Monthly Archives: April 2021

WASHINGTON When a Republican lawmaker approached Representative Veronica Escobar, a Democrat, on the House floor recently with a routine request that she sign on to a resolution he was introducing, she initially refused.

Ms. Escobar personally liked the man, a fellow Texan, and she supported his bill. But she held the Republican, who had voted to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election just hours after rioters stormed the Capitol, partly responsible for the deadly attack and questioned whether she could work with him.

Moments after declining, however, Ms. Escobar had second thoughts.

Go ahead and count me in, Ms. Escobar recalled telling the man, whom she declined to identify in an interview. But I just want you to know that what you all did I havent gotten past it. And it was wrong, and it was terrible. And its not something that I think we should gloss over.

In the immediate aftermath of the assault on the Capitol that left five dead, irate Democrats vowed to punish Republicans for their roles in perpetuating or indulging former President Donald J. Trumps fiction of a stolen election that motivated the mob that attacked the building. There was talk of cutting off certain Republicans entirely from the legislative process, denying them the basic courtesies and customs that allow the House to function even in polarized times.

Democrats introduced a series of measures to censure, investigate and potentially expel members who, in the words of one resolution, attempted to overturn the results of the election and incited a white supremacist attempted coup. But the legislation went nowhere and to date no punishment has been levied against any members of Congress for their actions related to Jan. 6.

What has unfolded instead has been something of an uneasy dtente on Capitol Hill, as Democrats reckon with what they experienced that day and struggle to determine whether they can salvage their relationships with Republicans some of whom continue to cast doubt on the legitimacy of President Bidens victory and whether they even want to try.

I dont want to permanently close that door, Ms. Escobar said. But I cant walk through it right now.

Republicans have felt the breach as well. Representative Michael Waltz, Republican of Florida, who did not vote to overturn Mr. Bidens victory but joined a lawsuit challenging the election results, said feelings ran raw after the mob violence at the Capitol.

I had some candid conversations with members that I have a good relationship with. There was a lot of heated emotion, Mr. Waltz said. Still, he said, I didnt experience a freeze.

He recently teamed up with Representative Anthony G. Brown, Democrat of Maryland, to round up 70 Republicans and 70 Democrats for a letter to the Biden administration laying out parameters for an Iran nuclear deal.

The dilemma of whether to join such bipartisan efforts is particularly charged for centrist Democrats from conservative-leaning districts, who won office on the promise of working with Republicans but say they find it difficult to accept that some of those same colleagues spread lies that fueled the first invasion of the Capitol since the War of 1812.

Adding to the tensions, most Republicans insist that they did nothing wrong, arguing that their push to invalidate the election results was merely an effort to raise concerns about the integrity of the vote. Some have reacted angrily to Democrats moves to punish them.

Days after Representative Jason Smith, Republican of Missouri, voted to throw out electoral votes for Mr. Biden, an aide to Representative Cindy Axne, Democrat of Iowa, curtly rebuffed a request from his office to discuss writing insurance legislation together.

Our office is declining to work with your office at this time, given your bosss position on the election, the aide wrote in an email to an aide to Mr. Smith.

Mr. Smith later sought to turn the tables on Ms. Axne, posting the email on his official Twitter account after she highlighted her work with Republicans.

Thats odd, Mr. Smith wrote, appending a screenshot of the exchange. This is the last message my staff got from you. Are you no longer kicking Republicans off your bills?

A spokesman for Mr. Smith did not respond to a request to elaborate on the incident.

Representative Abigail Spanberger, Democrat of Virginia, who was in the House gallery on Jan. 6, said she had taken it upon herself to try to facilitate a reconciliation or at least an airing out of differences.

Its been a really challenging time, she said. Literally, people were murdered in our workplace. For some people, that is deeply troublesome, and for some people, they want to move on faster than others are ready.

In the days after the attack, the wounds it laid bare seemed almost too deep to heal. As the mob tore closer to lawmakers on Jan. 6, Representative Dean Phillips, a mild-mannered Minnesota Democrat known for fostering bipartisan relationships, shouted at Republicans, This is because of you!

Afterward, lawmakers nearly came to blows on the House floor and got into heated arguments in the hallways. Some Democrats were so nervous that their Republican colleagues might draw weapons on the floor that House leaders set up metal detectors outside the chamber, drawing loud protests from gun-toting lawmakers in the Republican Party.

Representative Zoe Lofgren, Democrat of California and the chairwoman of the Administration Committee, released a review of Republicans incendiary remarks on social media before the attack.

Some Democrats, particularly the most progressive lawmakers from safe districts who rarely found occasion to work with Republicans even before the riot, have pressed to penalize the G.O.P. systematically in its aftermath, arguing that there can be no return to normalcy. A spreadsheet of Republicans who voted to overturn the election, outlining how many states electoral votes they moved to cast out, has circulated widely among Democratic offices.

But there has been little action to truly cut Republicans out of the work of Congress. When Representative Sean Casten of Illinois moved to punish a Republican who had voted to overturn the election results by forcing a recorded vote on his bill to rename a post office the kind of measure that normally sails through unchallenged only 15 other Democrats joined Mr. Casten in opposing it. As some rank-and-file Democrats sought to expel the Republican conspiracy theorist Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia from the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the move was not a leadership position. (Leaders did, however, take the unusual step of stripping Ms. Greene of her committee seats.)

The reluctance stems, at least in part, from politics. Democrats owe their majority to a group of lawmakers from competitive districts who say their constituents elected them to work with Republicans to get legislation done.

Retreating or closing myself off to any kind of conversations or working with folks on the other side of the aisle it doesnt feel like an option for me, said Representative Sharice Davids, the only Democrat in the Kansas congressional delegation. Even when it feels hard.

Representative Susan Wild, Democrat of Pennsylvania, was in the House gallery on Jan. 6 and had what she believed was a panic attack as she crouched on the floor and heard the noise from the mob grow closer. But she said in an interview that she had moved past the election issue, adding that she was not one to hold grudges.

I havent talked to a single Republican about that day. Nothing. At all, said Ms. Wild, who has resumed working with Pennsylvania Republicans on legislation, even though most of them voted to overturn the election. I dont want it to get in the way of other things that I want to work on with them. I know that it would, because I would be angry.

Many House Republicans have refrained from discussing the attack, while some have tried to rewrite history and argue that they never claimed the election was stolen, despite their objections. One tried to remove mentions of the assault from a resolution honoring the police officers who defended the Capitol that day. Some have continued to deny that Mr. Biden was legitimately elected, while still others have sought to deflect attention from the riot or downplay the factors that drove it.

When the House Armed Services Committee held a hearing recently to examine domestic extremism in the military, Representative Pat Fallon, Republican of Texas, complained that the session was political theater and a waste of the panels time.

The chairman, Representative Adam Smith of Washington, tartly replied that the topic deserved discussion, since 20 percent of the people that have been arrested from the Capitol Hill riots had a history of serving in the military.

Representative Rodney Davis of Illinois, the top Republican on the Administration Committee, objected to Ms. Lofgrens report cataloging his colleagues incendiary social media posts.

One Democrat, Representative Brad Schneider of Illinois, recently removed a Republican from a bill the two had worked on together for years, in line with his new policy of collaborating only with lawmakers who publicly state that Mr. Biden was legitimately elected.

But he said he had drawn some optimism from a blunt conversation with Representative Jody B. Hice, Republican of Georgia, whom he has worked with on environmental issues, about a speech Mr. Hice gave questioning his states electoral votes for Mr. Biden.

Mr. Hice said in a statement that he was proud that he and Mr. Schneider could put aside our differences on many of the hot-button political debates of the day to work together.

Still, Mr. Schneider said that many other Republicans were still questioning Mr. Bidens legitimacy and that some were even continuing to put lawmakers at risk with incendiary remarks.

The fact that there is how many at this point? that its not an insignificant number who are still trying to have it both ways, makes it harder to get something done in Congress, he said.

Visit link:

Democrats Are Torn Over Working With G.O.P. After Capitol Riot - The New York Times

Like death and taxes, its long been a fact of life that Iowa and New Hampshire kick off both the Republican and Democratic presidential primaries.

However, the nightmarish hellscape that was the Iowa caucuses in the 2020 Democratic primary the Iowa Democratic Party released barely any results the night of the caucuses because of technical problems heightened calls for ending Iowas reign as the first state to vote in the primary calendar.

But in some ways, the push to bump Iowa and New Hampshire from the start of the primary process has long been picking up steam among Democrats. Iowa and New Hampshire are two very white states 85 to 90 percent of each states population is non-Hispanic white and in 2020 neither state did much to influence the nomination race for a party that is now about 40 percent nonwhite. Now-President Biden won the Democratic primary despite finishing fourth in the Iowa caucuses and fifth in New Hampshires primary.

Yet the mounting opposition to Iowa and New Hampshire voting first might not be enough to actually depose them. Ultimately, state parties and/or governments decide the timing of their caucuses or primaries. And while the national party can encourage these decision-makers to schedule their contests on certain dates, it cannot unilaterally impose its will on the primary calendar. Moreover, because Republicans seem intent on keeping the two states in prime position for the 2024 campaign, it might be even more difficult for Democrats to make any changes.

Its true, though, that Iowa and New Hampshire are not representative of the Democratic electorate. Back in 2019, we used data from the 2016 Cooperative Congressional Election Study, a survey of more than 50,000 people conducted by YouGov in conjunction with Harvard University, to reorder Democrats primary calendar based on the similarity of each states Democratic electorate to the partys nationwide voter base. We found that Iowa and New Hampshire ranked in the bottom half of states in terms of how representative they were of the Democratic Partys voters, and thus would vote near the end of the primary season. (This analysis uses data from the 2016 presidential election, but considering how highly correlated the 2016 and 2020 presidential contests were, its hard to imagine the order would change that much if we had final 2020 data, which we dont.)

States by how similar their 2016 Democratic electorate is to the U.S. Democratic electorate in terms of voters race, ethnicity and education, where lower scores mean more similar

Other includes people who identified as Asian, Native American, Middle Eastern, mixed or other.

The Democratic electorate includes anyone who voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 and anyone who didnt vote for Clinton but identified as a Democrat.

Similarity is determined by Euclidean distance, where a distance of 0 means the items are identical and higher scores mean more dissimilarity.

Source: 2016 COOPERATIVE CONGRESSIONAL ELECTION STUDY

Instead of the current order, a state like Illinois or New Jersey should go first by our calculations. That might be a hard sell, of course, considering a state like New Jersey has often voted at the end of the primary process, and underdog candidates would prefer not to run ads in the expensive media markets of Chicago, New York and Philadelphia.

As another option, Democrats have floated moving up Nevada, which ranked fifth in our similarity calculation and has been an early-voting state since 2008. Nevada Democrats, who have full control of state government, are even considering legislation to establish a state-run primary to try and jump ahead of New Hampshire, but its unclear whether such legislation, which has failed before in Nevada, will pass. (South Carolina is another leading alternative among Democrats, given its also an early-voting state and is one of the few states in the Democratic primary with a majority-Black primary electorate. It also proved vital to Bidens nomination in 2020.) Some Democrats even like the idea of promoting Pennsylvania, a pivotal swing state that ranked just behind Nevada in our analysis. However, in previous years Pennsylvania leaders have been reluctant to schedule an earlier date for the states consolidated primary, where it holds primaries for president and other offices on the same day.

And Pennsylvanias logistical concerns underscore one of the fundamental challenges to supplanting Iowa and New Hampshire: Doing so will require cooperation among the national parties, state parties and in the case of state-run primaries state governments, which is no easy task because these actors often have conflicting goals.

Although the Democratic National Committee can try to encourage states to schedule their contests in certain calendar windows with various carrots and sticks like handing out delegate bonuses or penalties they cant force states to cooperate. And Iowa and New Hampshire have no interest in giving up their valuable calendar real estate, which, beyond its outsized political influence, is also worth millions of dollars to each states local economy.

Take New Hampshire, where state law gives Secretary of State Bill Gardner unilateral power to move the primary date as necessary to protect the states distinction of hosting the cycles first presidential primary. This has arguably been Gardners raison dtre during his four-plus decades in office, as hes gone pretty far to keep New Hampshire first. Ahead of the 2012 GOP presidential primary, for instance, multiple states moved their primary dates up, which prompted Gardner to threaten that hed schedule New Hampshires contest in December 2011 if he had to. And in an age where theres little bipartisanship on most issues, maintaining New Hampshires privileged place unites Democratic and Republican leaders in the Granite State, so if Nevada does switch to a primary and tries to schedule it before New Hampshires primary, Gardner will just pick an even earlier date.

Democratic efforts to shake up the primary calendar would probably be more feasible if Republicans were on board, but theres little sign they are. Republican Party chairs from Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada are banding together to protect their carve-out spots at the front of the line, and potential 2024 Republican presidential contenders arent anticipating radical shifts, as theyre already visiting Iowa and New Hampshire.

One reason for the GOPs apparent lack of interest in changing the schedule may be that it has fewer concerns than Democrats about these two states being representative: Using 2016 CCES data, we found Iowa ranked as the sixth-most representative state for Republicans, based on educational attainment and born-again religious identification although New Hampshire also ranked in the bottom half of all states.

Democrats may still try to relegate Iowas caucuses after the messy 2020 event, and some Iowa Democrats have acknowledged they will have to fight to hold onto their spot. But because the GOP isnt moving to supplant Iowa, attempts at the wholesale changes many Democrats want may be a bridge too far.

Now, moving Iowas caucuses wouldnt be as involved as moving the primary in New Hampshire because they are a party-run event and dont involve the state government. But even if the DNC heavily penalizes Iowa and New Hampshire for going first by reducing or even eliminating their delegates, it risks a situation where Republicans are still competing first in those states. This could prompt Democrats in those states to still hold their contests at the same time as Republicans, hoping the inevitably intense media coverage of the races preserves their influence over the overall nomination race.

At this early vantage point, we cant say what the primary schedule will look like in 2024, or if Democrats will even have a competitive race. (Biden has said he plans to seek reelection, but hell be 81 years old in 2024.) But what we can say at this point is that making major alterations to the nomination calendar has never been easy if it were, things wouldve changed already. And attempts to remove the two states that have long had a stranglehold on the top rung might prove to be especially messy.

Read the original here:

Many Democrats Are Sick Of Iowa And New Hampshire Going First, But The Primary Calendar Is Unlikely To Change - FiveThirtyEight

Although H.R. 1 has been around for a couple of yearsit was the first thing Democrats introduced in 2019, when they took over the Houseit uses the same strategy that the party adopted for COVID-19 relief and infrastructure: Throw as much stuff as possible in and try to ram it through. A Democratic aide told Voxs Andrew Prokop that about 60 separate bills were rolled together to make this bill. That worked with the relief package, but its creating complications for H.R. 1.

Read: Democrats only chance to stop the GOP assault on voting rights

Many Democrats support certain versions of campaign-finance reform, for example. But some of them, such as Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, are uncomfortable with the federal government meddling with state power over election administration (though its been done plenty in the past). Black Democrats are eager to roll back changes such as Georgias new law, which Senator Raphael Warnock has branded Jim Crow in new clothes, but The New York Times reports that some of them are also wary of independent commissions handling redistricting, a central idea of the bill but one that might carve up majority-minority districts, especially in the South.

All of the proposals are plausible reforms to improve democracy, though many Republicans disagree with these ideas. The various elements of the bill arent really at odds with one another, even if their supporters are. But they represent different theories about the most perilous threat to Democrats and to their voters.

Movements to reform campaign finance have been around since Mark Hanna pioneered the big-money campaign in 1896. Many have been bipartisan, culminating in the 2002 McCain-Feingold Act. But in the 21st century, campaign-finance reform has largely been a progressive priority. Left-of-center concerns grew especially sharp after the Supreme Courts 2010 Citizens United decision, and for a time, many Democrats viewed that decision as the most pressing matter in politics. Unrestrained corporate donations would warp democracy, they warned, and also swamp Democratic candidates with donations to GOP candidates.

David A. Graham: The GOP abandons democracy

In 2016, Hillary Clinton placed that worry at the center of her presidential campaign. We need to appoint Supreme Court justices who will get money out of politics and expand voting rights, not restrict them, she said in her nomination-acceptance speech. And we'll pass a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United! (This was somewhat personal for Clintonthe Supreme Court case centered on a film attacking herthough she also enjoyed the support of super PACs that the decision had enabled during the campaign.)

Of course, Clinton did not move to overturn the decision, because she did not win. But her loss and the 2016 election were the beginning of the eclipse of campaign-finance reform as a central issue for Democrats. The rise of the fundraising platform ActBlue, and especially the astonishing small-dollar success of Senator Bernie Sanderss primary campaign, showed that Democrats could compete by amassing small donations. Meanwhile, pro-Clinton spending (both by her campaign and by outside groups) far outpaced pro-Trump spending. In 2020, the Democratic candidate, Joe Biden, barely mentioned Citizens United during his campaign.

See the rest here:

Democrats Are Short on Votes and Long on Irony - The Atlantic

WASHINGTON A top Senate official ruled on Monday that Democrats could use the fast-track budget reconciliation process for a second time this fiscal year, potentially handing them broader power to push through President Bidens agenda, including his infrastructure plan, over Republican opposition.

The decision by the parliamentarian means that Democrats can essentially reopen the budget plan they passed in February and add directives to enact the infrastructure package or other initiatives, shielding them from a filibuster that requires 60 votes to overcome.

It came as Democratic leaders were contemplating how to use their slim majorities in the House and Senate to enact Mr. Bidens infrastructure proposals, including a huge public-works plan he released last week and a second initiative to be released in the coming months to address economic inequities, provide paid leave to workers and support child care.

But the decision has potential significance beyond those plans, and even the current Congress. The guidance could substantially weaken the filibuster by allowing the majority party to use budget reconciliation a powerful tool that allows measures related to taxes and spending to pass on a majority vote multiple times in a single fiscal year. That would dilute the power of the minority to stall or block such legislation in the Senate, the latest bid by the party in power to chip away at the arcane filibuster rules.

It was not clear how Democrats would use their newfound power, or for what. But the preliminary guidance from Elizabeth MacDonough, the parliamentarian, most likely gives them additional opportunities to push elements of Mr. Bidens agenda through the 50-to-50 Senate without abolishing the filibuster or watering down their proposals to win at least 10 Republican votes.

Democrats had already used budget reconciliation to push through Mr. Bidens $1.9 trillion stimulus last month without any Republican votes. But with some Democrats reluctant to dismantle the filibuster, the rest of Mr. Bidens agenda risks stalling amid Republican objections.

Seeking alternative avenues, Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the majority leader, had argued that the rules allowed the Senate to revisit the budget blueprint that allowed for passage of the pandemic relief plan and take at least one more crack at reconciliation before the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30.

Because there was no precedent for doing so, he asked Ms. MacDonough, a nonpartisan civil servant who interprets Senate rules, for guidance. On Monday, she blessed the maneuver, according to Justin Goodman, a spokesman for Mr. Schumer, who said that some parameters still need to be worked out.

The ruling allows Democrats additional tools to improve the lives of Americans if Republican obstruction continues, Mr. Goodman said in a statement, calling the opinion an important step forward in ensuring that this key pathway is available to Democrats if needed.

Democrats already had two more opportunities to use the reconciliation process during the 117th Congress, under budget blueprints for fiscal years 2022 and 2023. But the ruling from Ms. MacDonough allows them to use the maneuver at least two more times during this calendar year alone, and could further increase the opportunities for them to do so before the end of 2022.

The option does not guarantee a smooth path for Mr. Bidens agenda; with narrow majorities in both chambers, party leaders will have to keep Democrats almost entirely united to be able to use the maneuver successfully. And reconciliation is subject to strict budgetary rules that limit what can be included.

Top Democratic officials have declined to say when they will use the budget tool again. But lawmakers and aides have floated a number of possibilities, ranging from infrastructure to immigration, that could be steered around Republican objections and into law.

Its important because it gives us a little more flexibility we dont have to push everything into one package, Senator Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent who is chairman of the Budget Committee, said on MSNBC, listing a number of priorities he wanted to pass. The ruling of the parliamentarian gives us a little bit more opportunity in that direction.

Progressive lawmakers have increasingly agitated for a change to the rules of the Senate that would allow the party to dismantle the filibuster.

But any effort to pass further legislation with a simple majority will be considerably more difficult than it was with the stimulus package, which cleared both chambers and became law in less than three months. Democrats are already haggling over what should be included in the infrastructure plan, and how to pay for it.

Republicans, who have largely criticized Mr. Bidens agenda, are likely to object to any use of the tool, which would virtually cut them out of the process. Reconciliation also consumes a substantial amount of floor time, which could otherwise be used for approving administration nominees and judicial appointments.

There are more opportunities to run the obstacle course and risk all the dangers, but you still have to run the obstacle course, said Zach Moller, deputy director of the economic program at Third Way, a left-leaning think tank in Washington, and a former aide on the Senate Budget Committee. The process and the painfulness of budget reconciliation is still required to go through here.

Several Democrats have said they hope for bipartisan support for their initiatives, including Mr. Bidens infrastructure proposal. But taking a cue from the president, they have also begun to argue that they have support from Republican voters and local officials, even if Republican lawmakers in Washington have objected to the plan.

Some Republicans balked at Mr. Schumers parsing of budgetary law, saying it suggested that congressional Democrats had no genuine interest in negotiating the details of an infrastructure plan, let alone more politically charged issues like immigration reform.

It should be subjected to extensive hearings in both the House and the Senate, and not rammed through, Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, said of the infrastructure package in an interview last week. But the attempt to expand the use of reconciliation, she said, seems to signal what direction they want to go in.

Go here to read the rest:

Democrats Win Crucial Tool to Enact Bidens Plans, Including Infrastructure - The New York Times

Like every Nevadan, I grew up in awe of the American experiment. As children, we looked up to the flag and were proud of what it symbolized and what it stood forfreedom, opportunity and promise.Back then, we knew both partiesdespite their political differencesshared the same values.

Like so many other Nevadans, I registered with the Democratic Party because Democrats seemed to be the party of the working class. As a dishwasher who joined the Culinary Union, thats what wasand still isimportant to me.

But like President Ronald Reagan and President Donald Trump, Ive seen firsthand how the Democrat Party has changedradically, and not for the better.Theyve embraced a socialist, extremist agenda that is not the party of JFK, or of my parents.Their ideas hurt working-class families, restrict freedom and extinguish opportunity for millions of Americansparticularly working-class minorities who deserve the chance to give their families a better life.

NIKKI HALEY: BIDEN'S BORDER CRISIS HERE ARE LESSONS HE CAN LEARN FROM TRUMP'S IMMIGRATION EXAMPLE

As the Democratic mayor of North Las Vegas, I have the great privilege of leading our city, both in times of prosperity and through incredibly trying times, much like weve seen this past year. We Nevadans, and we Americans, are resilient. We live in the greatest country in the world, made possible thanks to the values we hold dear. Today, these values are under attack.

Here in Nevada, weve seen the full takeover of the Democratic Party by admitted socialists.Their goal is clearending the America we know and love, and replacing it with a culture of socialist conformity that erases freedom, opportunity and liberty from the American canvas.

I will not let the America I love be hijacked by an extremist left-wing mob that blacklists, bans, shouts down and cancels anyone who disagrees with them.

That is why I am switching to register as a member of the Republican Party.Though Ive been a registered Democrat on paper, I made the switch in my heart a long time ago, because on some things, theres simply no compromise.

Thats why I voted for President Trump twice. Thats why I had an A-plus rating from the NRA and their endorsement in my time in the state Senate. I refused to compromise my pro-life, pro-Second amendment values.

There used to be a place in the Democratic Party for conservative voices like mine.Today, thats no longer the case.

There used to be a place in the Democratic Party for conservative voices like mine.Today, thats no longer the case.Their party demands a senseless devotion to cancel culture, socialism and anti-American values I simply do not share.

Im not the only former Democrat who feels abandoned by the modern Democrat Party.I know there are countless others who want to make the switch, because it means the difference between hope and despair for their children and grandchildren. And I want them to join me in making that switch.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE OPINION NEWSLETTER

The Republican Party that has emerged from President Trumps leadership is a working-class party of opportunity, freedom and hope.I dont just want that for my familyI want that for every Nevadan and American.

The Great Seal of America says:"Out of many, one."Our national motto is:"In God we trust."Its time to bring people together to get things done. Its time to stop shouting and start solving problems. Its time to defend the America we love so our sons and daughters can share in the blessings weve enjoyed.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Read the original:

Nevada Mayor John Lee: Why I'm leaving the Democratic Party - Fox News

Democrats are pushing a sweeping voting bill that would make many changes to rules regarding voting and campaign finance. The bill is facing a tough battle in the evenly divided Senate in coming weeks, after the House version of the bill passed 220-210 with no Republican support.

Proponents say the bill is necessary to protect access to the polls, especially for minority voters. They also argue that it is crucial now because many GOP-controlled state legislatures are considering their own laws to tighten voting rules, saying they would improve election security. (You can see a guide to Georgias new rules here.) Republicans argue that the bill amounts to a partisan, federal takeover of elections that would make voting less secure.

Here is a look at what is in the roughly 800-page bill, known as the For the People Act.

Big chunks of the For the People Act lay out rules regarding voting. Bill authors say new national minimum standards are needed to ensure access to the polls, while Republicans argue that states should retain flexibility on how they run elections and that the proposal would represent a federal takeover of voting rules.

States currently have wide latitude on questions such as early voting and vote-by-mail options. Some federal restrictions on changes to election practices in Southern states, which had been a core provision of the Voting Rights Act, were nullified by the Supreme Court in 2013.

Read more here:

Whats in the Democrats Voting-Rights Bill - The Wall Street Journal