Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Senate blocks election security bills pushed with Trump in mind

Sen. Marsha Blackburn

"You would think after spending weeks in this chamber litigating the finer points of their disagreements with the president's foreign policy, our friends in the minority would be wary of picking another partisan fight but here we go again," Sen. Marsha Blackburn said on the Senate floor.

C-SPAN2

Senate Republicans are continuing their total blockade of proposals for combatting foreign interference in American campaigns, signaling they won't be moved by a new Democratic effort to use President Trump's impeachment to shame them into action.

Democrats on Tuesday afternoon called up three of their top-priority election security bills they view as the least controversial, asking the Senate to pass them immediately on voice votes. Each time they were blocked by a single Republican, who under the rules could prevent further action.

The choreographed standoff underscores how the politically divided Congress is on course to do nothing more before Election Day to address perhaps the single the most pressing challenge to democracy: foreign adversaries armed with disinformation campaigns and hacking skills wresting control of a presidential contest away from the voters.


The Senate minority has moved three times in this Congress to call up collections of election security measures and force the GOP leadership to stand before the TV cameras and put a stop to consideration of each bill, many of which have already been endorsed in some form by the Democratic-majority House.

But those previous instances were all last fall, before impeachment. So this time the strategy was somewhat different: to publicly embarrass the GOP majority by declaring the bills had been made only more necessary by Trumps' acquittal last week — on charges he should be removed from office for abusing his power by withholding military aid and otherwise pressuring Ukraine to investigate one of his main Democratic re-election rivals, former Vice President Joe Biden.

"Because Senate Republicans chose to look the other way, the need for election security legislation is greater now than ever before," Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said. "We cannot trust this president to stand up for the integrity of our elections so Congress must stand up in his stead."

Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's designated agent for repelling efforts like this, revisited the GOP's policy rationale for opposing all election security policy bills: They start the federal government down a slippery slope toward federalizing elections that are conducted almost entirely by local and state governments.

The only exception McConnell has made was his agreement last year to support another wave of federal grants to the states for spending on election security ahead of the 2020 vote.

On Tuesday, Blackburn asserted the Democrats were renewing their campaign for additional legislation only to boost their campaign fundraising, and she said if her partisan opponents as truly interested in assuring the sanctity of elections they would be focused instead on opening a congressional inquiry into last week's chaotic Iowa caucuses.

"You would think after spending weeks in this chamber litigating the finer points of their disagreements with the president's foreign policy, our friends in the minority would be wary of picking another partisan fight but here we go again," Blackburn said in response to Schumer's discussion of the Senate trial.

These are the three Democratic measures that got blocked:

  • Legislation by Mark Warner of Virginia — the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, which has conducted an exhaustive and bipartisan investigation of Russia's 2016 interference — that would require all future presidential campaigns to call the FBI if they are approached by a foreign power offering assistance.
  • A companion measure by Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut that would compel presidential or congressional candidates to tell the FBI and the Federal Election Commission about any efforts by a foreigner to make any sort of campaign contribution.
  • A bill by Ron Wyden of Oregon, dubbed the Safe Act, authorizing more federal money for modernizing voting systems and improving election security, while banning voting machines from being connected to the internet or being manufactured in foreign countries.

Read More

United States Capitol building and blurred American flag against blue sky

America’s aging Congress has no maximum age limit. Could a constitutional amendment create age limits for lawmakers and better represent younger voters?

TGI /Tetra Images

Congress Has an Age Floor and No Ceiling. That's Backwards for Gen Z.

Senator Dianne Feinstein's visible decline in her final years in office. Senator Lindsey Graham's sudden death. Senator Mitch McConnell's own recent hospitalization, and his halting explanation of it afterward. Three senators, three separate incidents, no obvious connection between them, except that the saga of these three senators is really one story about the problem of not knowing when to step down. That framing asks the right question of individual leaders. But it assumes the problem is a matter of personal judgment, each senator, in his or her own time, finding the wisdom to recognize the moment has passed. I think that gets the American version of this problem backwards. Congress's age problem is not a string of individual judgment calls. It is a structural feature of the Constitution itself, and it is quietly reshaping who gets represented in American government.

The Constitution sets a floor for federal office and no ceiling. A representative must be at least twenty-five. A senator must be at least thirty. A president must be at least thirty-five. Nothing in the document says how old is too old. Combine that asymmetry with the enormous advantages of incumbency, better name recognition, fundraising networks, committee seniority, and the result is predictable: a Congress that can start young but can never age out. It can only age up. The 119th Congress is now the third oldest in American history, with an average member age of nearly fifty-nine and a Senate averaging in the mid-sixties. This is not a temporary blip. It is the natural output of a system with a gate on one end and no gate on the other.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Enduring Illusion of Article the first
a large white building with a flag on top of it

The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

This is the third and final installment of our series on “Article the first.” Previous parts examined the history of the single inverted word that turned an intended floor into a ceiling and its impact on the amendment’s failed ratification. This concluding part outlines the path forward for enlarging the House today.

Part 3 — The Path Forward

Keep ReadingShow less
The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

Painting from 1856 by Junius Brutus Stearns of George Washington at the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

This is the second of a three-part series on the First Amendment proposed by Congress in 1789—often called “Article the first”—which was never ratified. Part 1 explained how a single inverted word in the text created a mathematical absurdity that has been misread for 237 years. This second part explores the untold history of how that defect affected the original ratification process in state legislatures.

Part 2 — The Untold History

Keep ReadingShow less
Bill of Rights
Happy 230th birthday, Bill of Rights
leezsnow/Getty Images

The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

This is the first of three parts exploring “Article the First,” the forgotten proposal in the original Bill of Rights. For 237 years, a single, inverted word has created a “semantic illusion,” leading historians and policymakers to misread the founders' intended guarantee of a growing House as a ceiling. This series uncovers the error, tracks its consequences, and explores why reclaiming the founders’ original vision is the path to meaningful representation reform.

Part 1 — The Inverted Word

Keep ReadingShow less