Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Democrats tweak For the People Act, but to what end?

Sen. Amy Klobuchar

Sen. Amy Klobuchar, who is managing the For the People Act, has circulated changes to the bill that would help election officials.

Al Drago-Pool/Getty Image

Democrats, seeking to shore up support for their expansive election reform legislation, have made some modifications to the bill -- but the changes appear unlikely to help get the legislation through the Senate.

Responding to the concerns of election officials who questioned whether they would have the time and resources to meet all of the requirements laid out in the For the People Act, Sen. Amy Klobuchar has drafted changes and circulated them among her fellow Senators, according to The Washington Post.

While the modifications offer waivers and later deadlines to ease states' path to implementing vote-by-mail systems, early voting and election equipment standards, they do not address the major complaints from Republican lawmakers, who claim the bill is an appropriation federalization of elections.


The legislation was passed by the House (where it is known as HR 1) in March without any Republican support. Now the bill faces a difficult, perhaps insurmountable, barrier in the Senate (as S 1).

As long as the filibuster remains intact, Democratic leaders need to keep all their members in line and pick up 10 Republican votes to advance the bill. Democrat Joe Manchin of West Virginia has called for bipartisan efforts to reform elections, indicating he might not support the bill since it has not received Republican support so far. And Manchin is one of at least two Democrats who oppose changing the rules to abolish the legislative filibuster.

The nonprofit Campaign Legal Center, which engages in advocacy and litigation to support ballot access, praised the changes but warned against further modifications.

"The Senate is incorporating recommendations from key stakeholders, adding flexibility to the timeline for implementing changes that will modernize and improve access to voting systems," said CLC President Trevor Potter, a one-time GOP member of the Federal Election Commission. " As the Senate moves forward with the markup, it must hold firm to the principle of national election standards which will ensure Americans can freely cast ballots and that everyday voters have a say, not just special interests. Failure to pass these important protections is not an option."

Similarly, the good-governance advocates at RepresetUs, were in favor of the changes.

"As expected, most changes proposed by the amendment grant flexibility for administration of some of the more costly and/or involved aspects of the For the People Act," said Damon Effingham, director of the federal reform. "We commend Senate leaders for continuing to improve the legislation by listening to election administrators."

Polling has found the For the People Act to have popular support, regardless of party affiliation. The bill would make it easier to register to vote and cast a ballot, establish fundamental changes to campaign financing, ban partisan gerrymandering, set election security requirements and institute new ethics rules.


Read More

DHS Funding During the Shutdown
Getty Images, Charles-McClintock Wilson

DHS Funding During the Shutdown

When Congress failed to approve funding for the Department of Homeland Security for the remainder of this fiscal year in February, almost all of its employees began to work without pay. That situation changed, however, on April 3, when President Donald Trump issued a memorandum ordering the DHS secretary and director of the Office of Management and Budget to “use funds that have a reasonable and logical nexus to the functions of DHS” to pay its employees and issue back pay.

Trump shifted money to avoid the political embarrassment that would be caused by the collapse of airport security screening through the actions of disgruntled agents and the disruption to air travel that would ensue. But it’s legally dubious.

Keep ReadingShow less
Living Underground: Tel Aviv in the Shadow of a Widening War

Steps leading to a private underground bunker in Tel Aviv, Israel.

Hugo Balta
A billboard that reads, "We've got your six," and "Confidential abortion support for service members, veterans, and their families. You make the appointment, we handle the rest."

Female service members face higher rates of sexual assault, limited reproductive healthcare, and policy barriers shaped by the Hyde Amendment and the Dobbs decision. This piece examines how military and VA policies are failing women in uniform and after service, widening inequality and restricting access to critical care.

All Women Left Behind

Our sisters in arms are facing a life cycle of abandonment. Female service members have a separation rate 28% higher than men, largely attributed to sexual assault, family planning, and childcare—inherently sexist issues that threaten to weaken our force. When women are more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by the enemy, with decades of unsuccessful efforts to reduce rape in the ranks, the military is lucky women volunteer to serve at all. But for those who do take the oath, the betrayal only deepens. In states with abortion bans, the uniform offers no protection against healthcare deserts created by Dobbs. Instead of expanding care, the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs have retreated, leaving these women with less access to care than they would have in a federal prison. Their president might be a blue falcon, but We the People are going to have their backs.

Just as the military sees more rapes than the civilian population, it also sees more unplanned pregnancies. Maternal death rates are higher in America than in other developed nations, but they are higher still in states with abortion restrictions. In fact, for women of reproductive age who live there, death rates are higher, independent of pregnancy. Following Dobbs, 40% of female service members saw increased risks to their health and careers, simply by being stationed at one of the 100 military installations housed in one of those states, while Pentagon officials admitted: “there is not much they can do [for them].”

Keep ReadingShow less