I'm hoping to add some things to the discussion here. I'd like to see what could be learned from the experience to improve the way we handle the next one. I was told once that the difference between an average guy and a smart guy is that the average guy learns from his mistakes while the smart guy learns from other people's mistakes as well.
- Maybe the key is the "chess not checkers" thing. For many of us, myself included, the end game was the challenge itself, not legislation bringing about fair elections. I assumed that the historic challenge would get enough attention to push this issue into the mainstream, but it seems as though it didn't. I'll be watching the Sunday talk shows to see if I'm pleasantly surprised, but I'm not holding my breath.
- Conyers, for all of his hard work, should have had multiple smaller committees each presenting a documented summary covering a different state. Instead, they relied on only one state for the official debate. Ironically, one of the states that would have been included here would have been Conyers home state of Michigan. There should have been multiple objections written and signed with the members who signed them asking for one single session to discuss them all. If procedure doesn't allow that, they should have presented the first in session and requested that the other objections simply be entered into the record.
- Instead of focusing on how many were disenfranchised, they should have focused on how few were. They should have all noted that many of us sailed through the polls, but a select number of precincts were targeted. There were enough to be a systematic problem, but few enough that many of us did not see it for ourselves when we voted.
- The fact that Kerry was not around deserves some debate, in hindsight. Him not complying did give some ammo to the Republicans. While Kerry would have had to stay away from signing the initial letter or voting with Boxer in the end, his presence in the debate could have been a much needed thank you to all of the people who stood in line for so long to vote for him. He could have given a very benign speech about how much it hurt him to see his supports endure that. He could have pulled out a little Clinton-esque "I feel your pain."
- Either more Senators should have signed the objection and voted with Boxer, or Boxer should have voted the measure down as well. That vote should have either been 75-0 with the Democrats including Boxer using this occasion to get the debate started or something like 60-15 with the Democrats truly objecting to the Ohio electors. There could be a couple dozen diaries on this board stating an excellent case for why it should have been 60-15, but I think we have to come to terms with the reality that few Democrats were ready to do this. This 74-1 outcome doesn't do any of us any good and may be something that poor Boxer will have to defend when her current term is up.
- As Kos and others have pointed out, the Democrats in the Senate were well prepared. I didn't listen to much of the House debate, but they may have been just as good. Instead of targeting Democratic Senators who voted the measure down, we should be congratulating and supporting those who stated our case so well on the floor of the Senate. Like others, I was also disappointed by Obama's performance here. This was a place where he could have really shined. Maybe next time, I guess.
- While using the web forms to contact a number of Congressmen, I was surprised to see that there often wasn't a "Voting Rights" category that a comment could be submitted under. Maybe the next step for activists outside of Washington should be to tell lawmakers to elevate this issue. Elected officials need to respect the importance of this issue, and Voting Rights should be included as a separate issue whenever anybody compiles one of those side-by-side comparisons of candidates.
- In the Senate, the Republicans let the Democrats have their say and only allowed the two Senators from Ohio as well as the majority leader speak. You have to have some measure of respect for them for doing this. Having said that, their cases were awfully weak. A bunch of editorials a case does not make.
- The American people just aren't as knowledgeable about this as they should be. Let me first say that six months ago, before I had started reading Swing State Project, I was just as clueless as anyone. Had it not been for the fact that I stumbled onto that site and continued reading there, I would be just as clueless today. We need to engage people in this discussion in a positive way and then keep them involved until we can fix this problem. Efforts like the one here at Kos need to be continued and need to be followed up by similar efforts by the Democratic Party. In short... Nice work, folks.