As of yesterday afternoon, there was enough kinetic political activity to give the appearance of momentum. Democratic Sen. Raphael Warnock had made a compelling pitch in support of the idea of a carve-out to the filibuster rule, pointing to other recent exceptions from the last two weeks...
There’s just one small problem. The Senate filibuster stands in the way. Do Democrats have a majority for protecting the fundamental principle of our Nation? Probably. But alas, the filibuster means they need a supermajority. A regular old majority just won’t cut it.
Twice this month, the Senate made exceptions to the chamber's filibuster rules, once to help prevent another Republican-imposed government shutdown, and again a week later to prevent a Republican-imposed debt-ceiling crisis.
But it wasn't long before that momentum for change met the obstruction of our very own Sen. Flibbertigibbet Sinema.
Kyrsten Sinema supports the elections reform bill that Democrats are considering a year-end push to pass. She doesn't support a shortcut around the filibuster to get it done. The Arizona moderate is making clear that she intends to keep protecting the Senate's 60-vote requirement on most legislation and she isn't ready to entertain changing rules to pass sweeping elections or voting legislation with a simple majority.
If you're still following this, passing filibuster carve outs for judges are okay, because the Republicans wanted it, and passing filibuster carve outs to avoid government shutdowns and raise the debt ceiling are also okay, because that’s what Republicans wanted too
(1) . A filibuster carve out for cutting taxes is has always been okay, because, again, Republicans. But when we want to protect democracy, no, that must clear a higher hurdle. From
the article:
The logic here is truly amazing: Democrats can't pass voting rights protections on their own, because if they do, Republicans might try to undermine voting rights at some future date. And that's why Sinema intends to do nothing as Republicans undermine voting rights right now.
What Republicans want is by definition right and good because Republicans represent real America, and therefore what Republicans want only needs a bare small-d democratic majority. But what democrats want may not be palatable to Republicans, and therefore requires an extra hurdle to make sure it is what real Americans also want.
What Sen. Sinema doesn’t realize is that by using the rationale of asymmetrical democracy, it telegraphs to Republicans that
they represent
real America, and conceals from the Republican conscious the reality that, yes, they are actually
the minority.
Yes, you should be irate, and launching a primary campaign should be a high priority for channeling that anger. But before we get too upset over democratic reforms being filibustered by Sen. Sinema, it's important to view these initiatives, to a great extent, as virtue signaling. As Josh Marshall points out,
none of these initiatives are likely to help thwart a Republican coup.
...We hear a lot today (for good reason) that voting rights and the protection of democracy is the issue. But the laws we’re actually talking about, the ones that are written and ready to pass (if Sinema and Manchin would let them come to a vote) or even in concept don’t actually address the main issue that has everyone’s attention. They’re critical. Don’t get me wrong. But they don’t actually address the catalog of situations in which you hold a vote, count the votes and then simply set the votes aside if you don’t like the result.
Josh Marshall takes a look at what is in the For the People Act.
The For the People Act, now in a revised version, is the main democracy protection vehicle being pushed in this Congress. It has three buckets of rules. The first places limits on partisan gerrymandering. The second creates a floor for access to voting – voting by mail, voting early, rules for voting, etc. The third is campaign finance reform.
These are important, but none of these address the coming coup, nor can they. In 2024, Republicans may:
- Change how select swing states award electoral votes to proportional, in order to rig the electoral vote against Biden. This was discussed during Obama’s Presidency, in Pennsylvania then, and in Michigan then and as recently as this year.
- Stop a lawful swing state count before urban areas have reported. This is the situation most analogous to 2000.
- Arbitrarily discard urban vote totals from a lawful count to tip an election. This was discussed by Republicans even before the 2020 election.
- Deny Biden 270 EV’s in Congress, tossing a popular vote win for Biden (or worse, a popular vote loss but an otherwise electoral win) to a House GOP delegation of states. This was also discussed just this year.
- Not seat electors in congress from states contested by the GOP.
- Refuse to certify Biden’s victory in congress.
- Use force to interfere with or stop the counting of electors. This was attempted on January 6th.
It’s a common misconception that the Republican coup started on January 6th. It didn’t. It has grown concurrent with the modern Republican movement, and every time Republicans are denied the popular vote majority they crave, the stronger their authoritarian tendencies grow.
I fully expect changes to electoral vote allocation in swing states, voting restrictions, and stopping urban counts in close states. Will it matter for 2024? I don’t know. Paradoxically, if Republicans don’t do as well in the Midterms, but still gain some control over swing states, I expect worse.
Our military has warned us. All of the above scenarios pose real risks to the peaceful transfer of power. But Sen. Sinema isn’t listening. Maybe the generals can go to a high dollar fundraiser and have a word with her.
What can we do? Delegitimize any such attempts, no matter how ostensibly legal. Do not concede to asymmetrical democracy, in how we talk and how we act. We are the majority. And maybe pray.
______________
(1) Republicans don’t want to have to vote to break a filibuster on government shutdowns or raising the debt ceiling before the elections.