Democrats Promise to "Save" Democracy by Destroying it
How the "For the People Act" and push to abolish the filibuster showcase the backslide of American democratic norms
Over the past week tensions within the Democratic party have grown as outrage from many high-profile Representatives ranging from staunch progressives to President Joe Biden has come out against Democratic Senators Joe Manchin and Kristen Sinema who have refused the possibility of eliminating the Senate filibuster in order to pass H.R. 1 dubbed the “For the People Act” as well as many other legislative priorities.
The “For the People Act” which passed the House of Representatives in March would be one of the most substantial pieces of election legislation in the history of country, effectively federalizing almost all aspects of elections, taking power to control elections granted in the Constitution to the states and putting those powers solely in the hands of the federal government. The main PR surrounding the bill claims that it is necessary to “save democracy” and most be passed in order to counter state level Republican bills that bring voting back to Jim Crow. Despite this rhetoric, the “For the People Act” is extremely similar to a bill of the same name which passed the House in 2019 and pursues many priorities that reach far beyond even the accepted assumption that the bill is meant to counter Republican voter suppression efforts.
Among the policies adopted in Republican voting bills such as the recent controversial bill passed in Georgia include, securing required voter ID for both in person and absentee voting, restoring mail in voting requirements to pre-Covid norms, and additional restrictions on ballot collection and ballot drop boxes. Meanwhile the “For the People Act” goes far beyond these Republican goals widely transforming the state of American elections. Among its most far-reaching proposals include:
· All states will be prohibited from requiring any form of voter ID for a person to vote
· Automatically register all citizens to vote through numerous different avenues including allowing 16 years olds to register to vote
· Require all states to allow mail in voting to anyone including allowing mail in ballots to be requested online or by phone, requiring only a signature on a mail in ballot prohibiting any form of ID or witness testament, and allowing anyone to collect ballots so long as they are not being paid per ballot
· Removes the ability of States to check addresses of voters who have potentially moved including to another state
· Mandates 15 days of early voting and sets the groundwork for federal control over voting precincts/collection locations
· Takes control over redistricting away from state legislatures in favor of independent commissions
· Completely restructures campaign finance law, including funding a small donor match program where the federal government will match small dollar donations on a 6-1 ration (If you donate $100 to a candidate, your donation will be matched by $600 of public funding)
· Places new regulations on corporations and charitable organizations campaign contributions
· Creates grants for college campuses to fund get out the vote efforts
While areas of the bill certainly adequately meet Democrats challenges to Republican led bills that they claim to be pursuing, in reality the most important aspects of the “For the People Act” go wildly beyond any honest concern for ensuring Democracy. If we ignore the fundamental issue of states rights to regulate their own election that is central to this issue and assume that the federal government will take some action, there are many areas of possible compromise on these issues. For example, if we are concerned about voter suppression due to voter ID laws the bill could establish simple and easy ways for voters in all states to obtain IDs, something that is useful for people for their entire life, solving the issue of voter suppression while maintaining a logical requirement to vote.
However, the “For the People Act” in no way seeks to compromise on any level, rather it looks to have the federal government take total control over the election process, ensuring that states lose one of their most fundamental powers granted in the constitution. There are many critiques of Republican led voting bills across the country that could be reformed, but the claim that universal mail in voting with no verification accompanied by federally legalized ballot harvesting and federal funding for congressional campaigns is necessary for Democracy to exist is ludicrous.
Beyond the contents of H.R.1, the general messaging campaign coming from members of the Democratic party surrounding passage of the bill via abolishing the filibuster, in addition to many of their other norm violating goals, creates an astounding Catch 22. Many Democrats have complained that in order for Democracy to continue to exist, they must be able to pass numerous parts of their agenda without compromise or concessions. The only way to pass such wide ranging and sometimes radical proposals involves violating numerous democratic norms including potentially stacking the Supreme Court, granting statehood to Washington D.C. (giving Democrats 2 de facto permanent Senators), and namely eliminating the Senate filibuster.
Many Democrats have repeated the claim that the filibuster is a “Relic of Jim Crow” highlighting its usage by segregationist Senators halting Civil Rights Legislation. Despite this several key Democrats have supporting the filibuster throughout their entire careers (up until the current point where it is no longer advantageous to keep it) including former president Barack Obama, and current President Joe Biden. Twice in his own Senate career Biden personally threatened to filibuster legislation and in 2005 when Republicans threatened the “nuclear option” lowering the threshold for judicial appointments to 51, he called it a “power grab by the majority party”. Democrat Harry Reid would eventually invoke the nuclear option in 2013 leading to the end of 60 vote majority for court appointments. Beyond older remnants of hypocrisy on the filibuster we can look to last year for an earlier example where all but 3 Democratic Senators joined in filibustering Republican Tim Scott’s police reform bill. Quite an irony that the same Democrats who hate this “Jim Crow relic” used it a year ago to stop the only Black Republican’s police reform efforts.
Along the other Democrat led supports for getting rid of the filibuster include the commonly used rhetoric that Republicans are obstructing and stopping the American people from getting what they voted for. However, even despite the COVID-19 pandemic, the mess of a presidency that was Trump, and the support from most mainstream media establishments, Democrats were only able to gain a slim 50-50 majority in the Senate with an almost equally slim majority in the House. This is not some far reaching mandate that the American people want a wildly more progressive agenda including bills such as H.R.1 or potentially 10 trillion dollars of government spending in Biden’s first year. Democrats knew that Joe Manchin, a unicorn of a democratic senator from one of the most Republican states in the country or Kristen Sinema from purple Arizona would not support such wild efforts. Despite this the rhetoric still implies that the system is rigged against them and that they should be able to proceed with one party rule with no compromise.
The idea that Republicans refuse to compromise on any point is another exaggerated talking point. Repeatedly we have seen that while Republicans will simply not budge on Democrat proposed plans, compromised bills tend to come downstream. This was the case with the COVID-19 stimulus packages, Tim Scott’s police reform bill, and Biden’s infrastructure package. Many Democrats have made it clear they have no interest in giving Republicans something they want while losing out on some of their priorities when they can leverage non-action into support for ending the filibuster or other norm breaking measures. While it got little media attention, earlier this week the Senate passed a groundbreaking 250-billion-dollar bill aiming to compete with China passing 68-32 with large bipartisan support.
While members of both parties might not like it, gridlock, and compromise are functions intentionally built into the American system of governance, albeit heavily worsened by polarization over recent years. If we want to solve problems of political polarization in this country and work towards a more equitable future, the solution is not to yo-yo every two to four years slowing ripping away every norm of a system that has been in place for over 200 years. Maybe instead our leaders should take accountability for their inability to act like adults and solve problems for their voters.
Hey Ben, this breaks down the proposed bill really well. I totally agree that there needs to be compromise and collaboration rather than senseless pushing and pulling if either party wants to solve the problems their constituents care about. Great work and look forward to the next article!