Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Election reform bill meets its destiny

Sen. Joe Manchin, voting righs

Sen. Joe Manchin is one of two Democrats standing in the way of filibuster changes.

Drew Angerer/Getty Images

The very first article written by The Fulcrum referred to Democrats’ sweeping election reform measure as a “political messaging” bill that would never get passed as long as Republicans controlled the Senate. That chapter of democracy reform seems destined to end Wednesday night, as predicted three years ago.

What started as the For the People Act, and given a place of legislative prominence as “HR 1,” morphed into the Freedom to Vote Act before being merged with yet another bill. Tonight, Senate Democrats will attempt, and fail, to push the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act through an evenly divided chamber.

While Democrats could achieve a simple majority for the bill (thanks to Vice President Harris’ role as Senate tiebreaker), they have no path to overcoming a Republican filibuster. And two of their own members have repeatedly said they will not go along with proposals to change or eliminate the minority party’s ability to block legislation.


On Dec. 18, 2018, The Fulcrum’s founding editor-in-chief, David Hawkings, wrote:

“The legislation's sweeping objectives – limit the influence of money on politics, ease access to the ballot box and intensify government ethics – reflect the aspirational themes of many advocacy groups assembled under the banner of ‘political reform.’
“Having gained 40 seats to reclaim the House majority in January, the Democrats will have more than enough muscle to push their bill halfway through the Capitol. But then it's set to come to a full and lasting stop on the doorstep of the still-Republican Senate, one of many measures that seem destined to show brief signs of life before dying in the newly divided Congress.”

He was writing about the For the People Act, which, as expected, died in the Senate after passing the House. This year, Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia led an effort to revise the bill in order to attract enough Republican support to overcome a filibuster. But the revised bill, known as the Freedom to Vote Act, never picked up GOP support.

Its latest version, which includes another bill designed to restore the Justice Department’s power to oversee election changes in states with a history of racial discrimination, moved through the House in advance of Martin Luther King Jr. Day and will be brought to the Senate floor for debate Wednesday evening.

It will fail.

Democratic leaders will then try to change the filibuster rules. But with Manchin and fellow Democrat Krysten Sinema of Arizona both reaffirming their opposition to a rules change, that effort will fail as well.

And yet, advocates have not given up hope.

“We're still doing all we can to get this bill over the finish line, so while the path may be narrower than ever, we're not there yet,” said Ross Sherman, a spokesman for the reform group RepresentUs. “We've seen countless media headlines throughout last year claiming these bills were dead/doomed/you name it, but our movement never gave up and we've gotten it all the way to this point despite the cynicism.”

Nick Penniman, CEO of Issue One, has begun to look ahead to next steps.

"Today begins the next chapter in the fight to protect our elections. There is a bipartisan path forward if Democrats and Republicans can put politics aside and come together around the need to strengthen our elections,” he said. "It is critical that leaders from both sides now work together to produce a bill that is capable of passage. This must include provisions that strengthen our elections, protect election workers, and ensure that every American's vote is fairly counted. Many of the legislative proposals in Congress are rooted in strong bipartisanship, and are supported by an overwhelming majority of voters across the political spectrum.”

From the beginning, Democrats pursued a “go it alone” legislative strategy, opting not to negotiate with Republicans on what was included in the legislation. And Manchin’s changes were too little, too late. Perhaps it would not have mattered. It’s possible, and maybe even likely, that the top Republican in the Senate, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, would never have gone along even if moderates in his party supported some version of reform.

One option that has been shelved, at least for now, is breaking up the bill into its component parts and trying to pass them individually. Recent polling has found the public supports major pieces of the legislation.

Of course, no one ever wants to admit defeat before it happens, so a piecemeal approach has not been proposed so far. However, historian Heather Cox Richardson reports in her newsletter that Democratic Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey said his party will do just that.

RepresentUs, among others, will therefore focus on activity at the state level.

“I can tell you that we're still fighting gerrymandering in key states, including Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida and North Carolina,” said Ross. “We'll also be playing democracy reform offense with our Campaign Accelerator program, working with key state and local partners to pass laws that strengthen democracy, including ranked choice voting and open primaries.”

There is movement in Congress on a different election reform front, as lawmakers on both sides indicate a desire to firm up the rules around the certification of Electoral College votes.

But with midterm elections approaching and partisan battle lines cemented into cries of “voter suppression” on the left and “election security” on the right, reform advocates need to figure out a new path forward.

"There’s still time on the clock, but we need to pick up the ball and start moving down the field quickly in a bipartisan fashion. That work begins anew tomorrow," Penniman said.


Read More

Trump’s Anti-Latino Racism is a Major Liability for Democracy

Close-up of sign reading 'Immigrants Make America Great' at a Baltimore rally.

Trump’s Anti-Latino Racism is a Major Liability for Democracy

Donald Trump’s second administration has fully clarified Latinos’ racial position in America: our ethnic group’s labor, culture, and aspirations are too much for his supporters to stomach. The Latino presence in America triggers too many uneasy questions (are they White?), too many doubts (are they really American?), and too much resentment (why are they doing better than me?).

Trump’s targeted deportations of undocumented Latinos, unwarranted arrests of Latino citizens, and heightened ICE presence in Latino neighborhoods address these worries by lumping Latinos with Black people. Simply put, we have become yet another visible population that America socially stigmatizes, economically exploits, and politically terrorizes because aggrieved White adults want to preserve their rank as our nation’s premier racial group. The cumulative impacts are serious: just yesterday, an international panel of investigators on human rights and racism, backed by the U.N., found that such actions have resulted in “grave human rights violations.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Just the Facts: The SAVE Act and the Future of Voter ID Rules
A close up of a window with a sticker on it
Photo by Zach Wear on Unsplash

Just the Facts: The SAVE Act and the Future of Voter ID Rules

Last week, I wrote a column in the Fulcrum entitled “Just the Facts: Voter ID, States’ Powers, and Federal Limits.” The facts presented in that writing made it clear that the U.S. Constitution does not require voter ID and left almost all election administration—including voter qualifications—to the states. However, over time, constitutional amendments and federal statutes have restricted states’ ability to impose discriminatory voting rules, but they have never mandated voter ID.

The SAVE America Act

The national debate over voter ID has entered a new phase with the introduction of the SAVE America Act, the most sweeping federal voter‑identification and citizenship‑documentation proposal in modern history. For more than two centuries, voter eligibility rules—ID included—have been primarily a matter of state authority, bounded by constitutional protections against discrimination. The SAVE America Act would shift that balance by imposing federal requirements for both photo identification and documentary proof of citizenship in federal elections.

Keep ReadingShow less
Posters are displayed next to Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) as he speaks at a news conference to unveil the Take It Down Act to protect victims against non-consensual intimate image abuse, on Capitol Hill on June 18, 2024 in Washington, DC.

A lawsuit against xAI over AI-generated deepfakes targeting teenage girls exposes a growing crisis in schools. As laws struggle to keep up, this story explores AI accountability, teen safety, and what educators and parents must do now.

Getty Images, Andrew Harnik

Deepfakes: The New Face of Cyberbullying and Why Parents, Schools, and Lawmakers Must Act

As a former teacher who worked in a high school when Snapchat was born, I witnessed the birth of sexting and its impact on teens. I recall asking a parent whether he was checking his daughter’s phone for inappropriate messages. His response was, “sometimes you just don’t want to know.” But the federal lawsuit filed last week against Elon Musk's xAI has put a national spotlight on AI-generated deepfakes and the teenage girls they target. Parents and teachers can’t ignore the crisis inside our schools.

AI Companies Built the Tool. The Grok Lawsuit Says They Own the Damage.

Whether the theory of French prosecutors–that Elon Musk deliberately allowed the sexualized image controversy to grow so that it would drive up activity on the platform and boost the company’s valuation–is true or not, when a company makes the decision to build a tool and knows that it can be weaponized but chooses to release it anyway, they are making a risk-based decision believing that they can act without consequence. The Grok lawsuit could make these types of business decisions much more costly.

Keep ReadingShow less