“This is just a fundamental disagreement … people believe that we should facilitate voting,” said Klobuchar. “We continue to talk to them to find out if there is any common ground. But now you are seeing a fundamental difference between the two parties in the vote. We will not sweeten. “
But the voting rights bill does not face mere opposition from the Republican Party. Unlike immigration, infrastructure or even weapons, no senator is even talking across the aisle about whether any deals can be made. This dynamic, coupled with the Democratic clamor to use electoral legislation as a stage for a clash of obstruction, puts the already congested Senate on the path to a new breach over its own rules, as well as the fabric of the American elections.
“I don’t think there is any common ground. And on the bigger question of whether it is better to federalize the national electoral process or to let states and local authorities do it as they did for more than 200 years – there really isn’t much of an agreement, ”said Blunt.
Asked about areas to negotiate with Blunt and other Republicans, Klobuchar replied that the Democratic bill contains nine bipartisan provisions. Blunt’s reply: “So what? It means absolutely nothing. “
The chasm between them is painfully apparent before the hearing scheduled for the Rules panel on Wednesday about the voting measure passed by the House. This comprehensive project establishes automatic electoral registration, increases financial disclosure requirements for political spending, and creates a system of public funding for legislative elections.
Democrats argue that before the next round of congressional redistricting and 2022 intermediate votes, existing legislation is their only chance to prevent Republican-controlled legislatures from establishing stricter voter identification laws that would restrict voter lists.
“People want to know where people like me fall into the obstruction. I think the big question is: where do they fit in the right to vote? ”Said Senator Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), who raised the matter with President Joe Biden on Monday night. “Obstruction is a Senate rule. Voting rights are the foundation of who we say we are as an American people. “
However, even if Klobuchar succeeded and Senate Democrats killed the obstructionist to pass the bill, they would still face serious problems. Democrats do not yet have 50 Senate votes for the measure, because Senator Joe Manchin (DW.Va.) is elusive. He is also against the end of the 60 vote limit for obstructors, putting the huge reform package at risk of failure.
Manchin said in an interview that he would like to see bipartisan talks on voting rights, adding that it made no sense to start negotiations on a bill that divides the two parties so clearly.
“There are many things that I think are great about this project. Many things, “said Manchin.” And we will work on that. “
He may be the only person in the Senate who thinks that serious negotiation is possible. When you talk to senators about previous bipartisan collaboration on voting issues, they probably mention Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.), Who worked on electoral security during the term of former President Donald Trump.
But Lankford said the Democrats’ current proposal “is not a serious attempt to deal with electoral security and offer an opportunity for everyone to vote. It is really the vehicle to try to break the obstruction. “
“They are just saying, ‘Racist Republicans are trying to suppress the vote, so we have to do this 800-page project,'” said Lankford, who recalled previous productive talks with Klobuchar about electoral integrity. Democrats say that “if we don’t break the obstruction, we will lose democracy,” he said.
In fact, this is not far from the Democratic message. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) Put it simply: “There are some electoral reforms that Republicans can accept, but attacking voter suppression head-on is not on their agenda.”
And House Democrats do not shy away from their desire to push the voting rights bill beyond obstruction.
“I am totally in favor of bipartisanship and, certainly, obstructionism … can be seen as a mechanism that promotes, encourages and orders bipartisanship,” said Rep. Anthony Brown (D-Md.). “But when there is a tool that was designed primarily during the Jim Crow era to avoid many civil rights and anti-discrimination laws, I think it deserves a second look.”
The political paralysis that plagues Democrats’ proposed voting rights comes as new questions emerge about its practicality before the Senate considers it. Some electoral administrators and experts have quietly expressed their concern about some of the voting system’s provisions in the bill, even though they support the ethos and purpose of general legislation.
“The devil is in the details,” said a Democratic secretary of state. “Those of us who support the principle of [the broader bill], we want to work closely with Congress to ensure that states that have very accessible electoral systems, that they are protected, that they are not changed unintentionally “.
Aides working on the voting rights bill said that the concerns of election officials will be addressed later in the process. But this only works if the account goes through a process.
Currently, it appears that the Senate majority leader, Chuck Schumer, will introduce the legislation later this year only to face a wall of opposition from the Republican Party. As it is written, the voting rights package seems unlikely to obtain a single Republican supporter and will end up in the Senate floor as soon as it appears.
Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) said “there is an understandable hesitation on the part of Republicans” about a bill that “would essentially federalize decisions taken at the state level”. Blunt said some of his Republican colleagues had come up with the idea of a Republican alternative to the bill that Democrats dubbed the “Act for the People”. However, Blunt does not support this approach, citing the history of states that hold their own elections.
And despite his reputation as a bipartisan commitment, Klobuchar is also not in the mood to give up any ground at the moment.
“We are happy to work with them on things. But they have drawn a limit in the sand that they don’t want to see any change where there are clear voter suppression efforts, as recognized by the courts, ”she said. “People are on our side. Including a group of Republican voters who do not want to have the right to vote by mail ”.
Zach Montellaro and Sarah Ferris contributed to this report.