By Rich Lowry
Wednesday, June 02, 2021
The Democratic opposition to legislative minorities
using whatever leverage they have to block legislation is highly situational.
In Washington, D.C., where Democrats control the White
House and both chambers of Congress, the Senate filibuster is portrayed
as a Jim Crow relic that is profoundly undemocratic.
In Austin, Texas, where Republicans control the
governor’s mansion and both chambers of the legislature, House Democrats’
walking out to prevent the passage of a bill with majority support is
portrayed as a heroic act preserving our democracy.
The bill in question is an election-reform measure that
Democrats allege is the latest instance of state-level GOP voter suppression.
The only recourse, they say, is at the federal level. The
Senate filibuster should be eliminated — so much for the rights of legislative
minorities — and then the narrowest-possible Democratic Senate majority should
pass H.R.1, overriding long-standing, duly-passed election laws all around the
country and essentially federalizing our elections.
Democracy, they tell us, demands nothing less.
To the contrary, this would be a power grab carried out
under blatantly false pretenses.
The Texas bill is no more a voter-suppression measure
than the Georgia election law that passed a few months ago, which occasioned
outraged accusations of the arrival of Jim Crow 2.0 that ultimately fell flat.
The least defensible part of the Texas law is its
provision saying that early voting on the Sunday before the election can’t
begin until 1 p.m., which could crimp the traditional “souls to the polls”
turnout efforts of black churches. A Republican legislator says this was a
drafting error. Regardless, the provision should — and almost certainly will be
— changed.
The rest of the legislation is unobjectionable. It pushes
back against what were supposed to be temporary expedients during the pandemic,
such as drive-through voting and 24-hour early-voting marathons. Texas
democracy was healthy and robust prior to these emergency innovations, and it
will be when they are gone.
It explicitly forbids election officials implementing
practices not contemplated under the state’s election statutes, as sometimes
happened during the pandemic.
In many counties, it will extend the daily minimum time
for early voting by one hour.
In certain circumstances, by the way, employers are
required to give employees time off to go vote.
Its provisions for increased security and transparency
are hardly draconian. Among other things, it would require voters to write a
driver’s license number or other identifier on absentee ballots, matching the
existing voter-ID requirement for registering to vote and voting in person.
It would ban public officials from sending out
unsolicited mail-in ballots, a commonsense provision to keep excess ballots
from floating around. Certainly, it’s not too much to ask that people
affirmatively request their mail-in ballots.
It would mandate that all voting systems have a paper
trail on or before 2026, with a funding incentive for counties to comply early.
For sizable jurisdictions that can easily pull it off, it
would require livestreaming of vote-counting proceedings.
All of this is reported as “restrictive” in the press,
but none of it would actually prevent anyone from voting, and there is zero
chance that the bill would discernibly affect turnout.
To make this proposal the triggering event for a radical
change in U.S. Senate rules to pass the most far-reaching, high-handed federal
election bill in the country’s history, one that would wipe out countless state
laws as well as bipartisan federal election legislation passed over the past 30
years, would be absurdly pretextual and disproportionate.
The Democrats, just like the Republicans, tend to be
hypocritical on legislative-process questions, depending on what advances their
interests. But on one thing they are admirably consistent, whether at the state
or federal level, whether in the minority or majority — stirring up
self-serving hysteria over GOP election laws.
No comments:
Post a Comment