US Democracy

US Democracy

Summary

The federal government of the United States is the national government of the United States, a federal republic in North America, composed of 50 states, a federal district, five major self-governing territories and several island possessions.

The federal government is composed of three distinct branches: legislativeexecutive, and judicial, whose powers are vested by the U.S. Constitution in the Congress, the president and the federal courts, respectively. The powers and duties of these branches are further defined by acts of Congress, including the creation of executive departments and courts inferior to the Supreme Court.

The full name of the republic is “United States of America“. No other name appears in the Constitution, and this is the name that appears on money, in treaties, and in legal cases to which it is a party. The terms “Government of the United States of America” or “United States Government” are often used in official documents to represent the federal government as distinct from the states collectively. The terms “Federal” and “National” in government agency or program names generally indicate affiliation with the federal government.

OnAir Post: US Democracy

News

Morning Joe’s Daniela Pierre-Bravo and Harvard’s John Della Volpe discuss what Gen-Z voters are considering headed into the midterms.

Local election officials don’t tilt elections
The Conversation, Joshua FerrerAugust 1, 2022

Partisan or not? Local election officials don’t tilt elections in favor of their party’s candidates

In the wake of the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection and the spread of rumors that the election was stolen, Americans’ confidence in the integrity of the country’s electoral system is at an all-time low. A recent ABC News/Ipsos Poll found that 41% of Americans are not so confident, or not at all confident, in the integrity of the U.S. electoral system.

The once-obscure topic of election administration has made its way into news headlines across the country. Local election officials – those charged with running the country’s election contests – have faced harassment and even death threats.

Have these officials, as some charge now, used their authority to interfere with America’s democratic process? Do local election officials abuse their power?

The short answer, according to research I conducted with my UCLA colleagues, political scientists Igor Geyn and Daniel Thompson, is that they haven’t so far. Both Democratic and Republican election officials oversee elections with similar partisan outcomes, turnout rates and administrative policies.

No undue influence
In much of the U.S., elections are administered by partisan elected officials rather than nonpartisan bureaucrats.

These officials are selected by voters at the county or municipal level. Their responsibilities are wide-ranging and include registering voters, maintaining a registration list, hiring and training poll workers, selecting poll locations, printing ballots, acquiring election equipment, running early and absentee voting, educating voters, overseeing Election Day, tabulating votes, handling provisional ballots and certifying election results.

The potential for these officials to sway elections in their party’s favor seems obvious.

Legislators have waged hotly contested battles over voting laws, with the understood but rarely stated belief that making it easier or harder to vote will benefit their party at the ballot box.

The same reasoning – that making voting more or less difficult can affect election outcomes – holds true for those administering these laws. Local election officials have discretion over decisions such as the number of polling places to establish, early voting hours, registration list purges and accepting absentee and provisional ballots.

The past behavior of election officials provides clues to how Democratic and Republican clerks will act in the future. We studied more than 3,000 partisan local election officials from 1998 to 2018 in 1,313 counties across 21 states. We then examined the presidential elections they were responsible for administering.

We found that Democrats and Republicans serving similar counties oversee elections with similar results. When a Democratic election official is responsible for administering elections, the Democratic presidential candidate does not typically perform any better than if a Republican official administered that election. This is true across every year we studied from 2004 to 2020.

Democratic and Republican officials serving equivalent counties also oversee elections with similar levels of voter turnout. They even appear to make similar administrative decisions across many parts of the job, including the number of polling places opened, the share of votes they determine must be cast provisionally, the share of provisional ballots rejected, the percentage of eligible voters registered, the registration removal rate, the partisan balance of registrants and voter wait times.

Republicans could still lose 2022 midterms
CNN, Harry Enten,August 1, 2022

How Republicans could still blow the 2022 midterm elections

Sometimes polling trends meet your expectations. For example, you might expect a president’s approval rating to be low when we’re dealing with high inflation and negative growth in real disposable income per capita.

Sometimes, however, trends in public opinion are surprising. Even as President Joe Biden’s approval rating languishes south of 40%, Democrats aren’t just holding their own on the generic congressional ballot. They’re actually improving their position as Biden’s standing, if anything, gets worse.

Biden’s unpopular, but so are Republicans
Republicans now hold an average advantage of less than a point on the generic congressional ballot, which usually asks respondents some form of the following question: “If the elections for Congress were held today, would you vote for the Democratic or Republican party?”

Lake Buena Vista, Florida (CNN)Former Vice President Mike Pence called out his former boss by name on Friday, saying that “President (Donald) Trump is wrong” in claiming that Pence had the right to overturn the 2020 election on January 6, 2021.

Speaking at the Federalist Society Florida Chapters conference near Orlando, Pence delivered his strongest response yet to Trump’s ongoing efforts to relitigate the 2020 presidential election, calling it “un-American” to suggest one person could have decided the outcome.

Pence warned against conservatives who continue to insist the vice president can alter an election, and said it could be a problematic position for Republicans in the next presidential contest.

“Under the Constitution, I had no right to change the outcome of our election, and (Vice President) Kamala Harris will have no right to overturn the election when we beat them in 2024,” Pence said.

In a democracy, voters choose their political leaders. In a democracy that permits gerrymandering – when state legislatures draw legislative district lines that maximize the dominant party’s chances of winning seats – elected leaders choose their voters.

Gerrymandering undermines representative government. But it’s nothing new. The term “gerrymander” stretches all the way back to a member of the founding generation: Elbridge Gerry, who as governor of Massachusetts led the effort in the 1810s to rig the state’s legislative districts for the benefit of his fellow Republicans.

Gerry would be astounded to see the tools he’d have at his command in creating a gerrymander today. No longer do legislative line-drawers need to rely on their instincts in creating a district map that will advantage their party’s candidates. Sophisticated computer programs can maximize a party’s advantage by creating districts that can put Gerry’s famous salamander-shaped district to shame.

Concerned about potential problems during the next election when Congress counts presidential votes, some legislators are interested in reforming the federal law that governs that process, the Electoral Count Act.

Reforming the act, which sets the procedures for how votes for president are counted in the Electoral College, means identifying what it’s supposed to do, the areas that need reform and any other problems with it.

As a scholar of election law, I recognize that presidential elections in the United States are complicated. Voters do not directly elect the president. After Election Day, and based on the popular vote, each state chooses presidential electors who formally meet and cast votes for president that are then relayed to Congress. There are 538 electoral votes, and after Congress counts them and verifies that one candidate has received a majority – at least 270 – the winner of the presidential election is declared.

In theory, a rule about how to count votes seems easy enough. But it’s hardly been easy.

Biden has found his bone to pick with the GOP: voting rights
Politico, Laura Barron-LopezJanuary 11, 2022

Days after going after Donald Trump for threatening America’s democracy, President Joe Biden will turn his sights on Republicans for pushing laws based on the former president’s lies of election fraud.

The president will take aim at GOP lawmakers in state houses and on Capitol Hill in his speech in Atlanta on Tuesday, calling on them to join Democrats in support of voting and elections reform bills. He will declare the current moment a “turning point” for the country.

“The next few days, when these bills come to a vote, will mark a turning point in this nation,” Biden will say, according to an excerpt of his prepared remarks provided by the White House. “Will we choose democracy over autocracy, light over shadow, justice over injustice? I know where I stand. I will not yield. I will not flinch. I will defend your right to vote and our democracy against all enemies foreign and domestic. And so the question is where will the institution of [the] United States Senate stand?”

Biden’s speech comes ahead of a push by Senate Democratic leaders to debate changes to the Senate’s filibuster rules in an attempt to create a legislative pathway for two bills — one aimed at restoring key sections of the 1965 Voting Rights Act and a second meant to end expand ballot access, as well as give local election administrators resources to prevent their removal for political reasons, among other provisions. Some Senate Republicans are currently engaged in talks with a small number of Senate Democrats about voter protections, including a modest change to election law that would deal exclusively with how contests are certified. The latter is a proposal the White House has dismissed as insufficient on its own.

What Might Democrats’ Voting Rights Bill Entail?
Nathaniel RakichJanuary 10, 2022

Once again, Democrats in Congress have turned their attention to election reform. Last week, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said the Senate would vote to change Senate rules (i.e., reform the filibuster) by Jan. 17 to pave the way for Democrats’ voting rights legislation.

But what exactly does that mean? Several different voting rights bills have been introduced in the three years since Democrats won the House in 2018 and made the issue a priority, so it can be hard to keep them all straight. But with the fight over election reform nearing a possible denouement — as my colleague Alex Samuels explains in more detail here — we thought it would be useful to explain exactly what is and isn’t still up for consideration.

For the People Act

First, a history lesson. In January 2019, shortly after Democrats took control of the House of Representatives for the first time since 2010, they introduced the For the People Act, a 571-page bill to reform voting procedures, campaign finance, redistricting and governmental ethics. To symbolize the bill’s importance, it was numbered House Resolution 1 — which you may know better as HR 1.

First proposed when Republicans still controlled the presidency and the Senate, the For the People Act was originally more a Democratic wish list than anything they expected would become law. But when the bill was reintroduced last year, after Democrats had gained full control of the federal government, they didn’t curtail their ambitions. Rather, they added more details to the bill, bringing it to 791 pages, including the biggest changes in decades to the way federal elections are run. Among its many provisions were those to:

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has set the stage for a showdown this month over voting rights — pledging to muscle through sweeping new federal legislation aimed at counteracting moves by Republicans in state capitols to restrict access to the ballot.

But to do so, he must accomplish a near-impossible feat and persuade reluctant senators in his own caucus to change the chamber’s rules to bypass the 60-vote threshold needed to overcome Republicans’ repeated blockades of the bills.

Despite supporting voting measures, two of his fellow Democrats — Arizona Sen. Kyrsten Sinema and West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin — have defended the so-called filibuster, which requires 10 Republicans to support advancing legislation in an evenly divided 50-50 Senate.

Time is running out for Democrats, who are racing to establish new ground rules for voting ahead of this year’s midterm elections that will determine which party controls Congress.

Here’s how politicians game the system: The same group of people can vote on the same Election Day with very different results.

The gaming happens by drawing congressional and state legislative maps to politicians’ advantage. Republicans have benefited more in recent elections, and they’re off to a solid start this year as states draw new congressional district boundaries to account for the 2020 Census.

Some estimates suggest Republicans at large will pick up the five seats needed for a House majority in 2022 simply by redrawing state congressional maps.

I’m going to spend more time looking at this issue in the newsletter since gerrymandering, along with restricting access to the ballot box, have emerged as the major challenges to the US form of democracy.

US senators have failed to tackle key issues such as voting rights, according to a coalition of civil rights groups who released a report Wednesday grading lawmakers in the chamber on their voting record.

The report comes a week after Senate Republicans blocked the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act from advancing in the chamber and as Democrats negotiate over President Joe Biden’s social spending bill.

The grades — tabulated by the National Urban League, NAACP, National Action Network and other groups — were based on senators’ votes on the American Rescue Plan Act, the John R. Lewis Voting the Rights Advancement Act and the For the People Act. Additionally, the groups were critical of the filibuster, saying, “This once rare procedure has been normalized into a tool to effectively stymie major legislation, including voting rights protection bills.”

A rating of an “A”, “F” or “I” for incomplete was given depending on how the senator voted or their stance on changing the filibuster. All Republicans received an “F,” and Democrats along with Independents received either an “A” or “incomplete.”

Marc Morial, National Urban League president and CEO, told CNN the groups are using the scorecard to send a message “that all roads lead to voting” and to sound the alarm that voter suppression is a threat to democracy. He also said they scored senators on those issues because they want to initially focus on voting rights and that the scorecard could evolve to other issues.

“Voting and democracy is the protector and the empowerer of our voice on every other issue: policing, education, economic equity. Without the right to vote we have no say. No voice. No seat at the table,” Morial said Wednesday. “We’re sending a message to members of the United States Senate that we expect them to do everything in their power to protect democracy. If that means reforming the filibuster then so be it.”

Several corporations that publicly declared their support for legislation strengthening the Voting Rights Act have donated thousands of dollars this year to Republicans who recently blocked the bill in the Senate, a new analysis found.

Accountable.US, a watchdog group, found that eight major corporations that signed a letter in July calling for passage of the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2021 have collectively donated $164,500 to GOP senators who voted this week against allowing debate on the measure. The companies include household names like Amazon, Dell and Facebook.

The voting bill supported by those corporations would require states with recent histories of discrimination to get federal “preclearance” to change their voting laws, a response to the Supreme Court’s 2013 ruling in Shelby County v. Holder that gutted the preclearance system in the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Civil rights advocates have argued that the provision has successfully prevented proposed voting restrictions in states and localities with histories of racial discrimination.

Senate Republicans again blocked a voting rights bill Wednesday that would strengthen the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The chamber voted 50-49 in favor of the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, 10 votes shy of the 60 needed to advance the bill. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer voted against it so he’d have the option of bringing the legislation back up in the future. Republicans also blocked an earlier version of the bill — the Freedom to Vote Act — in October.

The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, named after the congressman and civil rights activist from Alabama, was passed by the House in August. The bill seeks to strengthen the 1965 Voting Rights Act that has been weakened by a pair of Supreme Court rulings. If signed into law the bill would restore the Justice Department’s ability to block certain jurisdictions with a history of voter discrimination from altering their voting rules, after the Supreme Court in 2013 ruled the method used to implement the provision was outdated.

The partisan divide over voting rights, by the numbers | The Numbers Racket
Pennsylvania Capital-Star, Cassie MillerNovember 1, 2021

With voters set to cast their ballots on Election Day tomorrow, let’s take a look at Americans’ views of voting rights.

A study conducted by the Pew Research Center from July 8-18, 2021 found that Americans were split along partisan lines over whether voting is a right or a privilege.

While more than half (57 percent) of Americans said voting was “a fundamental right for every adult U.S. citizen and should not be restricted in any way,” 42 percent said “voting is a privilege that comes with responsibilities and can be limited if adult U.S. citizens don’t meet some requirements.”

The gap was much larger by party, Pew found.

In fact, 67 percent of Republicans or those who lean Republican said that voting was a privilege compared to just 21 percent of Democrats or those who lean Democratic who said the same. 

Similarly, 78 percent of Democrats, or those who lean Democratic, said that voting was a fundamental right compared to just 32 percent of Republicans, or those who lean Republican, who said the same.

Despite the party divide on the perception of voting, nearly all Americans – 94 percent – said that “it is important that people who are legally qualified to vote are able to cast a ballot.” 

Additionally, 82 percent of Americans surveyed said that it was “very important.”

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott on Monday signed into law a new congressional map that is expected to bolster the GOP’s majority in the quickly diversifying state.

The maps were approved by the state legislature last week, under the once-a-decade redistricting process, days before Senate Republicans in Washington, DC, blocked yet another voting rights bill that would crack down on those kinds of gerrymanders. Legal challenges to the new map are likely now that Abbott, a Republican, has signed it.
The new map would consolidate the power of White voters and eliminate political competition in the state’s rapidly changing suburbs. The number of majority-White districts would increase, even though the growing Hispanic population is almost entirely responsible for Texas gaining two seats in the US House in the reapportionment process.
Senate Republicans expected to block Democrats’ voting and elections bill
CNN, Alex Rogers and Daniella DiazOctober 20, 2021

Senate Republicans are expected to block another voting rights bill Wednesday, as some on the left call to change the chamber’s rules to allow the Democratic Party to unilaterally change federal election law.

The Democratic bill, known as the Freedom to Vote Act, would make it easier to register to vote, make Election Day a public holiday, ensure states have early voting for federal elections and allow all voters to request mail-in ballots. The measure would also bolster security on voting systems, overhaul how congressional districts are redrawn and impose new disclosures on donations to outside groups active in political campaigns.

But Republicans have blocked a number of voting rights legislation since Democrats took the House and Senate the past two election cycles.

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said Wednesday that the bill is similar to previous efforts Republicans blocked, saying it “still subjects popular commonsense election integrity provisions like voter ID to the whims of federal bureaucrats” and “still puts Washington in the middle of states’ redistricting decisions.”

A group of House Democrats, led by Rep. Colin Allred of Texas, sent a letter to their Senate colleagues on Monday morning urging them to pass voting rights legislation known as the “Freedom to Vote Act” when it comes up for a vote this week.

The legislation, which stands little chance of becoming law, is a slimmed down version of Democrats’ sweeping elections and voting bill that faced roadblocks in the Senate, including from members of their own party, earlier this year.

“America is strongest when our democratic institutions are strong, when they reflect and project the confidence of our people,” the group wrote in the letter. “The Freedom to Vote Act can fortify our democracy and bring Americans of all political stripes back into the town square, where the vitality of our ideas and experiences can be shared with respect, dynamism and hope for the future.”
This new bill would make it easier to register to vote, make Election Day a public holiday, ensure states have early voting for federal elections and allow all voters to request mail-in ballots. In addition, the measure would bolster security on voting systems, overhaul how congressional districts are redrawn and impose new disclosures on donations to outside groups active in political campaigns.

The lawmakers signing the letter hail from states where they say GOP-led legislatures have either passed restrictive voting laws or are, as they see it, redrawing congressional district lines in favor of Republicans. Both parties have a history of drawing maps to improve their fortunes in congressional elections and protect incumbents, but Republicans have been much more successful at it in recent decades. Nineteen states have passed 33 news laws this year that make it harder to vote, according to a recent analysis from the liberal Brennan Center for Justice.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., is calling on Democrats to work together to pass a major spending package before the end of this month as part of a broader push to advance major elements of President Biden’s domestic agenda.

In a letter sent Thursday to Senate Democrats, Schumer says he plans to bring up a critical voting rights bill next week and move forward with a social spending bill by the end of the month.

“To pass meaningful legislation, we must put aside our differences and find the common ground within our party,” Schumer wrote of the spending bill. “As with any bill of such historic proportions, not every member will get everything he or she wants.”

Read Schumer’s full letter below.

Senate Judiciary squares off over John Lewis voting rights bill
The Hill, Marty JohnsonOctober 6, 2021

The Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday held a hearing on the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which was introduced to the upper chamber on Tuesday by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.).

It’s the fourth hearing that the Senate has had over voting rights this session of Congress, though, as of late, the Democratic priority has been overshadowed by the party’s struggle to pass other key legislation, including raising the country’s debt ceiling, the bipartisan infrastructure deal and President Biden’s $3.5 trillion budget resolution.

Headlining the hearing was Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Kristen Clarke, who has voiced strong support for the legislation aimed at strengthening the Voting Rights Act (VRA).

“I am here today to sound an alarm,” Clarke told the Senate panel. “For the Justice Department, restoring and strengthening the Voting Rights Act as a matter of great urgency.”

During the hearing, Clarke was grilled by Republican committee members on the bill and a variety of other Justice Department matters.

Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, the committee’s top Republican, called the bill named after late Georgia Rep. John Lewis (D), a voting rights champion, a “disaster” that would federalize state elections.

GOP support for the legislation is scarce; it passed through the House in August along party lines.

Nearly a dozen states have enacted laws this year that pave the way for election subversion, and additional proposals are gaining momentum in other states, according to a new tally by a nonpartisan group that tracks election-related bills.

The Voting Rights Lab analysis identified several categories of election subversion legislation, ranging from laws that usurp the authority of election officials or threaten them with criminal sanctions to the moves in several Republican-led states to undertake partisan reviews of the 2020 election results.
The group’s new report, shared first with CNN, tracked more than 180 bills introduced this year that have sought to shift authority away from election administrators, following former President Donald Trump’s loss and his relentless and unsuccessful crusade to overturn the election’s results in several battleground states.
“Enough states are starting to move these policies that we are, in fact, at a tipping point,” Megan Lewis, the executive director of the Voting Rights Lab, told CNN. “These lawmakers need to stop these efforts or we really run the risk of eroding the fabric of our democracy.”
The report comes as the former President and his allies, as they continue to push the false narrative of widespread fraud, are demanding more so-called “audits” of election results — even after a partisan review of ballots in Arizona released last week reaffirmed President Joe Biden’s 2020 win in the state’s most populous county. Similar Republican-led reviews of last year’s election results are moving forward in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, two other swing states Biden flipped from red to blue last year.
The Voting Lab identified 17 new laws in 11 states that could undermine how elections are run.
Republican official attacked by Trump decries ‘huge disinformation campaign’
Virginia Mercury, Ariana FigueroaSeptember 27, 2021

WASHINGTON — Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a Republican who took the brunt of former President Donald Trump’s attacks over Georgia’s 2020 election results, said during a Friday virtual panel that he hopes election disinformation starts to dissipate.

“People weren’t questioning the (election) process before, but there was a huge disinformation campaign which really destabilized many segments of American society,” Raffensperger said during the panel, referring to his party’s conduct in reaction to 2020. “I think the challenge that we have as Republicans is that right now our party is really fractured.”

But Raffensperger’s participation in the University of California, Irvine School of Law’s Fair Elections and Speech Center forum on “election subversion” drew intense criticism from Democrats in his home state.

Georgia state lawmakers and advocacy groups argued in a letter to the panel sponsors that Raffensperger helped pass Georgia’s new election overhaul bill, SB 202, widely criticized for restricting voting rights.

“Raffensperger has cheered the initial subversion steps taken by the State Board of Elections that could result in a state takeover of the Fulton County Board of Elections, the first time a state has taken steps toward subversion,” according to the letter.

How voter suppression laws hurt White people
CNN, John BlakeSeptember 25, 2021

Critics often describe the wave of voter restriction laws sweeping the nation as a new version of Jim Crow, the 19th century minstrel figure whose stage name became the symbol of a brutal era of Black oppression.

But if you want to understand how these new voter restriction laws also oppress White people, it’s more useful to invoke another cultural figure: Wile E. Coyote.
Wile E. Coyote is the Looney Tunes cartoon character whose obsessive quest to catch the Road Runner always backfires. Though he employs an array of outlandish gadgets such as jet-powered roller skates, the coyote’s schemes to capture his prey inevitably ends up injuring him instead.
This comparison is not designed to make light of voter suppression, which is an alarming attack on our democracy. It’s to make a point that doesn’t get emphasized enough as Democrats approach a crucial stretch in their efforts to pass a new voting rights bill: White people — not just people of color — have been some of the biggest victims of voter suppression tactics.
The Republican Party’s crusade to make voting more difficult isn’t just morally wrong. It’s folly. By obsessively chasing the phantom of widespread voter fraud, they are actually hurting their own base of White voters.
So far this year, at least 18 states have passed laws that make it more difficult to vote. All but one are led by GOP-controlled legislatures.
Mississippi voting rights case is argued at US appeals court
Associated Press, Emily Wagster PettusSeptember 22, 2021

 Federal appeals court judges heard arguments Wednesday in a lawsuit that seeks to overturn Mississippi’s ban on voting rights for people convicted of some felonies — a case that could affect thousands of people.

The original list of disenfranchising crimes was put into the Mississippi Constitution in 1890 because people writing the constitution believed those crimes “were disproportionately committed by African Americans,” according to written arguments by attorneys challenging the ban. The attorneys also argued that the disenfranchisement continues to disproportionately hurt Black people.

“Because the 1890 provisions were unconstitutional, they were invalid from the moment that they’re enacted,” an attorney for the plaintiffs, Donald B. Verrilli Jr., argued during the hearing Wednesday.

Attorneys representing the state said Mississippi dropped burglary from the list of disenfranchising crimes in 1950 and added murder and rape to the list in 1968. They said in written arguments that those changes “cured any discriminatory taint on the original provision.”

“The ultimate question for this court is whether the Mississippi Constitution’s felon disenfranchisement provision comports with the equal protection clause. It does,” Justin Matheny, Mississippi’s deputy solicitor general, told the judges as he argued for the state.

FBI ramps up investigations of threats against election officials
CNN, Fredreka SchoutenSeptember 20, 2021

The FBI has stepped up investigations of threats against election officials — in some cases, reaching out for the first time in recent weeks to election supervisors and others who have endured months of harassment, local officials tell CNN.

The activity stems from the creation earlier this summer of a Department of Justice task force to address the rising threats of violence against those officials. And it raises hopes among some election administrators that individuals might finally be held to account for the barrage of threats spurred by falsehoods that the 2020 election was stolen from former President Donald Trump.
“I don’t think people should be able to call with impunity to say whatever they want and to make threats,” said Richard Barron, who oversees elections in Fulton County, Georgia, and has spoken recently with two FBI agents. “I hope they make some arrests.”
Barron said he and his staff faced a torrent of threats and abuse after Democratic electoral victories last year in the traditionally red state. He said he recently shared two death threats with local FBI officials, including one made earlier this summer that warned he “would be served lead.”
North Carolina court blocks state voter ID law, citing ‘intent to target African American voters’
CNN, Tierney Sneed, Dianne Gallagher and Rachel JanfazaSeptember 17, 2021

A North Carolina state court panel on Friday blocked a voter identification law, citing discrimination against Black voters.

The law, known as SB 824, was passed in 2018 after Republicans lost their supermajority in the legislature but before the new legislature took over. It was already on hold under a preliminary injunction, after North Carolina’s Court of Appeals said voter ID provisions could negatively impact Black voters. But now the state court has permanently blocked the law, which required photo identification to vote.
The majority of the three-judge panel said Friday that the law “was motivated at least in part by an unconstitutional intent to target African American voters.”
“Other, less restrictive voter ID laws would have sufficed to achieve the legitimate nonracial purposes of implementing the constitutional amendment requiring voter ID, deterring fraud, or enhancing voter confidence,” Superior Court Judges Michael O’Foghludha and Vince Rozier wrote in their ruling Friday.
The ruling, which comes as voting rights are under attack across the country, could still be appealed.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died a year ago this week, had been well aware that the conservatives on the Supreme Court were poised to take a right turn in areas concerning reproductive health and voting rights. But the liberal icon would likely be stunned to see how far and how fast the court has actually moved.

Over the last year, the Supreme Court has not only allowed a Texas law that bars abortion after as early as six weeks into pregnancy take effect, but it announced it will hear a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade during the upcoming term in a case out of Mississippi. In addition, last July, the court scaled back voting protections in a dispute that followed the most litigious presidential election in history.
“Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg knew that laws about voting rights and reproductive choice are not abstract legal ideals,” Jessica A. Levinson of Loyola Law School told CNN. “But she might have been astonished by the breadth and depth of the court’s decisions to eviscerate protections for access to the polls and a woman’s ability to obtain an abortion.”

Senate Democrats are all finally on the same page on voting rights. The full text of the newly drafted Freedom to Vote Act dropped Tuesday, the first voting rights bill introduced this year featuring the support of the entire Democratic caucus.

That unity, unfortunately, will not inspire bipartisan comity from their Republican colleagues. Instead, the GOP will likely dig in their heels against what they know is a bill that will overturn their party’s state-level disenfranchisement efforts. A filibuster is inevitable.

What’s not written in stone is how the Democrats respond to this hurdle blocking what’s likely a once-in-a-generation chance to finally level the playing field for both parties and all of America’s voters. Because this is it — this is the ball game. There won’t be time to start from scratch with a new bill. It’s not hyperbole to say the future of democracy itself depends on Congress passing voting rights legislation before the year is out. And doing so will require, at minimum, carving out an exception from the filibuster for voting rights protections.

Senate Democrats unveil compromise bill on voting rights
NBC News, Rebecca Shabad and Frank Thorp VSeptember 14, 2021

The bill, a compromise with moderate Sen. Joe Manchin, focuses on expanding voter access, boosting election integrity and encouraging civil participation.

WASHINGTON — A group of eight Senate Democrats introduced new voting rights legislation Tuesday after reaching a compromise with moderate Sen. Joe Manchin on the bill, which focuses on expanding voter access, boosting election integrity and encouraging civil participation.

The bill, dubbed the “Freedom to Vote Act,” contains a long list of provisions that includes making Election Day a public holiday, requiring same-day registration at all polling locations by 2024, and ensuring at least 15 days of early voting for federal elections.

House Democrats have previously passed two other voting bills, the For the People Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act along party lines, but the legislation did not advance in the Senate.

The Time for Democrats to Go Nuclear Was Yesterday
New Yorker, Eric LevitzSeptember 3, 2021

In the U.S., constitutional law guarantees pregnant people the right to have an abortion without “interference from the state.” Judicial precedent also empowers Americans to preempt any state law that flagrantly violates their constitutional rights: Even before an illicit statute takes effect, individuals can seek a court order barring state officers from enforcing it.

The pro-life movement abhors these legal niceties. In recent years, red states have routinely enacted de facto repeals of Roe v. Wade, only to see their unconstitutional laws nipped in the bud. Of course, conservatives did not respond to these setbacks by revising their agenda to better fit the demands of law and procedure. Rather, they used every tool at their disposal — including unprecedented violations of Senate convention — to assemble an anti-abortion Supreme Court majority. Meanwhile, in Texas, Republicans devised a cockamamie scheme for nullifying abortion rights immediately — with just a small favor from their friends on the high court.

The Texas GOP passed a law that effectively bans abortions after the sixth week of pregnancy — before many women even realize they are pregnant — but outsourced enforcement of this ban to private citizens. Under the law, known as SB 8, “any person, other than an officer or employee of a state or local governmental entity in this state,” can sue anyone who “knowingly engages in conduct that aids or abets the performance or inducement of an abortion” after the sixth week of pregnancy. In other words, any doctor, clinic staff member, nonprofit, or even taxi driver who consciously helps someone end their pregnancy could be legally liable. The law entitles plaintiffs who win such suits to at least $10,000 from the defendant.

Journalist Ross Barkan- Cuomo Resigned Because He ‘Did Not Have Friends’ In Government

After Texas passed a new elections bill to tighten its voting laws this past week and the Supreme Court allowed the state’s law restricting abortion access to go into effect, the response from the White House was largely the same in both cases: It’s up to Congress to act.

The White House has been steadfast on some of the most pressing issues for Democrats that its hands are largely tied. Biden administration officials argue they’ve done as much as they can to unilaterally protect voting rights and that Congress must now pass legislation bolstering protections.

Biden and other officials have made similar appeals before, but both pieces of legislation face a dead end in the Senate, where they need 60 votes each to overcome the filibuster. While Biden delivered a major address in July stressing the importance of protecting the right to vote and decrying GOP-led efforts to curtail ballot access, he has stopped short of backing calls from some allies for a filibuster carve-out for voting rights.

About

Source: Wikipedia

Voting rights in the United States, specifically the enfranchisement and disenfranchisement of different groups, has been a moral and political issue throughout United States history.

Eligibility to vote in the United States is governed by the United States Constitution and by federal and state laws. Several constitutional amendments (the Fifteenth, Nineteenth, and Twenty-sixth specifically) require that voting rights of U.S. citizens cannot be abridged on account of race, color, previous condition of servitude, sex, or age (18 and older); the constitution as originally written did not establish any such rights during 1787–1870, except that if a state permitted a person to vote for the “most numerous branch” of its state legislature, it was required to permit that person to vote in elections for members of the United States House of Representatives.  In the absence of a specific federal law or constitutional provision, each state is given considerable discretion to establish qualifications for suffrage and candidacy within its own respective jurisdiction; in addition, states and lower level jurisdictions establish election systems, such as at-large or single member district elections for county councils or school boards. Beyond qualifications for suffrage, rules and regulations concerning voting (such as the poll tax) have been contested since the advent of Jim Crow laws and related provisions that indirectly disenfranchised racial minorities.

A historic turning point was the 1964 Supreme Court case Reynolds v. Sims that ruled both houses of all state legislatures had to be based on electoral districts that were approximately equal in population size, under the “one man, one vote” principle.[2][3][4] The Warren Court’s decisions on two previous landmark cases—Baker v. Carr (1962) and Wesberry v. Sanders (1964)—also played a fundamental role in establishing the nationwide “one man, one vote” electoral system. Since the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Twenty-fourth Amendment, and related laws, voting rights have been legally considered an issue related to election systems. In 1972, the Burger Court ruled that state legislatures had to redistrict every ten years based on census results; at that point, many had not redistricted for decades, often leading to a rural bias.

In other cases, particularly for county or municipal elections, at-large voting has been repeatedly challenged when found to dilute the voting power of significant minorities in violation of the Voting Rights Act. In the early 20th century, numerous cities established small commission forms of government in the belief that “better government” could result from the suppression of ward politics. Commissioners were elected by the majority of voters, excluding candidates who could not afford large campaigns or who appealed to a minority. Generally the solution to such violations has been to adopt single-member districts (SMDs), but alternative election systems, such as limited voting or cumulative voting, have also been used since the late 20th century to correct for dilution of voting power and enable minorities to elect candidates of their choice.

The District of Columbia and five major territories of the United States have one non-voting member each (in the United States House of Representatives) and no representation in the United States Senate. People in the U.S. territories cannot vote for president of the United States. People in the District of Columbia can vote for the president because of the Twenty-third Amendment.

History

In the 17th-century Thirteen Colonies, suffrage was often restricted by property qualifications or with a religious test. In 1660, Plymouth Colony restricted suffrage with a specified property qualification, and in 1671, Plymouth Colony restricted suffrage further to only freemen “orthodox in the fundamentals of religion”. Connecticut in mid-century also restricted suffrage with a specified property qualification and a religious test, and in Pennsylvania, the Province of Carolina, and the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations voting rights were restricted to Christians only. Under the Duke’s Laws in colonial New York, suffrage did not require a religious test but was restricted to landholders. In Virginia, all white freemen were allowed to vote until suffrage was restricted temporarily to householders from 1655 to 1656, to freeholders from 1670 to 1676, and following the death of Nathaniel Bacon in 1676, to freeholders permanently. Quakers were not permitted to vote in Plymouth Colony or in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, and along with Baptists, were not permitted to vote in several other colonies as well, and Catholics were disenfranchised following the Glorious Revolution (1688–1689) in Maryland, New York, Rhode Island, Carolina, and Virginia.

In the 18th-century Thirteen Colonies, suffrage was restricted to white males with the following property qualifications:

Connecticut: an estate worth 40 shillings annually or £40 of personal property

  • Delaware: fifty acres of land (twelve under cultivation) or £40 of personal property
  • Georgia: fifty acres of land
  • Maryland: fifty acres of land and £40 personal property
  • Massachusetts Bay: an estate worth 40 shillings annually or £40 of personal property
  • New Hampshire: £50 of personal property
  • New Jersey: one-hundred acres of land, or real estate or personal property £50
  • New York: £40 of personal property or ownership of land
  • North Carolina: fifty acres of land
  • Pennsylvania: fifty acres of land or £50 of personal property
  • Rhode Island and Providence Plantations: personal property worth £40 or yielding 50 shillings annually
  • South Carolina: one-hundred acres of land on which taxes were paid; or a town house or lot worth £60 on which taxes were paid; or payment of 10 shillings in taxes
  • Virginia: fifty acres of vacant land, twenty-fives acres of cultivated land, and a house twelve feet by twelve feet; or a town lot and a house twelve feet by twelve

By the time the United States Constitution was ratified (1789), a very small number of free blacks were among the voting citizens (male property owners) in some states. The United States Constitution did not originally define who was eligible to vote, allowing each state to determine who was eligible. In the early history of the U.S., some states allowed only white male adult property owners to vote, while others, either did not specify race, or specifically protected the rights of men of any race to vote. Freed slaves could vote in four states. Women were largely prohibited from voting, as were men without property. Women could vote in New Jersey until 1807 (provided they could meet the property requirement) and in some local jurisdictions in other northern states. Non-white Americans could also vote in these jurisdictions, provided they could meet the property requirement.

Beginning around 1790, individual states began to reassess property ownership as a qualification for enfranchisement in favor of gender and race, with most states disenfranchising women and non-white men. By 1856, white men were allowed to vote in all states regardless of property ownership, although requirements for paying tax remained in five states. Several states, including Pennsylvania and New Jersey, stripped the free black males of the right to vote in the same period.

Four of the fifteen post-Civil War constitutional amendments were ratified to extend voting rights to different groups of citizens. These extensions state that voting rights cannot be denied or abridged based on the following:

Following the Reconstruction Era until the culmination of the Civil Rights MovementJim Crow laws such as literacy testspoll taxes, and religious tests were some of the state and local laws used in various parts of the United States to deny immigrants (including legal ones and newly naturalized citizens), non-white citizens, Native Americans, and any other locally “undesirable” groups from exercising voting rights granted under the Constitution. Because of such state and local discriminatory practices, over time, the federal role in elections has increased, through amendments to the Constitution and enacted legislation. These reforms in the 19th and 20th centuries extended the franchise to non-whites, those who do not own property, women, and those 18–21 years old.

Since the “right to vote” is not explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution except in the above referenced amendments, and only in reference to the fact that the franchise cannot be denied or abridged based solely on the aforementioned qualifications, the “right to vote” is perhaps better understood, in layman’s terms, as only prohibiting certain forms of legal discrimination in establishing qualifications for suffrage. States may deny the “right to vote” for other reasons. For example, many states require eligible citizens to register to vote a set number of days prior to the election in order to vote. More controversial restrictions include those laws that prohibit convicted felons from voting, even those who have served their sentences. Another example, seen in Bush v. Gore, are disputes as to what rules should apply in counting or recounting ballots.

A state may choose to fill an office by means other than an election. For example, upon death or resignation of a legislator, the state may allow the affiliated political party to choose a replacement to hold office until the next scheduled election. Such an appointment is often affirmed by the governor.

The Constitution, in Article VI, clause (paragraph) 3, does state that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States”.

Source: Wikipedia

Web Links

Videos

The History of U.S. Voting Rights | Things Explained

By: GPB Education

Who can vote today looked a lot different from those who could vote when the United States was first founded. This video covers the history of voting rights, including women’s suffrage, Black disenfranchisement, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the various methods American voters can cast their ballots today.

Voting and Election Laws

Source: usa.gov

Voting rights in the United States, specifically the enfranchisement and disenfranchisement of different groups, has been a moral and political issue throughout United States history.

Eligibility to vote in the United States is governed by the United States Constitution and by federal and state laws. Several constitutional amendments (the Fifteenth, Nineteenth, and Twenty-sixth specifically) require that voting rights of U.S. citizens cannot be abridged on account of race, color, previous condition of servitude, sex, or age (18 and older); the constitution as originally written did not establish any such rights during 1787–1870, except that if a state permitted a person to vote for the “most numerous branch” of its state legislature, it was required to permit that person to vote in elections for members of the United States House of Representatives.  In the absence of a specific federal law or constitutional provision, each state is given considerable discretion to establish qualifications for suffrage and candidacy within its own respective jurisdiction; in addition, states and lower level jurisdictions establish election systems, such as at-large or single member district elections for county councils or school boards. Beyond qualifications for suffrage, rules and regulations concerning voting (such as the poll tax) have been contested since the advent of Jim Crow laws and related provisions that indirectly disenfranchised racial minorities.

A historic turning point was the 1964 Supreme Court case Reynolds v. Sims that ruled both houses of all state legislatures had to be based on electoral districts that were approximately equal in population size, under the “one man, one vote” principle.[2][3][4] The Warren Court’s decisions on two previous landmark cases—Baker v. Carr (1962) and Wesberry v. Sanders (1964)—also played a fundamental role in establishing the nationwide “one man, one vote” electoral system. Since the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Twenty-fourth Amendment, and related laws, voting rights have been legally considered an issue related to election systems. In 1972, the Burger Court ruled that state legislatures had to redistrict every ten years based on census results; at that point, many had not redistricted for decades, often leading to a rural bias.

In other cases, particularly for county or municipal elections, at-large voting has been repeatedly challenged when found to dilute the voting power of significant minorities in violation of the Voting Rights Act. In the early 20th century, numerous cities established small commission forms of government in the belief that “better government” could result from the suppression of ward politics. Commissioners were elected by the majority of voters, excluding candidates who could not afford large campaigns or who appealed to a minority. Generally the solution to such violations has been to adopt single-member districts (SMDs), but alternative election systems, such as limited voting or cumulative voting, have also been used since the late 20th century to correct for dilution of voting power and enable minorities to elect candidates of their choice.

The District of Columbia and five major territories of the United States have one non-voting member each (in the United States House of Representatives) and no representation in the United States Senate. People in the U.S. territories cannot vote for president of the United States. People in the District of Columbia can vote for the president because of the Twenty-third Amendment.

Federal election laws can help protect your voting rights and the election process. Learn about limits on campaign contributions, accessibility laws for voters with disabilities or language barriers, and more.

 

Voter ID Requirements

Source: usa.gov

Two-thirds of states expect you to provide identification to let you vote at the polls.

Find Out if You Need to Bring an ID to Vote

Your state’s laws determine whether you will need to show an ID and if so, what kind.

First Time Voters

First time voters who didn’t register in person or show ID before must show identification. This is according to federal law.

Photo ID versus Non-Photo ID

About half of the states with voter ID laws accept only photo IDs. These include

  • driver’s licenses
  • state-issued ID cards
  • military ID cards
  • passports

Many of these states now offer a free voter photo ID card if you don’t have another form of valid photo ID.

Other states accept some types of non-photo ID. These may include

  • birth certificates
  • Social Security cards
  • bank statements
  • utility bills

Each state is specific about the documents it will accept as proof of identification. Be sure you know your state’s voter ID requirements before Election Day.

Procedures for Voting Without ID

Even if you don’t have a form of ID that your state asks for, you may be able to vote. Some states require you take extra measures after you vote to make sure that your vote counts.

Some states may ask you to sign a form affirming your identity. Other states will let you cast a provisional ballot. States use provisional ballots when there is a question about a voter’s eligibility. States keep provisional ballots separate until they decide whether they should count. To do so, they will investigate a voter’s eligibility. They may also compel you to show an acceptable form of ID within a few days. If you don’t, your provisional ballot won’t count.

Name or Address Mismatch

Even with the right ID, you may have to cast a provisional ballot. This can happen if the name or address on your ID doesn’t match the name or address on your voter registration. For instance:

  • You get married, change your last name, and update your voter registration. But your driver’s license, which you present as ID, still has your unmarried name on it.
  • You move and for your voter ID, you present a current utility bill. Unfortunately, you’ve forgotten to update your address on your voter registration beforehand.

Some states require that you notify your local registration office of any name change.

Avoid problems. Always update your voter registration when you move or change your name.

Voting Rights Laws and Constitutional Amendments

U.S. election laws date back to Article 1 of the Constitution. This gave states the responsibility of overseeing federal elections. Many Constitutional amendments and federal laws to protect voting rights have been passed since then.

Name or Address Mismatch

  • The 15th Amendment gave African American men the right to vote in 1870. But many weren’t able to exercise this right. Some states used literacy tests and other barriers to make it harder to vote.
  • The 19th Amendment, ratified in 1920, gave American women the right to vote.
  • The 24th Amendment, ratified in 1964, eliminated poll taxes. The tax had been used in some states to keep African Americans from voting in federal elections.
  • The 26th Amendment, ratified in 1971, lowered the voting age for all elections to 18.

Federal Voting Rights Laws

Federal laws passed over the years help protect Americans’ right to vote and make it easier for citizens to exercise that right:

State Voter ID Laws

Two-thirds of states require you to show some form of identification before you’re allowed to vote. Learn more about states’ voter ID requirements.

Voter Fraud, Voter Suppression, and Other Election Crimes

What are federal election crimes?

Federal election crimes fall into three broad categories:

Many states have strengthened their voter ID requirements to try to stop voter fraud.

Is it illegal for someone to ask me who I voted for? Is it illegal for me to tell?

You have the right to cast your vote in private. It’s up to you whether you want to share your choices with others.

There’s no law preventing someone from asking you who you voted for.

How do I report voter fraud or voter suppression?

If you suspect voter fraud, report it to your state or territorial election office. You can also report it to:

If you witness or suspect voter intimidation or suppression, there are three ways you can report it:

Voter Accessibility Laws

Voter accessibility laws ensure that people with disabilities or language barriers are able to vote.

If you know you’ll need accommodations on Election Day, contact your state or local election office to find out what to expect at your polling place.

Laws and Accommodations That Help Voters With Disabilities

Several federal laws protect the voting rights of Americans with disabilities. These include the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Help America Vote Act (HAVA).

Voters with disabilities have the right to:

  • Vote in private, without help
  • Have an accessible polling place with voting machines for voters with disabilities

Polling places must have:

  • Wheelchair-accessible voting booths
  • Entrances and doorways at least 32 inches wide
  • Handrails on all stairs
  • Voting equipment for people who are blind or visually impaired

If you have a disability, you may:

  • Seek help from poll workers trained to use an accessible voting machine, or
  • Bring someone to help you vote

You can also ask your election office what other options you have.

  • Some states offer “curbside voting,” when a poll worker brings everything you need to vote to your car.
  • Local organizations may provide transportation to the polls.
  • Many states let people with disabilities vote by mail.

Accommodations That Help Voters Who Need Language Assistance

The Election Assistance Commission (EAC) helps people overcome language barriers to voting.

Federal law also lets you bring someone to help you if you can’t read or write.

Federal Campaign Finance Laws

Federal law puts limits on campaign contributions to candidates for president and Congress. It requires the candidates to report all the money their campaigns receive and spend.

How Much Can You Contribute to a Candidate for Federal Office?

Most individuals can donate up to $2,900 per election, per candidate during the 2021-2022 elections. That means you can donate up to $2,900 each to:

  • One or more candidates in a federal primary election
  • One or more candidates in a federal general election

Learn which organizations and individuals are not allowed to donate to federal candidates.

The Federal Election Campaign Act requires candidates to report:

  • Where the money they raise comes from, and the amounts
  • Where the money they spend goes, and the amounts

The law applies to candidates for president as well as for the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives.

The Federal Election Commission’s Role in Campaign Finance Law

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) oversees enforcement of the Federal Election Campaign Act. The FEC:

  • Sets campaign contribution limits for individuals and groups
  • Oversees public funding used in presidential elections

Gerrymandering in the US

Source: Wikipedia

Typical gerrymandering cases in the United States take the form of partisan gerrymandering, which is aimed at favor in one political party or weaken another; bipartisan gerrymandering, which is aimed at protecting incumbents by multiple political parties; and racial gerrymandering, which is aimed at weakening the power of minority voters.

Gerrymandering can also recreate districts with the aim of maximizing the number of racial minorities to assist particular nominees, who are minorities themselves. In some other cases that have the same goal of diluting the minority vote, the districts are reconstructed in a way that packs minority voters into a smaller or limited number of districts.

What Is Extreme Gerrymandering?

In the type of extreme partisan gerrymandering being challenged in North Carolina and Maryland, a political party uses its control of the process to artfully craft maps that lock in an outsized share of seats for an entire decade. The lasting and harmful effects of extreme partisan gerrymandering are especially apparent in traditionally purple states, like North Carolina. At a statewide level, North Carolina is a robust democracy with highly contested elections for everything from president to state auditor. But over the last decade, Republicans secured supermajorities in the state legislature, as well as a safe, durable 10-3 advantage in the congressional delegation.

Extreme partisan gerrymanders not only bake in results, but also result in maps that are deeply unrepresentative. John Adams famously wrote in 1788 that the House of Representatives – and by extension state legislatures – should be a “exact portrait” and “miniature” of the people as a whole. That doesn’t happen when district boundaries are manipulated in this way.

Brennan Center for Justice

Solutions to Gerrymandering

Take redistricting out of the hands of the political parties and put voters in control. Create independent, fully transparent redistricting commissions that follow strict guidelines to ensure accurate representation for all voters.

  • We need to take the power to draw districts away from self-interested legislators and put in the hands of capable commissioners – people who are openly vetted, act with complete transparency, come from across the political spectrum, and abide by strict criteria to ensure fair and accurate representation for all voters.
  • Independent redistricting commissions work. Six states already use them, including California, which started using an independent commission in 2011 after voters passed a law taking control away from the legislature. Our plan learns from California’s success and makes key improvements to ensure that districts are fair and don’t artificially advantage any party or group.
  • States are the ones in charge of drawing district lines, not the federal government. That means we can fix this problem without passing a federal law. We can go around Congress and pass ballot initiatives ourselves – no politicians required!

RepresentUs

Voting Rights Bills

The right to vote is the foundation of any democracy.
Chief Justice Earl Warren, for example, wrote in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 555 (1964): “The right to vote freely for the candidate of one’s choice is of the essence of a democratic society, and any restrictions on that right strike at the heart of representative government. The right of suffrage is a fundamental matter in a free and democratic society especially since the right to exercise the franchise in a free and unimpaired manner is preservative of other basic civil and political rights, any alleged infringement of the right of citizens to vote must be carefully and meticulously scrutinized.”

Justice Hugo Black shared the same sentiment by stating in Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 17 (1964): “No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live. Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined.”

Three Voting Rights Acts have come before the 117th Congress (2021-2022). These are the For the People Act of 2021, the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2021, and the Freedom to Vote Act.

For the People Act of 2021

Source: Wikipedia

The For the People Act, introduced as H.R. 1, is a bill in the United States Congress to expand voting rights, change campaign finance laws to reduce the influence of money in politics, ban partisan gerrymandering, and create new ethics rules for federal officeholders.

The act was originally introduced by John Sarbanes in 2019, on behalf of the newly elected Democratic majority in the United States House of Representatives as the first official legislation of the 116th United States Congress. The House passed the bill on March 8, by a party-line vote of 234–193. The bill was viewed as a “signature piece of legislation” from the Democratic House majority. After the House passed the bill, it was blocked from receiving a vote by the then Republican-controlled Senate, under Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

In 2021, in the 117th Congress, congressional Democrats reintroduced the act as H.R. 1 and S. 1. On March 3, 2021, the bill passed the House of Representatives on a near party-line vote of 220–210, advancing to the Senate, which is split 50–50 between Democrats and Republicans (Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris has the tie-breaking vote), and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer vowed to bring it to the floor for a vote. On June 22, 2021, a vote on the bill was held in the Senate. It received unified support from the Democratic caucus, but Senate Republicans blocked the bill with a filibuster, as it lacked the 60 votes needed to invoke cloture after a party-line vote. Some Senate Democrats expressed support for abolishing the filibuster for the bill, but others in their caucus remained opposed or expressed reservations about doing so, including President Biden.

See also: Congress.gov, Ballotpedia

John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2021

Source: Wikipedia

The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2021 (H.R. 4) is proposed legislation that would restore and strengthen parts of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, certain portions of which were struck down by two United States Supreme Court decisions of Shelby County v. Holder and Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee. Particularly, it would restore the Voting Rights Act’s requirement that certain states pre-clear certain changes to their voting laws with the federal government. It was re-introduced in the 117th Congress, and is named after late Georgia Representative and voting rights activist John Lewis.

On August 24, 2021, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the bill by a margin of 219–212, though it still needs approval by the U.S. Senate before it can be sent to President Joe Biden to be signed into law.

See also: Congress.gov,

Freedom to Vote Act

Source: Congress.gov

Introduced in Senate (09/14/2021)

Freedom to Vote Act

This bill addresses voter registration and voting access, election integrity and security, redistricting, and campaign finance.

Specifically, the bill expands voter registration (e.g., automatic and same-day registration) and voting access (e.g., vote-by-mail and early voting). It also limits removing voters from voter rolls.

Next, the bill establishes Election Day as a federal holiday.

The bill declares that the right of a U.S. citizen to vote in any election for federal office shall not be denied or abridged because that individual has been convicted of a criminal offense unless, at the time of the election, such individual is serving a felony sentence.

The bill establishes certain federal criminal offenses related to voting. In particular, the bill establishes a new criminal offense for conduct (or attempted conduct) to corruptly hinder, interfere with, or prevent another person from registering to vote or helping someone register to vote.

Additionally, the bill sets forth provisions related to election security, including by requiring states to conduct post-election audits for federal elections. The bill outlines criteria for congressional redistricting and generally prohibits mid-decade redistricting.

The bill outlines criteria for congressional redistricting and generally prohibits mid-decade redistricting.

The bill addresses campaign finance, including by expanding the prohibition on campaign spending by foreign nationals, requiring additional disclosure of campaign-related fundraising and spending, requiring additional disclaimers regarding certain political advertising, and establishing an alternative campaign funding system for certain federal offices.

Electoral Reform Act

Ranked Choice Voting

See Also

Voting Rights Act of 1965

Source: Wikipedia

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is a landmark piece of federal legislation in the United States that prohibits racial discrimination in voting. It was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson during the height of the civil rights movement on August 6, 1965, and Congress later amended the Act five times to expand its protections. Designed to enforce the voting rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the Act sought to secure the right to vote for racial minorities throughout the country, especially in the South. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the Act is considered to be the most effective piece of federal civil rights legislation ever enacted in the country. It is also “one of the most far-reaching pieces of civil rights legislation in U.S. history.”

The act contains numerous provisions that regulate elections. The act’s “general provisions” provide nationwide protections for voting rights. Section 2 is a general provision that prohibits every state and local government from imposing any voting law that results in discrimination against racial or language minorities. Other general provisions specifically outlaw literacy tests and similar devices that were historically used to disenfranchise racial minorities. The act also contains “special provisions” that apply to only certain jurisdictions. A core special provision is the Section 5 preclearance requirement, which prohibits certain jurisdictions from implementing any change affecting voting without receiving preapproval from the U.S. attorney general or the U.S. District Court for D.C. that the change does not discriminate against protected minorities. Another special provision requires jurisdictions containing significant language minority populations to provide bilingual ballots and other election materials.

Section 5 and most other special provisions apply to jurisdictions encompassed by the “coverage formula” prescribed in Section 4(b). The coverage formula was originally designed to encompass jurisdictions that engaged in egregious voting discrimination in 1965, and Congress updated the formula in 1970 and 1975. In Shelby County v. Holder (2013), the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the coverage formula as unconstitutional, reasoning that it was no longer responsive to current conditions. The court did not strike down Section 5, but without a coverage formula, Section 5 is unenforceable. The jurisdictions which had previously been covered by the coverage formula massively increased the rate of voter registration purges after the Shelby decision.

Research shows that the Act successfully and massively increased voter turnout and voter registrations, in particular among blacks. The Act has also been linked to concrete outcomes, such as greater public goods provision (such as public education) for areas with higher black population shares, and more members of Congress who vote for civil rights-related legislation.[

Voter suppression in the United States

Source: Wikipedia

Voter suppression in the United States concerns various legal and illegal efforts to prevent eligible voters from exercising their right to vote. Where found, such voter suppression efforts vary by state, local government, precinct, and election. Separately, there have also been various efforts to enfranchise and disenfranchise various voters in the country, which concern whether or not people are eligible to vote in the first place.

Following the loss of Donald Trump in the 2020 presidential elections, Republicans have passed or attempted to pass many laws restricting voter access, and have received condemnation and accusations of engaging in voter suppression. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, as of March 24, 2021, more than 361 bills that would restrict voting access have been introduced in 47 states.

Discuss

OnAir membership is required. The lead Moderator for the discussions is James Lillard. We encourage civil, honest, and safe discourse. For more information on commenting and giving feedback, see our Comment Guidelines.

This is an open discussion on the contents of this post.

Home Forums Open Discussion

Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #10026
    Scott Joy
    Participant
Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Home Forums Future of American Democracy

Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)
Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Members of GOP start to speak out against Trump’s decision to pardon insurrectionists in the future.

Home Forums January 6th Committee

Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)
Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Home Forums Gen-Z and Democracy

Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)
Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Skip to toolbar