Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Biden's call for filibuster change gives HR 1 advocates modest reason for hope

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and the For the People Act

Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, flanked by fellow Democrats Amy Klobuchar and Jeff Merkley, introduced their version of the bill Wednesday.

Win McNamee/Getty Images

President Biden has thrown a lifeline toward HR 1, his party's comprehensive response to voter suppression and the American republic's other most serious ailments. But, while the legislation was launched in the Senate on Wednesday, Biden's new support for weakening the filibuster is not nearly enough to assure he'll get to sign the bill.

Opponents of legislation should be forced to verbalize their opposition and stage their dilatory protests in person on the Senate floor, Biden said Tuesday. That would push the filibuster closer to its original form and potentially weaken the Republican minority's resolve for blocking almost everything on the Democratic agenda.

But the president did not get behind ending the de facto requirement that 60 senators support legislation, or the idea of a carve-out so voting rights bills could pass with a simple majority. Without such changes, the GOP would seemingly still be able to devote its collective stamina to talking the fix-the-system package to death.


And if the filibuster gets any sort of substantive downgrade, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on Tuesday vowed a "completely scorched-earth" response in which the GOP would tie the chamber in such procedural knots that not even routine business gets done.

The sharpened rhetoric suggested that a showdown over the Senate rules is getting close, with civil rights and good-government advocacy groups applying increasing pressure for the climactic moment to come this spring during a debate on the sweeping democracy reform package.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Many of these organizations are most keenly invested in the provisions to curb money in politics, tighten government ethics rules and curtail partisan gerrymandering. But they have concluded that emphasizing the urgency of the proposed array of nationwide voting standards — at a time when GOP legislatures in states across the country are moving to make access to the ballot box tougher — offers their best chance to overcome the bill's long odds.

Democrats on Wednesday formally introduced the Senate's version of what they've dubbed the For the People Act, and labeled S 1, which is almost identical to HR 1 as passed by the House this month. The first hearing is scheduled for next Wednesday, with committee approval on course for April.

Both bills would nationalize no-excuse, postage-paid absentee voting and at least 15 days of in-person voting before Election Day. They would assure eligible voters everywhere could both register and vote on Election Day, or else be automatically registered when they do business with many state agencies. And they would make it more difficult for states to purge from the rolls people who vote only infrequently.

Democrats say these things would perpetuate if not improve the robust turnout of 2020, especially in communities of color — which would be good for democracy and for their electoral prospects, too. Republicans say the states should retain their discretion over voting rules, with some pointing without evidence to the potential for more fraud in a federalized system. Some in the GOP also concede worry that easier voting would mean more Republcian defeats.

Many advocates for the bill argue that, since the filibuster has historically been used most vigorously to thwart civil rights and voting rights legislation, an appropriate repentance would be doing away with the supermajority hurdle for such bills — even if the rules are left unchanged for measures addressing other issues, from immigration to climate change to gun control.

If Democrats break the filibuster to pass HR 1, said the Rev. Stephany Rose Spaulding of the civil rights coalition Just Democracy, the Senate "will forever be remembered as a body that protected Black and Brown communities and erased a vestige of our white supremacist history. Without eliminating this Jim Crow relic, America will slide back into the era of literacy tests and poll taxes."

But the package goes way beyond voting rights. It would also change campaign finance rules by requiring super PACs and issue advocacy groups to disclose donors who give more than $10,000, and by creating federal matching funds for candidates willing to rely on small-dollar donors. It would make states assign the drawing of congressional districts to politically independent panels, and stiffen codes of conduct for all three branches of government.

Polling in swing states by two progresisve groups, which launched a $30 million advocacy campaign this week, found that all the major provisions are broadly popular but the money-in-politics and government ethics proposals draw the most enthusiasm from Republicans.

Biden, who issued an executive order this month to promote voting rights as much as possible without the legislation, did not mention democracy reform much as as a candidate last year but has called for passage of HR 1.

"It's getting to the point where, you know, democracy is having a hard time functioning," Biden said in an interview with ABC News when asked why he had changed his mind to support only a "talking filibuster," which he opposed during his own 36-year career in the Senate.

For now, a senator need only announce opposition to a bill to make the other side start searching for 60 votes, a near impossibility in the ideologically polarized 50-50 Senate. Some budget measures and all nominations are exempt, which is how Biden has been able to get his Cabinet confirmed and win passage of his $1.9 trillion pandemic economic rescue bill.

Insisting on the talking filibuster would require a rules change, which can be accomplished by simple majority. All Republicans could be counted on to vote "no," meaning the Democrats and Vice President Kamala Harris would all have to vote "yes." Two Democrats, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, have been reluctant to change the rules but have signaled an openness to the sort of change Biden described.

McConnell warned of stark consequence both procedural and ideological.

"This chaos would not open up an express lane to liberal change. It would not open up an express lane for the Biden presidency to speed into the history books. The Senate would be more like a hundred-car pile-up. Nothing moving," he said.

And whenever Republicans return to power, he vowed, they could pass "all kinds of conservative policies with zero input from the other side" without a filibuster, such as restricting abortion rights and eviscerating organized labor.

Read More

Podcast: How do police feel about gun control?

Podcast: How do police feel about gun control?

Jesus "Eddie" Campa, former Chief Deputy of the El Paso County Sheriff's Department and former Chief of Police for Marshall Texas, discusses the recent school shooting in Uvalde and how loose restrictions on gun ownership complicate the lives of law enforcement on this episode of YDHTY.

Listen now

Podcast: Why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies

Podcast: Why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies

There's something natural and organic about perceiving that the people in power are out to advance their own interests. It's in part because it’s often true. Governments actually do keep secrets from the public. Politicians engage in scandals. There often is corruption at high levels. So, we don't want citizens in a democracy to be too trusting of their politicians. It's healthy to be skeptical of the state and its real abuses and tendencies towards secrecy. The danger is when this distrust gets redirected, not toward the state, but targets innocent people who are not actually responsible for people's problems.

On this episode of "Democracy Paradox" Scott Radnitz explains why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies.

Your Take:  The Price of Freedom

Your Take: The Price of Freedom

Our question about the price of freedom received a light response. We asked:

What price have you, your friends or your family paid for the freedom we enjoy? And what price would you willingly pay?

It was a question born out of the horror of images from Ukraine. We hope that the news about the Jan. 6 commission and Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Supreme Court nomination was so riveting that this question was overlooked. We considered another possibility that the images were so traumatic, that our readers didn’t want to consider the question for themselves. We saw the price Ukrainians paid.

One response came from a veteran who noted that being willing to pay the ultimate price for one’s country and surviving was a gift that was repaid over and over throughout his life. “I know exactly what it is like to accept that you are a dead man,” he said. What most closely mirrored my own experience was a respondent who noted her lack of payment in blood, sweat or tears, yet chose to volunteer in helping others exercise their freedom.

Personally, my price includes service to our nation, too. The price I paid was the loss of my former life, which included a husband, a home and a seemingly secure job to enter the political fray with a message of partisan healing and hope for the future. This work isn’t risking my life, but it’s the price I’ve paid.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Given the earnest question we asked, and the meager responses, I am also left wondering if we think at all about the price of freedom? Or have we all become so entitled to our freedom that we fail to defend freedom for others? Or was the question poorly timed?

I read another respondent’s words as an indicator of his pacifism. And another veteran who simply stated his years of service. And that was it. Four responses to a question that lives in my heart every day. We look forward to hearing Your Take on other topics. Feel free to share questions to which you’d like to respond.

Keep ReadingShow less
No, autocracies don't make economies great

libre de droit/Getty Images

No, autocracies don't make economies great

Tom G. Palmer has been involved in the advance of democratic free-market policies and reforms around the globe for more than three decades. He is executive vice president for international programs at Atlas Network and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

One argument frequently advanced for abandoning the messy business of democratic deliberation is that all those checks and balances, hearings and debates, judicial review and individual rights get in the way of development. What’s needed is action, not more empty debate or selfish individualism!

In the words of European autocrat Viktor Orbán, “No policy-specific debates are needed now, the alternatives in front of us are obvious…[W]e need to understand that for rebuilding the economy it is not theories that are needed but rather thirty robust lads who start working to implement what we all know needs to be done.” See! Just thirty robust lads and one far-sighted overseer and you’re on the way to a great economy!

Keep ReadingShow less