A modest way to get the For the People Act passed, despite the filibuster

Homepage | Forums | Main Forums | General Discussion | A modest way to get the For the People Act passed, despite the filibuster

Viewing 3 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #401606
      sonofspy777
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 6,261

      1-voting.jpg

      The For the People Act, introduced in both the House (as H.B. 1) and the Senate, includes a number of voting rights protections.  Most importantly, it prohibits state voter suppression measures, prohibits gerrymandering of election districts, and reinstates the pre-qualification protections of the Voting Rights Act that the Supreme Court invalidated in its infamous Shelby County  decision.  All of these provisions are necessary to protect (small d) democracy in this country going forward.

      This Act would go a long way toward making sure our country never re-experiences the miseries of the voter suppression of the 2010s.  It is virtually certain to pass the House.  In fact, the House passed this legislation in the last Congress.  Unfortunately, it then died on Mitch McConnell’s desk, without ever having been considered in the Senate.

      This will almost certainly pass the House again, but there is a glaring obstacle to its enactment.  Under current rules, the bill is dead on arrival in the Senate, due to the Senate’s de facto 60-vote requirement to pass legislation.  And although the fifty Democratic Senators, along with Vice-President Kamala Harris, could change the Senate rules, two Democratic Senators, Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ), have said that they are opposed to changing the filibuster rule for regular legislation.  As long as they both feel that way, the sixty-vote requirement remains, and there is no chance that Republicans will vote in favor of a bill that empowers mere citizens to express their disagreement with Republican policies and priorities.  Hence, the bill is DOA in the Senate.

      https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2021/2/6/2014500/-A-modest-way-to-get-the-For-the-People-Act-passed-despite-the-filibuster

      “Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.”
      ~Samuel Clemens

    • #401609
      djean111
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 6,536

      hints that votes are not counted correctly, that is considered domestic terrorism.

      America is not a country, it's just a business. (Brad Pitt, Killing Them Softly)

      Everything I post is just my opinion, and, honestly, I would love to be wrong.

      • #401621
        Ohio Barbarian
        Moderator
        • Total Posts: 21,869

        And there’s not. There is, however, plenty of evidence for fraud on Super Tuesday this March last in the Democratic primary, but that’s never mentioned. It’s like they’re using the November election as the straw man for arguing that questioning the integrity of the Democrat primary is unthinkable, and if you do, then you’re a white supremacist, Nazi, misogynistic, anti-LGBTQ, Russian agent, and other Deplorable Things.

        Oh yeah, and if you have an independent news site, you’re canceled! The boutique left and Vichy Dems at their best. And they wonder why people get pissed off at them.

        It’s really not all that far from the old Roman Catholic Church, which told Martin Luther he had the duty to believe in papal infallibility and supremacy. And it will work as well for the Democrats as papal supremacy did for the Catholic Church in half of Europe.

        It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.--Eugene Debs

        You can jail a revolutionary, but you can't jail the revolution.--Fred Hampton

    • #401644
      Cold Mountain Trail
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 12,932

      “prohibits gerrymandering of election districts”

      i thought gerrymandering had already been made illegal a number of times.

    • #401723
      Jim Lane
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 874

      @sonofspy777

      The basic problem, of course, is that a few conservative Democrats will not go along with abolishing the filibuster.  The author’s proposed solution is to get them to agree to disallow filibusters of any voting-rights bill.  I see no reason why the defenders of the filibuster would be willing to go along with that exception.

Viewing 3 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.