[ad_1]
After a sleepless night vote-a-rama on the Democrats’ $ 3.5 trillion budget resolution, the Senate stepped forward this morning on voting rights legislation, with a 50-49 vote that rejected the For the People, also known as S. 1, of the Rules Committee. The vote was designed to give Republicans in the Senate a chance to either support the process moving forward, or to demonstrate to Sen. Joe Manchin, DW.Va., that Republicans had no such intentions.
The vote came after weeks of negotiations with Manchin over S. 1, in which he arrived at a place where he was ready to support the legislation, as long as it wasn’t the full bill he had already sworn to. to oppose. Manchin often extracts a series of concessions before offering his support to the party, and he seems to have done so again on S. 1.
“I made it clear that I did not support the For the People Act,” Manchin said in the Senate, referring to the landmark reforms of Democratic Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley to protect democracy. “I have worked to remove sweeping aspects of this bill and change the legislation to ensure our elections are fair, accessible and secure.”
Senatorial Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., Nevertheless chided the proposal as an illicit attempt to benefit Democrats in the election.
In particular, Manchin expressed support for “common sense” voter ID restrictions, which would require voters in all 50 states to present ID – but not necessarily photo ID – in order to vote. Democrats have long opposed voter ID rules, noting that low-income voters are less likely to have ID and Republicans aren’t genuinely interested in election integrity but want rather, disproportionately deprive Democratic voters of the right to vote. But Senate Democrats appear ready to give in to Manchin’s demand.
Manchin also spoke out against proposals that would “politicize” the Federal Election Commission, ban postal voting restrictions or prevent local election officials from maintaining voter lists. The previous version of the For the People Act would bring the FEC in line with other federal agencies by increasing its total number of Commissioners from an even to an odd number, thereby removing the threat of a deadlock in regulatory decision-making. . (Currently, the FEC has six commissioners, three from each party’s side. This leads to frequent traffic jams and impedes the application of federal electoral law.) Under Manchin’s proposal, the stalemate would continue.
Postal voting, meanwhile, would increase turnout for Americans living in underserved communities where the sharp reduction in in-person venues has resulted in long voting lines that are particularly distressing for seniors, people with disabilities, and parents. who work. The original For the People Act prohibited state efforts to restrict “no excuse” postal voting – in essence, universally available postal voting – but Manchin’s reform would still allow states to impose certain restrictions, but not as much as some states currently or soon will be. impose.
Nonetheless, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has promised that the Law for the People – or whatever name Manchin wants to call it – will be amended so that the compromise text Manchin and others have. negotiated. McConnell has consistently condemned the reform agenda, especially after Senate Democrats passed their main spending bill via reconciliation.
“We hear there’s going to be a substitute, but what’s technically in front of us is this: After crashing into this taxing and reckless spending frenzy here in the dead of night, they also want to start ripping up the ground rules. of our democracy and writing new ones, of course on a purely partisan basis, ”McConnell said. He then voted to ban the debate on the replacement.
The minority leader notably criticized a new fundraising initiative that would allow candidates to access public funding for their campaigns. The proposal would correspond to small contributions to congressional candidates to counter the influence of large corporate donors that have dominated the election since the Citizens United v. Supreme Court 2010 CEF. Public funds would come mainly from small charges against companies found guilty of criminal activity.
After Schumer got 50 votes to offload the bill from the Senate Rules Committee and put it on the schedule, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, blocked three attempts to advance the legislation and two other bills. law even further. He opposed Schumer’s motion for unanimous consent to immediately consider the For the People Act, calling it a “federal takeover of the elections,” which, ironically, “would deprive millions of the right to vote. Americans ”. (Republicans argue that extending the right to vote to certain people dilutes the votes of those who are currently voting.)
Cruz also opposed similar motions for the Redistricting Reform Act, which would prevent partisan gerrymandering, and the DISCLOSE Act, which would require black money groups to reveal their donors. Instead, he pushed for a review of his SuperPAC Elimination Act, which would allow unlimited individual donations to applicants at odds with existing regulations, ending the draw for giant corporate-backed groups.
“It is obvious to just about all Americans that this would make the situation worse,” Schumer replied.
Schumer announced that voting rights would be the first issue the Senate would address when it returned to session in September. It will mark Democrats’ second push to pass the legislation after Republicans obstructed an earlier version in June.
Only Manchin seems willing to believe that 10 Republicans can be found to support a franchise bill and overcome what is called a silent obstruction, in which a single senator can block legislation and require 60 votes to go from there. the front. Manchin has also been a strong supporter of the tool, refusing to consider reforms that would eliminate the option and force lawmakers to actually occupy the Senate chamber in order to block a vote.
Once the idea that 10 Republicans could support S. 1 fails – as it’s almost guaranteed to do – Manchin will have to choose what he values most: voting rights or silent obstruction.
[ad_2]
Source link