Skip to content

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Total and testy partisan standoff at Senate's first hearing on HR 1

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told Democrats that HR 1 includes "plenty you ought to be ashamed about."

Alex Wong/Getty Images

Partisan passions erupted on Wednesday at the Senate's first-ever hearing on HR 1, which has rapidly transformed from the democracy reform movement's longshot wish list into one of the topflight fights in Congress.

The session magnified the virtually total disagreement between the bill's Democratic proponents and Republican opponents. Not a glimmer of potential compromise surfaced, even about the need to do anything to fix the system.

"We have an existential threat to democracy on our hands," Majority Leader Chuck Schumer declared. Minutes later, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell derided the measure as "a solution in search of a problem" because "states are not engaging in efforts to suppress voters, whatsoever."

After more than four hours of testimony and tart exchanges among senators, it was clearer than ever that enacting the package will require limiting or eliminating the filibuster and its effective 60-vote requirement for passage. That is not close to happening, but more and more Democrats say this bill would by the most appropriate venue for changing the Senate rules sometime this year — on the grounds that protecting minorities' civil rights across the nation is a cause much more important than protecting the rights of a minority on Capitol Hill to shape policy.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

The bill has generated a surge of attention mainly because it would create an expansive array of nationwide, liberalized ballot access rules, from required no-excuse absentee balloting to limits on voter ID requirements. Doing so would repel the potential wave of state efforts to make voting harder in the aftermath of a 2020 election that saw record turnout despite the pandemic.

But the measure, which the Democratic House passed over united GOP opposition three weeks ago, would also tamp down big money's secretive sway over campaigns, prevent partisan congressional gerrymandering and tighten government ethics rules — aspirations of good-government groups that in many cases predated their newly heightened concerns about election laws.

The divide over the election language is so stark that the two parties refer to it by different shorthand. Democrats almost always describe the provisions as assuring voting rights. Republicans almost always describe the same provisions as weakening election security.

The Rules and Administration Committee, which has jurisdiction over all legislation connected to elections and internal Senate operations and so counts both party leaders as members, conducted the hearing. Schumer and McConnell each asserted that a partisan power grab was motivating the HR 1 position of the party across the dais.

"Shame, shame, shame on them," Schumer said, his comments focused on the GOP's opposition to federalization of election rules.

"There's plenty you ought to be ashamed about," McConnell replied, emphasizing proposals to boost the regulation of campaign finance.

They departed after their dueling speeches, yielding to an unusual level of sniping between the two senators with the senior seats on the panel. Democratic Chairwoman Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and top Republican Roy Blunt of Missouri have a rare reputation for collaboration in the gridlocked Senate, but the flashpoint created by the 800-page bill is clearly testing their relationship.

At one point, they sparred for about five minutes about the allocation of a few seconds of time for witnesses to finish their answers.

One of the witnesses called by the Republicans was GOP Secretary of State Mac Warner of West Virginia, whose vocal opposition to the bill — it would "overrule the balance of powers" and "stomp on states rights," he said — is seen as crucial to swaying his state's senior senator, Joe Manchin. He is the only Democrat who has not sponsored S 1, the nearly identical companion to HR 1, and is also the most prominent opponent to weakening the filibuster.

The possibility of a middle ground on the legislation seems remote. The parties fundamentally disagree about whether the states should continue to have dominant control over how elections are run (the GOP view) or whether the need to shore up voting rights can be met only by the federalized standards the Democrats have proposed.

Beyond that, there are several emerging strategic disagreements within the world of democracy reform advocates.

Some say the best option may be to shrink the bill to only the nine or so second-tier provisions that have drawn GOP support, such as mandating the disclosure of who pays for political advertising online.

Others acknowledge the standoff on the election provisions and argue those should be handled separately from the rest of the bill — calling for independent commissions to draw House seats, making super PACs disclose big donors, starting a public financing system for House candidates who rely on small-dollar gifts, enhancing the Federal Election Commission's regulatory strength, and setting new codes of conduct for the Supreme Court and Congress.

Still others, including the prominent election law professors Edward Foley of Ohio State and Rick Hasen of the University California at Irvine, are advocating for the opposite — a bill narrowed to provisions that would prevent a retrenchment of voting rights and shore up confidence in the fairness and security of elections in the face of former president Donald Trump's baseless claims about fraud.

But for now the majority of advocacy groups agree with two of the most venerable voices in the democracy reform world, Lawrence Lessig of Harvard and Fred Wertheimer of Democracy 21. They argue that the heightened attention to voter suppression and the new Democratic control of Washington have created a rare opening for pushing the entire package, that proponents should "stop arguing with themselves" and that aspiring to nothing short of total victory is both bad politics and bad policy.

The proponents point to an array of polling showing the public is behind most of HR 1's ideas. But on Tuesday a conservative group, The Honest Elections Project, released results of a survey it commissioned showings something of the opposite: broad support for such things as having to show a photo ID to vote, which the bill would disallow, and solid opposition to third parties collecting and delivering sealed ballot envelopes, which the bill would permit.

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
Podcast: A right-wing perspective on Jan. 6th and the 2020 election

Podcast: A right-wing perspective on Jan. 6th and the 2020 election

Peter Wood is an anthropologist and president of the National Association of Scholars. He believes—like many Americans on the right—that the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump and the January 6th riots were incited by the left in collusion with the FBI. He’s also the author of a new book called Wrath: America Enraged, which wrestles with our politics of anger and counsels conservatives on how to respond to perceived aggression.

Where does America go from here? In this episode, Peter joins Ciaran O’Connor for a frank conversation about the role of anger in our politics as well as the nature of truth, trust, and conspiracy theories.

Keep ReadingShow less