For the first time since the end of Reconstruction in 1877, the US is facing a tidal wave of efforts to shrink the pool of potential voters, with over 400 proposals for voter suppression introduced in 49 states. Thus far, 34 Republican-written restrictive bills have already been adopted in 19 states.
To cite one case, the new Texas election laws are resulting in the rejection of large numbers of absentee ballot applications in major counties. Observing such trends, Travis County Clerk Dana DeBeauvoir remarked, “We’re now seeing the real-life actual effect of the law, and, ladies and gentlemen, it is voter suppression.”
Seeking to enact federal legislation to reverse the imposition of new voting restrictions, the Senate Democrats’ calls for a debate have been blocked four times by Republican filibusters which require 60 votes for a bill to be considered.
But Democratic senators have rallied to consolidate their existing bills, the Freedom to Vote and John Lewis Voting Rights acts, into one package, and vowed to challenge the Republicans a fifth time under an intense spotlight of public attention. If the new bill fails, as expected, the Democrats will be pushing for a floor vote to loosen filibuster procedures.
The Democratic plan would ease the filibuster’s power by requiring an actual “talking filibuster” to replace the current rule that allows a single senator to block a bill without leaving the comfort of their offices. This new version would be restricted to bills already introduced this session. Every senator could speak twice, after which 51 votes would be required for passage.
However, as widely reported, only 48 of the 50 Democratic senators are committed to this modification of the filibuster. The two holdouts, Joe Manchin (D-W. Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), have offered a changing, free-floating set of rationales that have, unfortunately, some entertainment value. Sinema, for example, proclaimed Jan. 13 her support for voting-rights legislation, but argued that tampering with the filibuster in any way would foster “division” and close off “bipartisanship.”
Despite signs of already-hardened divisions like Republicans’ widespread unwillingness to forthrightly condemn even the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection and the large-scale campaign to override the popular vote, Sinema speaks as if just a bit more effort could compensate for the Republicans’ accelerating extremism. She seems oblivious to this climate of what political scientists call “asymmetrical polarization” where Republicans have become more intransigent and aggressive in stretching democratic norms. Yet Sinema even managed in her speech to fault Democrats for the absence of Republican support for the voting-rights legislation.
Ignoring numerous Democratic initiatives—including one by Manchin expressly to gain Republican votes—Sinema sighed, “I wish there had been a more serious effort on the part of Democratic Party leaders to sit down with the other party.”
On the other hand, Sinema’s critique of the Republicans somehow lacks explicit examples of clear-cut Republican obstructiveness. For example, she could have pointed out that simply renewing the full power of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which was backed in 2006 on a bipartisan 98-0 vote. (The Supreme Court in 2013 knocked out the Act’s main enforcement provision, robbing it of its key tool to prevent racial bias in districting and elections.) Among the 98 who voted for the law’s reauthorization in 2006, 16 are still serving Republicans, all of whom are marching in lock-step to oppose a measure they once all supported.
For his part, Manchin has also displayed no sign of embarrassment for going against past statements to other Democrats. For example, he firmly declared Jan. 18 that he would not support the “talking filibuster” alternative to the current method, in sharp contrast to past statements. The New York Times had reported as recently as Jan. 11, “Mr. Manchin has expressed support for requiring senators to engage in a talking filibuster and hold the floor while they are blocking legislation. Many Americans recognize this scenario from the movie ‘Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.’” Manchin’s opposition to even modest reform of the filibuster will likely maintain the status quo where a single senator can silently trigger the requirement of a 60-vote super-majority.
If Manchin chose to express any sign of regret, he might address his inability to attract a single Republican to his voting-rights plan, which he loudly promoted. After all, Politico reported (1/18) “He negotiated the voting reform package currently on the Senate floor after rejecting Democrats’ initial elections reform bill last year.”
Manchin was asked about voters who remain fearful, in the absence of federal legislation blocked by his support for the filibuster, that the wave of state-level voter-suppression measures might terminate their ability to cast a ballot. Manchin airily told reporters, “The government will stand behind them so they have the right to vote.”
What law, like those bill facing imminent loss, would “the government” invoke for voter protection? Which agency would have the enforcement power now that the Voting Rights of 1965 has been so weakened?
Popular organizations like the NAACP see stemming the tide of voter-suppression bills as crucial, given a wide range of attacks on majority rule. NAACP President Derrick Johnson asked of those like Manchin and Sinema welded to the notion that the filibuster somehow protects bipartisanship: “What good is preserving a dysfunctional tradition of bipartisanship if bipartisanship cannot even preserve democracy?
Roger Bybee is a Milwaukee-based labor studies instructor and and writer and former editor of the Racine Labor weekly. Email winterbybee@gmail.com.
From The Progressive Populist, February 15, 2022
Blog | Current Issue | Back Issues | Essays | Links
About the Progressive Populist | How to Subscribe | How to Contact Us