Democrats admit they want to change voting laws because if they don’t, they’ll lose elections
We already knew this, but I’m surprised that they’re saying it:
Democrats are warning that they could box themselves out of winning Senate races in key states unless they change the legislative filibuster and pass voting rights and election reform legislation.
The fear boils down to a belief among Senate Democrats that unless they take federal action, changes being made by GOP-controlled state legislatures will make it harder for certain constituency groups to vote, which would make it harder for Democrats to win elections. That, in turn, would make it harder for Democrats to keep or win back control of the Senate in the future.
Note how HR1 is always referred to by Democrats and the MSM as an “election reform” bill to solidify “voting rights.” Nothing bad there, right? It’s actually an entirely partisan federalization of the voting laws heretofore almost entirely under state discretion, an attempt to stop red states from protecting the integrity of their elections with traditional safeguards such as voter ID (voter ID is supported by the vast majority of Americans). The idea the Democrats and the MSM wish to convey to the public is that the Republicans are trying to stop the opposition from voting, and the Democrats are just trying to keep voting “fair.”
It’s an incredible power grab by the Democrats, and only Manchin, Sinema – and perhaps SCOTUS – stand in their way. This is do or die for the Democrats for 2022, and they know it.
But this drive isn’t just recent. HR1 has been a top priority for the Democratic Party long before January 6th, COVID, and the 2020 election ever happened. HR1 was the first bill they took up in January of 2019, right after they had taken back the House and even though they knew it would be blocked in the then-Republican-controlled Senate.
A little over a year later, COVID gave them the golden opportunity to institute the state-by-state “reforms” (that is, relaxation of voting security) that they couldn’t legislate at the federal level, and which may have enabled their 2020 win. Now that COVID may be waning, they want to make their changes permanent for all states and thus make their power permanent.
They mean the ‘voting rights’ of aliens, of people stripped of their political rights due to felony convictions, of people who moved away seven years ago, of people who died last year, and of people who couldn’t be bothered so they gave you the harvester that ballot sent to them in the mail unbidden.
You notice they don’t advocate moving election day to Saturday or setting up more precincts, or revising electoral calendars so you have simpler ballots.
Said it before, will say it again: the Democratic Party is the totalitarian party. Once in, never out, kinda like Islam.
What is needed is a King Solomon approach. The Republicans should say, “OK, if you truly think that, (1) ridding the Senate of the filibuster is the best thing for the country (2) adding more justices to the Supreme Court is another good thing, we Republicans will vote for both if you add one thing, requiring these laws to take effect only when the Senate changes hands and the Republicans are in charge.”
We all know that would never fly. But the Democrats would have to say that out loud. “No, we only want those two changes when WE are in power.” Wouldn’t that settle the matter? It would certainly be something interesting for the media to talk about.
“The fear boils down to a belief among Senate Democrats that unless they take federal action, changes being made by GOP-controlled state legislatures will make it harder for certain constituency groups to vote, which would make it harder for Democrats to win elections.” Jordain Carney reporting for the Hill
Were Carney honest he’d have written, “The fear boils down to a belief among Senate Democrats that unless they take federal action, changes being made by GOP-controlled state legislatures will make it harder for democrats to cheat, which would make it harder for Democrats to steal elections.”
“Now that COVID may be waning, they want to make their changes permanent for all states and thus make their power permanent.” neo
I agree but it’s incredibly short sighted, a limitation no doubt enforced upon them by their ideological blinders.
Effectively disenfranchise at least half the country and you both guarantee serious conflict and “bet the house” that you can win that conflict.
“So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire, by people who don’t even know that fire is hot” George Orwell
Pretty good way to provoke a civil war.
Many assertions of the Anti-Federalists have come to fruition. Patrick Henry was the author of many of these responses to the Federalist Papers as Brutus.
On this, though, while being theoretically correct, the real, the actuality, has shown the wisdom of the Federalists on the separation of between US government and state government powers on voting and on the electoral college.
Direct democracy leads to despotism. This is a historical lesson learned and observable. Majority rule leads to the same and goes hand in hand with direct democracy,
The issue that we had at our foundation is how do you balance the power between a federal government and the state government knowing that the state governments where completely sovereign.
What we are experiencing today is a demand, if you will, to an authoritarian, overall, federal government in which states are just federal provinces or prefectures.
To tilt, in any way, voting to a federal mostly or only power is to subvert our Constitution. Sure, it’s also the way of the world today and in the past, but that does not mean it’s correct or righteous.
Permanent control by the Democrats is a nightmare thought. In New York, a bill has been introduced for ” isolation camps ” for unvaccinated people. It is claimed to be for those who cannot isolate themselves. But even if so, how long until the isolation of ” enemies of the state ” , to use Nancy Pelosi’s phrase that she obtained from the Germans and Soviets are stashed away, where an eye can be kept on them?
We have Democrats from here in Wisconsin, like Tammy Baldwin, that would not be bothered by that, at all, and I doubt that The Squad would be troubled, and I shudder to think of what would happen to people like Messers Trump, Cruz, and Rand Paul.
Permanent rule by one party is a horrible idea, but permanent rule by evil people is even worse.
SCOTTthe BADGER,
“Isolation camps” are a “bridge too far”.
“[C]ertain constituency groups.” The dead, the virtualized, the non-citizens, the unregistered, the activist vote harvesting fraudsters, those groups?
Art @6:27pm and geoffb @11:44 pm hit the nail squarely on the head.
Evergreen … from C. S. Lewis:
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. Their very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be ‘cured’ against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.
This is what we get when a faction is so full of their self-righteous selves that they think they alone are the possessors of the One True Way, and therefore see the world as Normal vs. the Evil Other …
… forgetting the wisdom of one Harry Callahan: a man’s got to know his limitations.
These days, fascism doesn’t come in jackboots and armbands … it comes in academic and judicial robes that drip with such condescending arrogance.
The Progressive Left have become the blind fundamentalists that they sneer at.
Democrats are evil. Exhibit #18432
Related:
“IS ENSURING ELECTION INTEGRITY ANTI-DEMOCRATIC?
“Of course not. Yet Democrats and their media allies insist that it is.”
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2022/01/is-ensuring-election-integrity-anti-democratic.php
“Short” version:
The Republicans are evil.
The laws of the land must be transformed to ensure that the Republicans are not—cannot—be voted into power.
Preventing the Republicans’ accession to power, BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY, is the very definition of “virtuous” law.
BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY!
The only good Democrat is a dead one.
“The only good Democrat is a dead one” – they’re still voting D, so what’s the difference?
Anyone who disputes the right of a dead democrat to vote 17 times in each election is a racist on par with Joe Biden’s mentors Wallace and Byrd.
It’s just that simple.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/dems-election-bills-imperil-elections-hans-von-spakovsky
}}} We already knew this, but I’m surprised that they’re saying it:
Yes, but they say it in the context of: “The GOP is trying to cheat, so we have to do this to stop them.”
As Frei says, “Confession through projection.”
}}} “The only good Democrat is a dead one” – they’re still voting D, so what’s the difference?
There is a limit to how many dead democrats can vote in any given election… but the new federal regs they want can improve that concern for them.
Is there a reason to think Senate Rs will go along with this?
I think there’s two issues tied together that makes it less likely. If it were just a question of changing voting laws in exchange for more appropriations going their way I think enough Senate R’s would sell out. Bear in mind that many states are dominated by a single party and changing voting laws won’t affect those Senators during their careers, which will be as long as they care to make them.
Being in the minority is valuable when the parties are nearly balanced and lots of favors have to be traded in order to steer appropriations.
But the value of being in the minority is enhanced by the (fake*) filibuster and HR 1 cannot pass the Senate unless the filibuster is weakened further (i. e. made more obviously fake than it is). So the attraction is much lower for those Senators most likely to sell out.
So what about Sinema and Manchin? These two are from reddish states and can’t be sure they’ll be around to reap the reward if the Senate passes it. I am certain there are other reddish-state Senate Dems who are in the same boat and are hiding behind Sinema and Manchin–who are able stand firm knowing they are not alone, a chunk of their party is quietly with them. It’s hard to know, among the DC elite, how much of the Sturm and Drang is real and how much is theater to keep the Dem base engaged and turning out.
*Why do I say “fake”? Because the filibuster rule can be overridden at any time, for one vote only, by a simple majority (any Senate rule can be). It happens much more often than the media takes notice of, and often is described differently depending on the issue triggering filibusters. Lately it’s being described as a rule that has to be permanently changed. Six weeks ago it was described (accurately) by Vox as a rule that can be set aside any time for any reason by a simple majority. It was arranged by Mitch McConnell and some of the Republicans to allow the Dems to increase the debt ceiling by simple majority. These Republicans will (and do) pretend to have been against raising the debt ceiling, but they literally made it happen.
There is a false narrative around the significance of the filibuster that we are chumps for falling for. It’s a device to allow individual Senators to evade accountability from their constituents by allowing them to vote the “right” way without stopping what’s happening, or by focusing the entire attention on individual “mavericks” who become mysteriously obstructive at critical times (like McCain for Obamacare repeal, which too many R’s wanted to avoid doing, and like Sinema and Manchin now).
To extend my Globetrotters analogy, the Senate rules are just the refs at a Globetrotters/Generals game. The refs are not going to stop the Globetrotters having a ladder on the court if they want. And when the Generals protest, it’s for show, because at the end of the game everyone gets paid.
Slip of the pen, I think. As I recall, either Lansing or Yates, wrote as Brutus
Specifically with regard to the Supreme Court.
I’ll check on that when I get a chance. If you are home and have the 2 volume set Debates on the Constitution handy, you can probably find it there.
Sounds like you probably have that slim volume of “The Anti-Federalist Papers” too
Ok. I just looked up Brutus and got a bit of a surprise, though I should not have.
It appears that the Anti-Federalist Wiki entry has been the site of some fairly frequently editing; mostly innocuous, but some in response to purported vandalism.
The Brutus entry contends that two historically obscure prospects wrote as Brutus, based on “computational analysis” .
So much for the consensus of historians.
https://www.nycourts.gov/history/legal-history-new-york/luminaries-supreme-court/yates-robert.html
Frederick, I agree that Sinema and Manchin are the designated spear-catchers because they probably can’t be flanked from the left.
Does anyone know exactly how this “Voting Rights” law would be implemented?
Once it’s passed and Biden signs it, does some functionary in the FEC call up the Secretary of State for say….Red State (RS) — and then just tells them that the RS laws and processes governing voting are now invalid and must be changed? And must be pre-approved by the FEC effective for the next federal election and all subsequent elections?
I can see that conversation going like this:
RS SoS: I can’t change those laws. Only the legislature can do that, not that they would, and the governor would still have to approve the law, which he won’t.
FEC: You didn’t understand what I said. Your laws are invalid. Change them. I don’t care how you do it. And get it done or there will trouble for you.
RS Sos: I don’t like the sound of that.
FEC: We don’t care. Just do it.
RS SoS: You and whose army? (Click)
Then what?
@Roll-aid:does some functionary in the FEC call up the Secretary of State for say….Red State (RS) — and then just tells them that the RS laws and processes governing voting are now invalid and must be changed?
Government officials usually proactively try to follow black-letter laws. And the state governments don’t care for lawsuits.
Look at how the vaccine mandates are playing out. Even though the legality of OSHA’s rule isn’t settled yet, corporations are falling all over themselves to require compliance. They are not waiting for a phone call.
corporations are falling all over themselves to require compliance. They are not waiting for a phone call.
They’re also complicating the marketing of their products by paying danegeld to BLM. Tools gonna tool.
Sinema and Manchin = profiles in courage. Genuine thanks to both of them.
Reps should look for better PR against the terrible voting rights bills.
I suggest “Mickey Mouse voting rights”.
Republicans should oppose Mickey Mouse voting, and should claim to want to allow valid voters, but stop Mickey Mouse and other invalid voters, like dead or moved away or illegal aliens.
Support all legal voters – suppress the Mickey Mouse votes.
Are there any actual living, breathing voters who can attest to their voting rights being restricted, within the last decade? That is–actual legitimate, qualified voters being turned away from voting places, or having their votes disqualified for improper reasons?
I think we would be hearing from them if there were.
The Dems position, taken at its rather dubious face value, is that if our voting process was run by the KKK, they could in theory use nefarious means under the rules to deprive people of the right to vote–so it is necessary that there be no rules.
@Leclerc:Sinema and Manchin: profiles in courage
In the way Hulk Hogan was a great wrestler, and Meadowlark Lemon was a great basketball player, sure.
Both of these voted to “nuke” the filibuster on December 9th, just a month ago. Romney and McConnell joined them in voting to nuke the filibuster, and made sanctimonious statements on protecting the filibuster and minority rights just this week.
The political class and the media think we are chumps. It seems they are not wrong.
@ boatbuilder > “The Dems position, taken at its rather dubious face value, is that if our voting process was run by the KKK, they could in theory use nefarious means under the rules to deprive people of the right to vote–so it is necessary that there be no rules.”
In line with the Democrat Revisionist History Project, Biden attempted to shame his opponents by asking whose side they wanted to be on, and named a number of prominent segregationists.
All of whom were Democrats, a point which he thought was not important to mention.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2022/01/mcconnell-fact-check-biden.php
But don’t take my word for it.
Note to DNW: given the frequent vandalism at Wikipedia, and the consistently leftist bias of most of their editors, these are admissions against interest, and therefore to be taken seriously.
https://notthebee.com/article/biden-just-said-if-you-dont-support-the-democrats-voting-rights-act-youre-siding-with-george-wallace-but-theres-just-one-little-problem-with-biden-invoking-wallace-here
Powerline includes a screen shot of a news report from the Detroit Free Press, May 1987 :
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2022/01/joe-biden-civil-rights-warrior.php
}}} He even bragged about receiving an award from George Wallace that there’s no proof that he won.
JOE (gasp! gasp! gasp!) LIED ???
Nawwwww… Cain’t be!
Pingback:What We’re Reading: Election Reform For Dummies, Bidenomics Boggle, Dems Face Voter Wrath . . . And More – Issues & Insights