Vote Early and Vote Often
Once they pass a COVID-relief bill there is no more important legislative priority for Democrats than expanding voting rights
Yesterday I wrote about the importance of Democrats passing and enacting a COVID-relief bill. From a short-term political perspective it is vital for Joe Biden’s nascent presidency. But from a longer-term political perspective, Democrats need to be laser-like focused on expanding voting access and suspending the Senate filibuster, if necessary, to do it. Anything less will force Democrats to hold and seek federal office with one hand tied behind their backs.
That point was highlighted by a New York Times piece from over the weekend that didn’t receive nearly enough attention.
“In statehouses nationwide, Republicans who echoed former President Donald J. Trump’s baseless claims of rampant fraud are proposing to make it harder to vote next time — ostensibly to convince the very voters who believed them that elections can be trusted again. And even some colleagues who defended the legitimacy of the November vote are joining them.”
The Times notes that according to the Brennan Center for Justice “state legislators have filed 106 bills to tighten election rules, generally making it harder to cast a ballot — triple the number at this time last year.” This includes proposals to “1) limit mail voting access; (2) impose stricter voter ID requirements; (3) limit successful pro-voter registration policies; and (4) enable more aggressive voter roll purges.”
In Georgia and Pennsylvania, state legislators are trying to roll back no-excuse absentee voting. In Arizona and Pennsylvania, Republicans would make it more difficult to get a ballot. South Carolina, Arizona, Virginia, and Alaska would increase the requirements on witness signatures. In Texas, which already has some of the nation’s toughest voting restrictions, proposed legislation would according to the Times, “cut the time allotted for early voting, limit outsiders’ ability to help voters fill out ballots and require new voters to prove they are citizens.” One proposed bill in Arizona would actually give the state legislature the power to override the certification of electoral votes by the secretary of state, in effect undoing the will of voters in a purely partisan matter.
Most of these bills will likely not be enacted, but in narrowly contested states like Arizona, Texas, and Georgia, that have Republican governors and where Republicans control the state legislature, some of these restrictions could become law.
It’s not that confusing as to why this is happening. After Democratic wins in 2020 and in a larger political environment where Democrats consistently win the popular vote in presidential and congressional elections and Democratic policies generally poll better, it’s the best, perhaps only, way for Republicans to remain competitive in close elections.
That’s also why this is the most important political battlefield for the two parties and one where Democrats need to be willing to play hardball.
In the last Congress, House Democrats passed one of the most expansive voting rights bills in modern American history. Its provisions allowed for automatic and same day voter registration while also making it easier for voters to register online. It required every state, in federal elections, to offer at least two weeks of early voting and allow any eligible voter to cast a mail-in ballot. It would have prevented states from forcing voters to provide identification other than a signature when voting by mail, restored voting rights for felons, ended partisan gerrymandering, and required states to “establish uniform rules” when drawing congressional maps.
Not surprisingly, the bill went nowhere in the GOP-controlled Senate. With Democrats now in charge it can, at least now, be introduced and get a floor debate. But there’s zero chance that Senate Republicans would allow such legislation to become law and there’s no real way for Democrats to pass the bill via budget reconciliation. But if Democrats want to maintain political control and consistently enact progressive laws this is the one place where they need to most seriously consider suspending the filibuster. Their political survival may depend on it.
As I noted above, Democrats consistently win the popular vote in presidential and midterm elections but are stymied because of a political system that favors small rural states and communities. Democrats have, for example, won the popular vote in 7 of the last 8 presidential elections, but have only won the White House five of those times. In 2020 congressional elections, Democrats won the popular vote by 3 points and still lost 11 seats. The political deck is stacked against Democrats and GOP efforts at limiting voting rights and partisan gerrymandering have made it that much more difficult to level the playing field. Only by passing voting rights legislation can Democrats compete effectively and roll back GOP efforts on the state level to restrict voting access and cement their political control.
There’s also another reason to do this: it would be good for small “d” democracy. It’s rare that any party can enact laws that literally strengthen the bedrock of American democracy while also giving that party a political boost. This is one of those places. It’s the ultimate win-win.
Ironically, there’s a strong case to be made that in red states, expanded voting access would be a boon for Republicans. As one political operative from Montana told me last Fall, one of the reasons that the GOP outperformed pre-election polls that showed the state’s senate race a toss-up, is that when you give every voter a ballot, an envelope, and a stamp it leads to a positive outcome for the party that has a long-standing political advantage. The problem for Republicans is that in more narrowly contested states, like Arizona, Georgia, or Pennsylvania, expanded voting access is a lose-lose.
Last year, when Rep. John Lewis of Georgia died, former President Barack Obama spoke at his funeral and called on Congress to get rid of the “Jim Crow” filibuster if it is used to block expanded voting rights - as a tribute to a man who was beaten by police officers for marching on behalf of Black Americans seeking to cast a ballot in Alabama. If there is one place where Democrats need to focus their anti-filibuster activism it is on this issue. Democrats like Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema are not going to scrap the filibuster, but if they can be convinced to suspend the rule for voting rights legislation that would be enough of a win for Democrats. The ability of Democrats to hold on to power and pass laws requires it.
One More Thing …
I received a good question from a reader yesterday and it got me thinking about how different our current politics are than just a decade ago.
The reader asked, “If I recall correctly the Republicans used budget reconciliation to pass the 2017 tax cuts. Why should the Dems be hesitant to do the same?”
It’s true that Republicans did use budget reconciliation to push through their massive tax cut. And they also unsuccessfully tried to use reconciliation to repeal Obamacare. But it’s also the case that any trepidation Democrats have about using budget reconciliation to pass a COVID-relief bill is quickly fading away.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Schumer on Monday filed a joint budget resolution instructing the relevant congressional committees to begin drafting reconciliation legislation. Democrats appear to be increasingly unfazed about going down this path and seem largely uninterested in negotiating with Republicans on the relief package.
Part of this has to do with the sense among Democrats that they taken for a ride in 2009 when they tried to negotiate with Republicans on health care reform. As the argument goes, they wasted months trying to hammer out a deal that Republicans never had any interest in supporting. There’s certainly something to that, but the larger and more relevant issue is that the make-up of the Democratic caucus in the Senate has dramatically changed.
For example, here is an interesting factoid about the state of the Senate in 2009. There were two Democratic senators in Montana, North Dakota, Arkansas, and West Virginia. There were Democratic Senators from Alaska, South Dakota, Missouri, Indiana, Nebraska, and Louisiana. In all, 13 Democrats represented states won by John McCain in the 2008 election. Today, there are 3 Democrats in states won by Donald Trump in 2020 - Jon Tester of Montana, Sherrod Brown of Ohio, and Joe Manchin of West Virginia.
The result of this shift is that while 12 years ago Senate Democrats had to worry about winning the support of Republican voters that’s much less of a concern today. In 2009, there were Democrats in red states who believed that they needed to appear to be acting in a bipartisan manner, in order to maintain political support. As I pointed out in my earlier post the effort to win GOP support for health care reform had much more to do with giving political cover to red state Democrats than was a genuine effort to win Republican votes. Democratic senators could back to their constituents and say they tried to work with Republicans before pushing those health care reform solely with Democratic votes. It should be noted, that did little to help them politically. Most retired or lost reelection in 2012 or 2014. The exceptions are Tester, Brown, Manchin, and Claire McCaskill who reelection in 2012 because she faced off against Todd “the female body has ways to try to shut the whole thing down” Akin.
This time around, aside from Manchin and perhaps Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, few Democratic senators are focused on appearing bipartisan in anything more than a rhetorical manner. Look at some of the Democrats who are up for reelection in 2012 - Michael Bennet of Colorado, Tammy Duckworth of Illinois, Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, or Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut. None of them are likely concerned about voters perceiving them as being more focused on results than reconciliation (political not budgetary that is). There’s been nary a peep from Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire or Catherine Masto of Nevada, who are among the few Democrats arguably facing tough races in 2022. And consider Raphael Warnock, who has to run for reelection in two years in Georgia. He ran on COVID relief and $2000 stimulus checks. That’s far more important to him than bipartisanship.
Even on the House side, Democratic congressman Conor Lamb, who eked out reelection in a purple House district last fall, said on Twitter about the relief package, “Our job is to fight for workers & the middle class. The GOP takes from them after giving to big companies all year. You can't cover that up with unity or bipartisanship. It's just not good enough.”
Granted, the situation is different than 12 years ago because the underlying legislation is so much more popular than was the case with Obamacare. But the political incentives are also vastly different. The performative need to appear bipartisan matters to Manchin and that’s basically it in the Democratic caucus. It’s hard to find a positive aspect to America’s debilitating political polarization but in convincing Democrats that they should focus far more on policy substance than political style, it’s possible we’ve found one!
This is by far the largest priority under the radar. Republicans have been suppressing the heck out of voting rights with no bar too low (limiting hours, limiting mail drops, placing false mail drops, forcing reregistering of Democrats, throw out USPS sorters, cut USPS overtime during voting period, ... limiting mail-ins?). Make Stacey Abrams the VRA czar. Allow ID required, but every citizen is registered at DMV. Australia requires ID AND everyone is required to vote or pay fine.