Large chunks of these voting rights bills seem counter to the rights reserved to state legislatures in the Constitution. Blow up the filibuster — lose your gains in court — nothing gained in the end.
Professor Ginsburg identifies election certification as the most dangerous threat to fair elections. I agree. All the sound and fury about “voting rights” (a misnomer – the issue addressed by the pending legislation is voting convenience, not voting rights) is nonsense. But the election certification process deserves attention. Flaws in the Electoral Count Act of 1887, i.e., confusion over the Congress’ role in certifying the federal election, gave rise to the January 6 riots.
There’s no need to eliminate the filibuster to address this problem. Senator Collins said there is support in the Republican party to examine and amend the Electoral Count Act. Congress doesn’t need to pass a top-to-bottom federal election law; a law targeted at counting and certification will be a sufficient fix. For all the reasons listed by Professor Ginsburg at the beginning of his article, the filibuster should be left in place and Congress should focus on fixing the certification processes. An amendment of or replacement to the Electoral Count Act can and should be accomplished using regular order.
Unfortunately it seems the author has totally bought in to the Democrats' lies and distortions on this topic. There may be good reasons to ditch the filibuster, but this "democracy-in-peril voting-rights emergency" ain't it. Americans' voting rights are not under attack, and our democracy is not in peril. This is a fake emergency.
The so-called "voter suppression" bills being pushed by Republicans don't restrict voting rights so much as voter convenience. The pandemic forced a lot of states to loosen dramatically their voting laws, and it seems perfectly reasonable to reel them back in to promote election security.
Fewer days of early voting? (CT, NH, and DE have none, by the way. No problems there, I guess.) Fewer ballot drop boxes in Georgia? (The state had zero drop boxes in 2018.) No more 24-hour voting? (Awww, you have to treat voting like nearly every other activity? Poor you.) You have to show ID to vote? (You can't even get a library card without ID.)
And the "can't serve food or water" canard... this provision is to prevent electioneering at the polls, and seems perfectly reasonable. There are plenty of workarounds for people waiting a long time in line. Nobody will drop dead from thirst.
There are parts of the Democrats' bill that I like (making Election Day a holiday seems fine). But overall it's unnecessary, even dangerous, because we DEFINITELY don't need to centralize authority over elections in Washington D.C. — it's power that's ripe for abuse by a politicized Justice Department.
And it's absolutely NOT a reason to get rid of the filibuster. Just let the Dems wait 'til they're in the minority; then we'll hear them once again singing praise and hosannahs to the Holy Filibuster.
Blow up the filibuster, pack the Supreme Court, never have to worry about democracy again. Because the author mentions handing out water in voting lines it's worth noting that GA's law is similar to New York's in that respect. Amazing how Republicans are able to get liberal Democrats to do their voters suppression for them.
I'm inclined to agree with Yuval Levin et al who claim that the Republic fears of election fraud and the Democratic fears of voter suppression are non-issues -- the real problems being in the process after they're in and counted.
I general I agree with many of his points. But "Same day registration"? Absurd. Registering to vote has never been easier nor has it been an obstacle to voting. Do we really want voters who don't even care enough to register to vote? No wonder we get these terrible candidates and poor governance. And like Europe and Canada we should require "Voter ID". There is no legitimate rationale not to require such identification. Finally why should election day be a national holiday? It takes all of five minutes to vote. Please also recall that typically churches and unions have arranged for their members and congregants to vote and provided breakfast or lunch too. I think we all know what the ultimate purpose of that is too.
"(ending same-day registration and banning the distribution of water to waiting voters)."
Is it truly true that the distribution of water has been banned to waiting voters? I think this is the second opinion piece in Persuasion where issues about voting right changes are misrepresented.
Elsewhere I read that the rules on the filibuster have been changed so that it's no longer necessary actually to filibuster, that is to give an endless speech, read from the phone book, basically occupy the floor of the Senate and so prevent debate. It's now enough to call a filibuster. If so, that seems off to me. I'm honestly unsure whether the filibuster is necessary to democratic decision making. It seems a disruptive tactic that has little value in producing positive results (as opposed to preventing the enactment of results one opposes). But if the filibuster is to persist, surely it should require effort. And if it is not to persist, then why not abolish it altogether? As for the issue at hand, I agree that the biggest danger to our electoral process lies in state-level processes like re-districting before elections and certifying results after them. Whatever one thinks about the filibuster, fairly drawn districts and certification of lawfully counted elections are fundamental to democracy.
I don't see any good reason to have the filibuster. It's not about majority rule. At best, it could promote a consensus politics, but at worst, which we have now, it promotes gridlock and government incompetence. What other democracies have comparable institutions? The downside, of course, is that when the GOP has the presidency and Congress, they will pass radical legislation, but the tempering factor is the people themselves, who if they don't like it, will vote the GOP out of office. By the way, do any state legislatures have the equivalent of a filibuster?
We can only save democracy by destroying it. Smart! Real smart…
Professor Ginsburg believes that only dirty smelly knuckle-dragging MAGA-gots are out to “destroy” democracy.
Really professor? All pure motives on the “left”. Just like the one party State of California after it “advanced” it’s election laws.
Who exactly is looking to remove safeguards for the minority by jamming through unprecedented changes in our democratic process?
That would be you, Prof. Clown…
What shameful piece of illogical crap…
Large chunks of these voting rights bills seem counter to the rights reserved to state legislatures in the Constitution. Blow up the filibuster — lose your gains in court — nothing gained in the end.
Professor Ginsburg identifies election certification as the most dangerous threat to fair elections. I agree. All the sound and fury about “voting rights” (a misnomer – the issue addressed by the pending legislation is voting convenience, not voting rights) is nonsense. But the election certification process deserves attention. Flaws in the Electoral Count Act of 1887, i.e., confusion over the Congress’ role in certifying the federal election, gave rise to the January 6 riots.
There’s no need to eliminate the filibuster to address this problem. Senator Collins said there is support in the Republican party to examine and amend the Electoral Count Act. Congress doesn’t need to pass a top-to-bottom federal election law; a law targeted at counting and certification will be a sufficient fix. For all the reasons listed by Professor Ginsburg at the beginning of his article, the filibuster should be left in place and Congress should focus on fixing the certification processes. An amendment of or replacement to the Electoral Count Act can and should be accomplished using regular order.
Unfortunately it seems the author has totally bought in to the Democrats' lies and distortions on this topic. There may be good reasons to ditch the filibuster, but this "democracy-in-peril voting-rights emergency" ain't it. Americans' voting rights are not under attack, and our democracy is not in peril. This is a fake emergency.
The so-called "voter suppression" bills being pushed by Republicans don't restrict voting rights so much as voter convenience. The pandemic forced a lot of states to loosen dramatically their voting laws, and it seems perfectly reasonable to reel them back in to promote election security.
Fewer days of early voting? (CT, NH, and DE have none, by the way. No problems there, I guess.) Fewer ballot drop boxes in Georgia? (The state had zero drop boxes in 2018.) No more 24-hour voting? (Awww, you have to treat voting like nearly every other activity? Poor you.) You have to show ID to vote? (You can't even get a library card without ID.)
And the "can't serve food or water" canard... this provision is to prevent electioneering at the polls, and seems perfectly reasonable. There are plenty of workarounds for people waiting a long time in line. Nobody will drop dead from thirst.
There are parts of the Democrats' bill that I like (making Election Day a holiday seems fine). But overall it's unnecessary, even dangerous, because we DEFINITELY don't need to centralize authority over elections in Washington D.C. — it's power that's ripe for abuse by a politicized Justice Department.
And it's absolutely NOT a reason to get rid of the filibuster. Just let the Dems wait 'til they're in the minority; then we'll hear them once again singing praise and hosannahs to the Holy Filibuster.
Blow up the filibuster, pack the Supreme Court, never have to worry about democracy again. Because the author mentions handing out water in voting lines it's worth noting that GA's law is similar to New York's in that respect. Amazing how Republicans are able to get liberal Democrats to do their voters suppression for them.
I'm inclined to agree with Yuval Levin et al who claim that the Republic fears of election fraud and the Democratic fears of voter suppression are non-issues -- the real problems being in the process after they're in and counted.
I general I agree with many of his points. But "Same day registration"? Absurd. Registering to vote has never been easier nor has it been an obstacle to voting. Do we really want voters who don't even care enough to register to vote? No wonder we get these terrible candidates and poor governance. And like Europe and Canada we should require "Voter ID". There is no legitimate rationale not to require such identification. Finally why should election day be a national holiday? It takes all of five minutes to vote. Please also recall that typically churches and unions have arranged for their members and congregants to vote and provided breakfast or lunch too. I think we all know what the ultimate purpose of that is too.
"(ending same-day registration and banning the distribution of water to waiting voters)."
Is it truly true that the distribution of water has been banned to waiting voters? I think this is the second opinion piece in Persuasion where issues about voting right changes are misrepresented.
" . . . our deeply compromised elections . . . " This sounds positively Trumpian. Where's the evidence? And why is filibuster reform necessary to address election certification?
Elsewhere I read that the rules on the filibuster have been changed so that it's no longer necessary actually to filibuster, that is to give an endless speech, read from the phone book, basically occupy the floor of the Senate and so prevent debate. It's now enough to call a filibuster. If so, that seems off to me. I'm honestly unsure whether the filibuster is necessary to democratic decision making. It seems a disruptive tactic that has little value in producing positive results (as opposed to preventing the enactment of results one opposes). But if the filibuster is to persist, surely it should require effort. And if it is not to persist, then why not abolish it altogether? As for the issue at hand, I agree that the biggest danger to our electoral process lies in state-level processes like re-districting before elections and certifying results after them. Whatever one thinks about the filibuster, fairly drawn districts and certification of lawfully counted elections are fundamental to democracy.
I think the Republicans are wrong headed in defending the filibuster. They may recapture the Senate in ‘22, and then they’ll wish there wasn’t one.
I don't see any good reason to have the filibuster. It's not about majority rule. At best, it could promote a consensus politics, but at worst, which we have now, it promotes gridlock and government incompetence. What other democracies have comparable institutions? The downside, of course, is that when the GOP has the presidency and Congress, they will pass radical legislation, but the tempering factor is the people themselves, who if they don't like it, will vote the GOP out of office. By the way, do any state legislatures have the equivalent of a filibuster?