Purple and Black
Taking Independent and Unofficial Back

Post-election, widespread, renewed assault on voting rights

barnswallow

Well-Known Member
A place to post about state-level proposed legislation to restrict voting. Also, a place to discuss efforts to protect voting rights at the federal level. The question of the moment: whether to eliminate the filibuster to pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Act 2020 / For the People Act 2021.
 
The fact that there is even an argument about passing the John Lewis voting act shows what the GOP really are- easy access to voting is a foundation for democracy, the GOP are scared of democracy because they will become a thing of the past.
 
Getting bills passed in the US Senate is complicated when the Senate is evenly divided, as it is now. I'm going to explain my understanding of the process, which I'm learning on the fly, so this post will be long and I'll provide links. I'm sure there are many people here who understand all this but I'm also guessing there may be some, like me, who need reminding. No doubt, I may get stuff wrong. Corrections welcome.

The reason Dems can get bills passed, in this partisan time, is because Kamala Harris, as Vice President and thus President of the Senate, can break the tie of 50 gop and 50 dems in the Senate, a party-line vote. The Vice President only has a vote in the Senate when there is a tie.

A bill begins with debate. The way to proceed with a vote after debate is to have cloture. Cloture brings debate to an end and sets up a vote on the issue.

Just weeks into Joe Biden’s presidency, it is clear that he faces considerable obstacles in pursuing his agenda in Congress. The Senate cloture rule—which requires 60 votes to cut off debate on most measures—is probably the highest hurdle.
from "What is the Senate filibuster, and what would it take to eliminate it?" [9.9.20; by Molly Reynolds]

Here is a brief description from the same article about the commonly used method to move to a vote:
Senators have two options when they seek to vote on a measure or motion. Most often, the majority leader (or another senator) seeks “unanimous consent,” asking if any of the 100 senators objects to ending debate and moving to a vote. If no objection is heard, the Senate proceeds to a vote. If the majority leader can’t secure the consent of all 100 senators, the leader (or another senator) typically files a cloture motion, which then requires 60 votes to adopt. If fewer than 60 senators—a supermajority of the chamber—support cloture, that’s when we often say that a measure has been filibustered.

For one example of a way to get around this process, consider how dems chose to handle the recently-passed Covid-19 Economic Relief bill - through 'budget reconciliation'. Because of budget reconciliation, the bill passed with a simple majority vote (with VP Harris breaking the tie).

...for many matters in the Senate, debate can only be cut off if at least 60 senators support doing so. (This is not universally true, however, and we will see several consequential counterexamples below.) While Senate rules still require just a simple majority to actually pass a bill, several procedural steps along the way require a supermajority of 60 votes to end debate on bills.
from the same link above "What is the Senate filibuster, and what would ...."

The end of the article addresses the filibuster's part in making legislation all but impossible in a closely divided senate.

...filibuster was not part of the founders’ original vision of the Senate. Rather, its emergence was made possible in 1806 when the Senate—at the advice of Vice President Aaron Burr—removed from its rules a provision (formally known as the previous question motion) allowing a simple majority to force a vote on the underlying question being debated. This decision was not a strategic or political one—it was a simple housekeeping matter, as the Senate was using the motion infrequently and had other motions available to it that did the same thing.

Filibusters then became a regular feature of Senate activity, both in the run-up to and aftermath of the Civil War. Senate leaders from both parties sought, but failed, to ban the filibuster throughout the 19th century.
from the same link above "What is the Senate filibuster, and what would ...."

This article by Ezra Klein of the NYTimes [2.4.21] The Senate Has Become a Dadaist Nightmare tells some history of budget reconciliation and its effect on conduct of the US Senate. That's not exactly relevant to this thread's focus on voting rights, except to point out how convoluted governing can get when there isn't a supramajority to get a vote on a bill. From the article above:
Budget reconciliation reveals the truth of how the Senate legislates now. To counter the minority’s abuse of the filibuster rule, the majority abuses another rule, ending in a process that makes legislation systematically and undeniably worse. The world’s greatest deliberative body has become one of its most absurd, but that absurdity is obscured by baroque parliamentary tricks that few understand.
From the same Ezra Klein article:
The budget reconciliation process was created in the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. It was an afterthought: an optional process to let Congress quickly clean up its spending plans so they matched the budget. No one even used it until 1980. But as the Senate was stalled by more frequent filibusters, clever legislators realized that the budget reconciliation process was immune to the filibuster, as it was limited to 20 hours of debate, and all kinds of bills could be routed through it.

Finally, getting back to voting rights, below!!!
From the same Ezra Klein article:
Even worse is the way budget reconciliation quietly decides which kinds of problems the Senate addresses, and which it ignores, years after year. Both House and Senate Democrats have said that their first bill will be the “For The People Act,” a package making it easier and safer to vote, and weakening the power big donors wield in politics by matching small donor donations at a 6:1 rate. But the “For The People Act” can’t pass through the budget reconciliation process, so it’s a dead letter.
And that's why fire engines are red! Or, rather, that's why the question of ending the filibuster has come front and center.
 
Oh, drat... I'm just going to add one more section here: some comments made by Elizabeth Warren in 2019, regarding eliminating the filibuster [from npr's website, 9.13.19, by Domenico Montanaro] What Is the Filibuster - And Why Do Some Democrats Want To End It?:
But Warren's argument is one that many liberals have become attuned to after seeing how effectively now-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell wielded the filibuster when he was minority leader during much of Barack Obama's presidency.
Many progressive activists fear that a lot of the ideas Democrats have been debating won't actually become law if a Democrat becomes president in 2021 unless the party either has 60 of the Senate's 100 seats, an impossibly tall order, or changes the chamber's rules to make it easier to pass bills without the cooperation of the other party.
The difficulty of achieving 60 votes may lie at the feet of gerry mander. ["Gerrymandering was first done in 1812 by Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts who drew a district to favor his own political party that looked like a salamander. Critics called it the “Gerry-mander.”"] That's an issue for another thread.

Others feel that getting rid of the filibuster would be disastrous and come back to bite dems, in the future:
But many long-serving lawmakers disagree, warning that a no-holds-barred approach would take hold in the Senate and that the minority could block nothing, even things the party finds odious.

Delaware Sen. Chris Coons told NPR in March that it's not about Senate power — it's about giving minority parties protection and encouraging bipartisanship.

"It's a terrible idea," said Coons, who has long defended the filibuster. "Democrats would reap the whirlwind almost immediately."
Getting a law passed to protect voting rights seems incredibly important right now. Maybe important enough to negate worry about the repercussions further down the road.
 
The fact that there is even an argument about passing the John Lewis voting act shows what the GOP really are- easy access to voting is a foundation for democracy, the GOP are scared of democracy because they will become a thing of the past.
:clap: Now's the time to play ball.
 
A place to post about state-level proposed legislation to restrict voting. Also, a place to discuss efforts to protect voting rights at the federal level.

The question of the moment: whether to eliminate the filibuster to pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Act 2020 / For the People Act 2021.
ABSOLUTELY!!! The US elected members of the House that ran and won on Insurrection, yes that happened. It's beyond "normal" discourse. Half-million dead from pandemic, many with no healthcare, no universal in sight. We don't have the luxury of introspection. It's ON, if we have a clue about our future...
 
Last edited:
I meant to get back in here and post some of the many articles reporting on examples of voter suppression efforts. In the meanwhile, here's one from the NYTimes (1.30.21):
After Record Turnout, Republicans Are Trying to Make It Harder to Vote
Even this article has some disingenuous capitulations to republicans' whataboutisms.
For example, Brian Robinson, a Republican political consultant in Atlanta tried to make a comparison between t---- and Stacey Abrams. He
... allowed that Mr. Trump’s false charges of fraud “drives a lot of the loss of faith among Republicans,” but he also took aim at Democrats, noting that the Democrat who lost the 2018 governor’s race, Stacey Abrams, also had refused to concede, saying voter suppression had caused an “erosion of our democracy.”
He tidily jumps over the teeny-weeny fact that Abrams opponent was the secretary of state at the time and, as such, in charge of the state's elections. Pardon a slight digression to review. From The Guardian (11.9.20) "How Georgia's Senate runoffs could finally hand Stacey Abrams her victory"
More than 1 million Georgians had been purged from voter rolls, with nearly 670,000 cancelled from the rolls in 2017. An Associated Press analysis revealed that 70% of the cancelled voters were Black – a stark racial disparity since only 32% of Georgia’s population is Black. This would cut deeply into Abrams’ voter base.

Meanwhile, the person in charge of maintaining the voter rolls was her opponent himself. At the time of the race, Kemp was serving as Georgia secretary of state, a position that oversees the state’s elections – a clear conflict of interest.
If I remember right, there were some other shady activities surrounding Kemp's win.
Back to the NYTimes article:
Democrats and some voting-rights advocates say the Republican agenda on voting is less about lost trust than lost elections. A Republican election official in suburban Atlanta said as much this month, arguing for tougher voting laws that reduce turnout after Democratic candidates won both of the state’s Senate seats in runoffs.

“They don’t have to change all of them,” said Alice O’Lenick, who heads the Gwinnett County Board of Registrations and Elections, “but they have got to change the major parts of them so we at least have a shot at winning.”
wtf
 
^^ This is what happens when a party that actually has less support and less votes tries to stay in power by cheating. The article Dancelot posted in the Electoral College thread explains it simply and very well. My district is heavily gerrymandered to offset the 60% African American population of the biggest city and cash cow in the state.

Continuing with medical issues, the majority of people here want affordable health care. If not for John McCain, we would have lost the Affordable Care Act (flawed as it is), and it would have been replaced with - nothing. Right before a pandemic. I would have no health care right now if the repubs prevailed.

Biden/Harris HAVE to deliver on what they ran on. They were voted in with a clear majority, and now they need to do it without delay. People aren't going to stand in line for 9 hours to vote again if nothing comes of it this time.
 
Last edited:
Luke Broadwater, congressional correspondent, in the comments thread at the NYTimes live coverage of the impeachment trial said:

"One thing I’m surprised hasn’t been proposed yet in the new Congress: Reforming the way Congress can object to state-certified election results. The Trump era revealed how a political party could literally subvert democracy if they control both chambers of Congress."

I wonder if this will be addressed.
 
Luke Broadwater, congressional correspondent, in the comments thread at the NYTimes live coverage of the impeachment trial said:

"One thing I’m surprised hasn’t been proposed yet in the new Congress: Reforming the way Congress can object to state-certified election results. The Trump era revealed how a political party could literally subvert democracy if they control both chambers of Congress."

I wonder if this will be addressed.

Wow. It should.
 
Ugh... hopefully there wil be solutions to these suppressive moves. The modern whigs are afraid they will never win an election again unless they pull these kind of tactics, but the reality is no amount of gerrymandering or making it more difficult to vote is going to alter the changing demographics.
 
It scares me to death what the local and state governments are doing. We MUST pass the Voting Rights Act. The Democrats, as flawed a party as it is, must push through the legislation that will help people. Never in my life did I expect to witness the possible downfall of democracy here, and be so scared for my kiddo and his future.
 
Here's another take on the thread. New book I want to read. Numbers game, and I'm all for whoever wants to move down.


a man wearing glasses: The Devil You Know: A Black Power Manifesto by Charles M. Blow

Charles Blow, the New York Times columnist and author of the provocative new book, "The Devil You Know: A Black Power Manifesto," is tired of begging others for justice and is urging Black Americans to empower themselves by moving en masse to Southern states...
 
Last edited:
Here's another take on the thread. New book I want to read. Numbers game, and I'm all for whoever wants to move down.


a man wearing glasses: The Devil You Know: A Black Power Manifesto by Charles M. Blow

Charles Blow, the New York Times columnist and author of the provocative new book, "The Devil You Know: A Black Power Manifesto," is tired of begging others for justice and is urging Black Americans to empower themselves by moving en masse to Southern states...
This one looks good. I follow him on twitter.
 
Booya.
Remember Kris Kobach (Kansas Secretary of State), t---- , and the 'Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity'?
Mr. Trump established the commission after his repeated insistence, without credible evidence, that widespread voter fraud explained how Hillary Clinton received about 2.9 million more votes while he won the presidency in the Electoral College.
It was dissolved 3 January 2018? At the time, Esquire wrote a headline, "I Guess They'll Have to Find Another Way to Suppress Votes" (1.4.18). They never find any evidence but they continue to insist for the need to make voting more difficult.

One of the committed Marxists who refused to cooperate with the commission was Mississippi’s Republican Secretary of State Delbert Hoseman, who told Kobach and his panel to “go jump in the ocean.” Well said, comrade!
I think the 'Marxist' reference andthe 'comrade' comment are a tongue-in-cheek joke by the journalist which isn't really helpful, but nevermind.

Today, the Republicans continue the assault on voting, now at the state level. And, state-level republicans are getting support at the national level with the newly-established Committee on Election Integrity. We know these names are purely euphemisms, the real motivation being voter suppression. Fox news imbibers have been fed the big lie in a perfectly calculated onslaught such that:

Poll finds 65% of Republicans say they don't believe Biden's Election Was Legitimate (an AP article from Market Watch, 2.5.21)

And, of course, that lie was carefully incubated by Republican legislators, t---- himself, and what might be called the entire gop machine, to include the various fringe groups that assembled for the January 6 insurrection.

From the NY Times, 2.27.21 In Statehouses, Stolen-Election Myth Fuels a G.O.P. Drive to Rewrite Rules
The avalanche of legislation also raises fundamental questions about the ability of a minority of voters to exert majority control in American politics, with Republicans winning the popular vote in just one of the last eight presidential elections but filling six of the nine seats on the Supreme Court.
The party’s battle in the past decade to raise barriers to voting, principally among minorities, young people and other Democrat-leaning groups, has been waged under the banner of stopping voter fraud that multiple studies have shown barely exists.

“The typical response by a losing party in a functioning democracy is that they alter their platform to make it more appealing,” Kenneth Mayer, an expert on voting and elections at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, said. “Here the response is to try to keep people from voting. It’s dangerously antidemocratic.”
and
The push also comes as Democrats in Congress are attempting to pass federal legislation that would tear down barriers to voting, automatically register new voters and outlaw gerrymanders, among many other measures. Some provisions, such as a prohibition on restricting a voter’s ability to cast a mail ballot, could undo some of the changes being proposed in state legislatures.
Such legislation, combined with the renewed enforcement of federal voting laws, could counter some Republican initiatives in the 23 states where the party controls the legislature and governor’s office. But neither that Democratic proposal nor a companion effort to enact a stronger version of the 1965 Voting Rights Act stands any chance of passing unless Democrats modify or abolish Senate rules allowing filibusters. It remains unclear whether the party has either the will or the votes to do that.
and
Those who back the Republican legislative efforts say they are needed to restore flagging public confidence in elections and democracy, even as some of them continue to attack the system as corrupt. In Arizona, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, for example, the chairs of House election committees refused for weeks or months to affirm that President Biden won the election. The chairs in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin urged U.S. House members or former Vice President Mike Pence to oppose the presidential electors certified after Mr. Biden won those states’ votes.
This is a very good NY Times article, which summarizes gop efforts in multiple states: Iowa, Arizona, Wisconsin, Georgia, New Hampshire, Nebraska, and Pennsylvania. You've probably heard this particularly outrageous example:
One Arizona Republican has proposed legislation that would allow state lawmakers to ignore the results of presidential elections and decide themselves which candidate would receive the state’s electoral votes.
Meanwhile, a Washington Post opinion writer penned this article (3.1.21): T----'s big CPAC lie unmasks a vile truth. Democrats ignore it at their peril.

Amid the stream of delusion, depravity, malevolence and megalomania that characterized Donald Trump’s speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference on Sunday, one message should be regarded as arguably more important than all the others combined.

It’s this: The former president told his audience that the Republican Party’s success in coming years depends, in no small part, on its commitment to being an anti-democracy party... Trump didn’t say this in precisely those words, of course.
and
By “election reforms,” Trump actually meant a redoubled commitment to making it harder to vote. We know this, because he said so: He went on to declare that Democrats had used the “China virus” as an “excuse” to make vote-by-mail easier.
“We can never let that happen again,” Trump said. “We need election integrity and election reform immediately. Republicans should be the party of honest elections.”
And, he perpetuated the big lie continuously throughout the speech. An article from Vox (2.28.21) points this out:
T---- will never stop lying about the 2020 election. His CPAC speech proved it.
“I may even decide to beat [Democrats] for a third time,” Trump said early on during his speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), implying his loss to Biden was illegitimate while teasing the possibility of running again in 2024.

That remark was met with a standing ovation.
and
“The election was rigged,” he said later, before attacking the Supreme Court for not overthrowing the results for him, with language eerily similar to the way he attacked then-Vice President Mike Pence during his speech just before the January 6 insurrection.

“They didn’t have the guts or the courage to make the right decision,” Trump said.

Trump’s lie about the election being rigged was met with chants of “You won! You won!”
and, as Aaron Rupar, the author of the article, says, "The grift goes on":
In a nod to how lucrative fundraising off his refusal to concede has been, Trump advised his fans that “there’s only one way to contribute to our efforts to elect America-first Republican conservatives and in turn to make America great again, and that’s through Save America PAC and donaldjtrump.com.”
oops. This is a bit long. Too long to expect anyone to read it! If you made it this far, I appreciate it, cuz it took a lot of effort and I spent so much time that I'm unwilling to cut it down right now.
 
All good information. CPAC has never been a mainstream Republican event. For example, John McCain never spoke there. Now that the party has been hijacked, we'll have to see how much is noise. It would be nice if media wouldn't over-report the train wreck, but obviously, we're all addicted to the "news industry" to some degree, and outrage sells.

Dems HAVE to pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, no matter what it takes. Crucial.
 
Voting restrictions bill passes Georgia House over strong opposition (The AtlantaJournal-Constitution, 3.1.21)
Still has to pass in the Georgia Senate.
A bill to restrict ballot drop boxes, require more ID for absentee voting and limit weekend early voting days passed the Georgia House on Monday amid protests that the proposals would make it harder for voters to participate in democracy.

The House voted along party lines, 97-72, on the sweeping elections bill supported by Republicans who want to impose new voting requirements after losing presidential and U.S. Senate races in Georgia.
 

Links to Folks we Support

Back
Top