Democrats plan to move quickly on one of the new Congress’ first bills, citing the need for federal electoral standards and other reforms to support the foundations of American democracy after a tumultuous post-election period and deadly Capitol turmoil.
States have long had disparate and contradictory rules for holding elections. But the 2020 election, which featured changes related to the pandemic to facilitate voting and then a flurry of lawsuits from former President Donald Trump and his allies, highlighted the differences from state to state: postal bills expired on the day of the election or just posted until then? Absentee voting allowed for everyone or just voters with an excuse? Same day registration or just in advance?
Democrats, affirming constitutional authority to define the time, place and form of federal elections, want national rules that they believe would make voting more uniform, accessible and fair across the country. The bill would require early voting, registration on the same day and other long-sought reforms that Republicans reject as a federal exaggeration.
“We just saw an attack on our own democracy, literally,” said American Senator Amy Klobuchar, a Democrat from Minnesota, referring to the January 6 invasion of the Capitol. “I can’t think of a more opportune time to start reforming democracy.”
Legislation introduced for the first time two years ago, known as the People’s Law, would also give independent commissions the job of attracting congressional districts, requiring political groups to disclose expensive donors, creating reporting requirements for online political ads and, in rear view wave to Trump, force presidents to disclose their tax returns.
The Republican opposition was fierce during the last session. At the time, the then Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., Labeled it “Democratic Politician Protection Act” and said in an article that Democrats were trying to “change the rules of American politics to benefit a party. ”
Although Democrats control Congress for the first time in a decade, the fate of the measure depends on whether enough Republicans can be persuaded to reconsider a bill they have repeatedly rejected. Otherwise, Democrats may decide it is time to take the extraordinary and difficult step of removing Senate obstruction, a procedural tool often used by the minority party to block projects under rules that require 60 votes to move the legislation forward.
Supporters say the bill is the most important part of electoral law since the 1965 Right to Vote Act. House Democrats promised two years ago to make the bill a priority and reintroduced it this month as HR 1, emphasizing its importance to the party.
“People just want to be able to vote without it being an ordeal,” said Representative John Sarbanes, a Maryland Democrat who is the main advocate of the House bill. “It’s crazy in America that you still have to go through an obstacle course to get to the polls.”
Current plans would be for the entire House to pay the bill in the first week of February. The Senate Rules Committee would then consider a complementary bill introduced in the Senate, and a tie there could allow him to leave the committee and reach the floor next month, said Klobuchar, who is expected to become the next president of the Senate. committee.
A quick vote would be remarkable, considering that the Senate is also likely to juggle Trump’s impeachment trial, confirmation of President Joe Biden’s cabinet choices and another round of coronavirus relief.
Although states have long had different voting procedures, the November 2020 election highlighted how variability could be used to sow doubts about the outcome. Proponents of the bill, which includes national civil and electoral rights organizations, cited dozens of pre-election lawsuits that defied the rules of procedure, as if the ballots posted on election day should count.
They also pointed to the post-election dispute that Trump and his allies filed for the lawsuit to try to get millions of legitimate votes to be dropped. Many of these processes were aimed at electoral changes in order to facilitate voting. This included a Pennsylvania law that the Republican-led state legislature passed prior to the pandemic to make absentee ballots available to all registered voters upon request.
The government and electoral authorities have repeatedly described the election as the safest in US history. Even former US Attorney General Bill Barr, a Trump ally, said before leaving his post that there was no evidence of widespread fraud that could nullify the result.
“The strategy of lying about electoral fraud, delegitimizing the election results and trying to suppress votes was unmasked by the illegitimate attack on our democracy that it is, and I think it opens a lot more doors for real conversations about how to fix our voting system and eradicate this cancer, ”said Wendy Weiser, head of the democracy program at the Brennan Center for Justice, a public policy institute.
Along with the electoral reform bill, the House two years ago introduced a related bill, now known as the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, in honor of the late civil rights activist and congressman. House Democrats are expected to reintroduce him soon after he too was paralyzed in the Republican-controlled Senate.
This bill would restore a fundamental clause in the Voting Rights Act that triggered federal scrutiny of electoral changes in certain states and counties. A 2013 US Supreme Court decision overturned the method used to identify jurisdictions subject to the provision, known as pre-compensation, which was used to protect voting rights in places with a history of discrimination.
In general, state election officials are wary of federal voting requirements. But those serving in Democratic-led states have been more open and want to ensure that Congress provides money to help them make updates to the system, which the bill does.
“If you still believe in what we all learned in high school government classes, that democracy works best when the largest number of eligible people participate, these are common sense reforms,” said Senator Alex Padilla, a Democrat who oversaw the California elections before being nominated for the seat previously held by Vice President Kamala Harris.
But Republican officials like Alabama Secretary of State John Merrill continue to object. Merrill said the federal government’s role is limited and that states should be allowed to innovate and implement their own voting rules.
“These decisions are best left to the states, and I think it is the states that should determine the course of action they should take,” said Merrill, noting that Alabama increased registration and voter turnout without implementing early voting.
“Just saying that everything needs to be uniform, this is not the United States of America,” said Merrill.
In the Senate, a key question will be whether there is enough Republican support for elements of the voting reform bill to persuade Democrats to turn certain parts into lesser legislation. For now, Democrats say they want a plenary vote on the full package.
Edward B. Foley, an expert on electoral laws at Ohio State University, said Democrats should consider narrow reforms that could win bipartisan support, warning that moving too quickly on a broad bill risks alienating Republicans.
“It seems to me that, at this moment in American history, a precarious moment, the right instinct should be a kind of bipartisanship to rebuild common ground instead of ‘Our side won, your side lost and we are ready for the races,’” Foley said.
___
Cassidy reported from Atlanta.