: SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images

Categories
News

President Carter condemns Georgia voter suppression efforts

President Jimmy Carter has released a statement condemning voter suppression efforts and calling for “fair, open, and secure” elections.

The former president is a resident of Georgia. Republicans in the state legislature are pushing voting restrictions following President Joe Biden’s win in the traditionally-Republican state in November. Democrats won two subsequent runoffs for United States Senate seats in January.

The statement reads:

In 1962, I ran to represent the 14th Senate District in the Georgia legislature. I won my Senate seat, but only after the courts ruled that a ballot box had been illegally “stuffed” with votes for my opponent. My experience with our election system was one of the reasons Rosalynn and I created The Carter Center. Since 1989, we have observed 113 elections in 39 countries and helped build consensus on standards for democratic elections, perhaps the most fundamental of which are the rights to vote and be elected.

One thing we have learned from our international work is that while states must safeguard the integrity of the election process to prevent fraud, this should not be at the expense of voters’ access to the polls. They should proactively expand voter access through safe, secure administrative practices.

Since that 1962 Senate race, Georgia has established itself as a leader in providing voter access and taking steps to enhance election integrity. Georgia now uses technologies that provide a paper trail allowing voters to review their ballot before it is cast. In addition, Georgia requires post-election risk-limiting audits that make it possible to check the accuracy of voting machines. Indeed, November saw a successful set of elections with record turnout and few or no fraudulent ballots counted—which should make us all proud.

Now, as our state legislators seek to turn back the clock through legislation that will restrict access to voting for many Georgians, I am disheartened, saddened, and angry. Many of the proposed changes are reactions to allegations of fraud for which no evidence was produced—allegations that were, in fact, refuted through various audits, recounts, and other measures. The proposed changes appear to be rooted in partisan interests, not in the interests of all Georgia voters.

I also am disappointed that advocates for these restrictive changes have repeatedly and selectively referenced a report prepared by a 2005 commission that I co-chaired with former Secretary of State James Baker. While our report noted a few good and bad examples of vote-by-mail practices, its main recommendation was that further study of voting by mail was needed. In the 16 years since the report’s release, vote-by-mail practices have progressed significantly as new technologies have been developed. In light of these advances, I believe that voting by mail can be conducted in a manner that ensures election integrity. This is just one of several ways to expand access to the voting process for voters across the state, regardless of political affiliation.

American democracy means every eligible person has the right to vote in an election that is fair, open, and secure. It should be flexible enough to meet the electorate’s changing needs. As Georgians, we must protect these values. We must not lose the progress we have made. We must not promote confidence among one segment of the electorate by restricting the participation of others. Our goal always should be to increase, not decrease, voter participation.

Photo Credit: Children’s Bureau Centennial, Flickr

Categories
Analysis Opinion

The filibuster is anti-democratic. It’s time to eliminate it.

The newly-elected Democratic majority in the Senate is currently debating whether to keep or nix the filibuster. There are strong policy, political, and Constitutional arguments for eliminating the filibuster – and there is little reason to preserve it.

The policy case for killing the filibuster

Small states are already overrepresented in the United States Senate and the Electoral College. When you add a supermajority requirement to pass major legislation – a requirement that does not exist in the Constitution (more on that later) – you only give small states even more power. It is a de facto veto power for small-state senators like Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham. It’s also a veto for insurrectionists like Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz.

As the insurrection demonstrates clearly, safeguarding our elections and ensuring voting rights must be a top priority of President Biden and Congress. It is simply unacceptable to let Mitch McConnell veto any progress on some of the biggest issues of our time – be it a ban on political gerrymandering ahead of redistricting, stricter anti-corruption and nepotism laws, new disclosure requirements for donors and super PACs, universal voter registration, and so many more badly-needed reforms.

Much of President Biden’s agenda hinges on eliminating the filibuster. It is true that Democrats can bypass the filibuster with an arcane process known as budget reconciliation – a process that only requires a majority vote in the Senate – but it is only limited to budget-related priorities. Election reform and strengthening ethics laws, for instance, likely does not pass muster under reconciliation.

In addition, Republicans still have a majority on several Senate committees even though they are now in the minority. New members like Mark Kelly, Raphael Warnock, and Jon Ossoff have yet to even receive their committee assignments. McConnell is seeking to tie the hands of the new Democratic majority.

Will the Democratic majority willingly accept this arrangement? And if they do, will Democratic voters forget come 2022 and 2024? I think not.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer needs to use every tool at his disposal to ensure that Democrats can govern. That means killing the filibuster and changing the Senate’s rules to limit GOP obstruction. The American people expect results, not excuses.

From a policy perspective, the filibuster is absolutely noxious. During the Obama years, the filibuster effectively killed the DREAM Act, common-sense gun control, cap-and-trade climate change legislation, and a myriad of other progressive priorities. Meanwhile, filibusters did not stop the Bush or Trump tax cuts, which were passed through a majority vote using budget reconciliation.

Likewise, McConnell used reconciliation in his attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. “Obamacare”). The effort only failed because Senate Republicans lacked even a simple majority in support of repeal. (Senator McCain infamously gave the bill a thumbs down on the Senate floor.)

From a public policy point of view, it’s nearly impossible these days to get a 60-vote consensus on basic governance, let alone controversial issues. The minority party can use this power – which is not found in the Constitution – to stifle any semblance of progress. Indeed, a minority of senators from states already overrepresented in the Senate can grind the lawmaking process to a complete halt. This is not the way to govern a country.

The political case for killing the filibuster

Nearly eight years ago, I penned a piece titled “It’s Time to Kill the Filibuster.”

The context was different then, but the points remain the same today. To briefly recap, Senate Republicans blocked President Obama’s judicial nominees, including three nominees to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals – which is regarded as the second-most powerful court in the land. Not only did Republicans weaponize the filibuster to stymie popular legislation, but they also denied President Obama’s judicial appointments an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor.

Democrats wisely responded with the nixing of the filibuster for cabinet-level and judicial nominees. They left an exception in place for the Supreme Court. But they acted far too slowly and ultimately ceded control of the chamber after the 2014 midterm elections. Two years later, Trump won the Electoral College with narrow wins in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin – but failing to capture the national popular vote.

Wielding their newfound power and taking full advantage of the Obama-era vacancies that they engineered – including a SCOTUS seat after refusing to even hold hearings for President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland – the GOP rammed its judicial nominees through the Senate. As soon as the filibuster got in their way, they killed it for Supreme Court nominees. Unlike Democrats, they did not hesitate.

They acted decisively after the death of Justice Ginsburg as well, voting on her replacement a mere week before the election – four years after saying that voters should decide a vacant Supreme Court seat in an election year.

None of President Trump’s nominees – Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett – would be on the court today if not for Mitch McConnell’s use of the so-called “nuclear option” to kill the filibuster. What would have been a 5-4 liberal majority with Garland on the Court became a 6-3 conservative majority thanks to Republicans’ obstruction tactics and their swift reversal on the filibuster when it became politically expedient.

The lesson that Democrats should learn from this is that they should use their power when they have it to advance the public good – within the constraints of the Constitution. There is no constitutional right to the filibuster. In fact, I would argue that the filibuster itself is unconstitutional.

The Constitutional case for killing the filibuster

The Constitution requires the president to nominate judges and the Senate to offer its “advise and consent.” (The same is also true for Cabinet appointments, ambassadorship, etc.) That means debating and voting on nominations.

Confirmation requires only a majority threshold, something that the filibuster expressly denies. The Constitution does not grant the power to block lawfully-nominated judges for seats on the federal bench with a minority of votes. Republicans have essentially short-circuited the Constitution to suit their political goals.

The country was founded on the principle of majority rule. Indeed, the Vice President’s sole role – other than acting as the successor to the president in the case of death, resignation, or removal – is to cast a tie-breaking vote in an evenly divided Senate. The Founders expected the Senate to be a majority body and nothing else – except in specific circumstances, as outlined in the Constitution. Only a few exceptions require more than a majority: ratifying treaties, Constitutional amendments, and convicting an impeached president or members of the Cabinet.

I am not a constitutional scholar, but I can read the plain text of the Constitution and see that the Founders’ obvious intent was for the Senate to be a body where the majority carried the day – with few exceptions. So why keep this relic that makes an undemocratic body even less democratic?

The choice is clear. The filibuster must be eliminated.

Photo Credit: John Brighenti, Flickr, CC BY 2.0