Here’s a “Then What” question - voter related

I have read about a couple instances where the voters passed a proposition telling the state legislators that wanted something done like expanding Medicaid and the state legislators basically thumb their collective noses at the voters by ignoring what they passed.




Which again brings up the question as certain Republican majority state legislators are stripping power from elected officials when it come to elections and giving to themselves what happens if the voters vote to throw the bums out and the state legislators overturn the election. For no reason other then keeping their jobs.

Then what?

In today’s Washington Post…

“Opinion: Liz Cheney points to the plague of civic illiteracy. So what’s the cure?”

Opinion by
Jennifer Rubin
Columnist
June 21, 2021 at 7:30 a.m. PDT


“Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) has refused to allow her party the luxury of uncontested lying. A party that still wallows in the “big lie” of a stolen election, offers outlandish and Putin-like conspiracy theories (e.g., blaming the police and not the mob for the results of the Jan. 6 insurrection) and conducts a campaign of slander against the nation’s most esteemed immunologist should not be able to rely on the right-wing echo chamber to blot out inconvenient facts.

But while intentional misrepresentation is now rampant and widely accepted in the GOP, there is also a problem of abject ignorance, as Cheney told the New York Times’s Mark Leibovich in an interview:

“We’ve got people we’ve entrusted with the perpetuation of the Republic who don’t know what the rule of law is,” she said. “We probably need to do Constitution boot camps for newly sworn-in members of Congress. Clearly.”

She said her main pursuit now involved teaching basic civics to voters who had been misinformed by Mr. Trump and other Republicans who should know better. “I’m not naïve about the education that has to go on here,” Ms. Cheney said. “This is dangerous. It’s not complicated. I think Trump has a plan.”

Representatives such as Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) and Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) serve as a reminder that a working knowledge of the Constitution (let alone emotional stability) is not a requirement for members of Congress. It is tempting to say that members of Congress in the MAGA cult must be lying because no one could possibly be so uninformed, but both are likely at play. If Cheney is right about the ignorance of her colleagues (they seem daily to prove her point) and the Republican base, we should think seriously about the remedy.

Constitutional boot camps, a refresher course in U.S. history and a complete study of the writing and speeches of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. (not just the parts they select to justify their resistance) could shake lawmakers and their staffs from their intellectual stupor. This is not about political persuasion; it’s about a basic grounding in American democratic values.

Cheney should not stop there. She and her few sober-minded colleagues might consider using floor time at the end of the day to provide easily digestible lessons. “No, the House cannot change the outcome of a presidential election,” might be one. Another timely primer could be something along the lines of: “The Justice Department is not the president’s personal law firm.” The eyes of some Republican lawmakers might glaze over if asked to read the Federalist Papers, but even they should be able to digest five-minute videos and short transcripts about everything from the role of the free press to the necessity of an independent judiciary.

The problem of a methodically misinformed base is arguably a tougher problem. The damage that right-wing media has wrought in dumbing down the GOP base is hard to estimate. Voters don’t know what they don’t know — or what they have learned incorrectly.

Cheney and her small band of reality-based Republicans — as well as current and former Republican governors (who are trusted in their home states) and respected former judges (e.g., Michael McConnell, previously on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit) — would do well to insinuate themselves into the right-wing media diet of GOP voters. Painful as it might be, they need to go on the programs hosted by the worst purveyors of falsehoods and explain elementary aspects of American government.

They also need to bring civics and history instruction to evangelical churches and religious news outlets. (The systematic intellectual corruption of White evangelicals is a story deserving of exhaustive study.) The point is not to further politicize churches but to help congregants badly in need of a primer on why they should value democracy.

Instead of railing at mythical anti-conservative bias in social media, Republicans concerned about the descent into ignorance should challenge self-described conservatives to limit their intake of social media. That’s right — deny Facebook more eyeballs! Encourage fellow Americans to do something worthwhile (volunteer their time, join a book club, read to children) in place of the constant intake of noxious online content designed to promote radicalization and anger.

Cheney and others still hoping to reform the GOP must meet the ignorant, the misguided and the misinformed where they are. Denying both Republican politicians and their voters refuge in an alternate reality might be the Cheney Republicans’ greatest challenge. Certainly, many of the most entrenched cultists are not reachable, but millions of others might be. It is too much to hope to instill virtue in our fellow Americans, but raising the level of civic literacy is not beyond our reach.”

It’s not the Republican State legislators who want to lay the groundwork to steal an election, they have help in the Congress.

The voting bill is going to be voted on today in the Senate and we all know what’s going to happen.

Democratic State Legislators sent a letter to Congress saying they need this bill to pass.



The only way that bill is going to pass is getting rid of the filibuster.   Standing in the way are two idiots posing as Democrats.  Manchin wrote an op Ed explaining his reasoning for keeping the filibuster.  And now the other idiot is explaining her reasons.

I don’t advocate hitting people but I would sure like to take my old lady purse and whack these guys on the side of the head to try and knock some sense into them.





“Opinion: Kyrsten Sinema: We have more to lose than gain by ending the filibuster”

Opinion by Kyrsten Sinema
June 21, 2021 at 5:31 p.m. PDT

Kyrsten Sinema, a Democrat, represents Arizona in the U.S. Senate.
Everyday Arizonans are focused on questions that matter most in their daily lives.

Is my job secure? Can I expand my business? Can we afford college? What about health care? When can I retire? Is my community safe?
Meanwhile, much of Washington’s focus is on a Senate rule requiring 60 votes to advance most legislation.

Arizonans expect me to do what I promised when I ran for the House and the Senate: to be independent — like Arizona — and to work with anyone to achieve lasting results.

Lasting results — rather than temporary victories, destined to be reversed, undermining the certainty that America’s families and employers depend on.
The best way to achieve durable, lasting results? Bipartisan cooperation.
I understand bipartisanship seems outdated to many pundits. But the difficult work of collaboration is what we expect in Arizona. And I still believe it is the best way to identify realistic solutions — instead of escalating all-or-nothing political battles that result in no action, or in whipsawing federal policy reversals.
Since I was elected to Congress, a bipartisan approach has produced laws curbing suicide among our troops and veterans, boosting American manufacturing, delivering for Native American communities, combating hate crimes, and protecting public lands.

It’s no secret that I oppose eliminating the Senate’s 60-vote threshold. I held the same view during three terms in the U.S. House, and said the same after I was elected to the Senate in 2018. If anyone expected me to reverse my position because my party now controls the Senate, they should know that my approach to legislating in Congress is the same whether in the minority or majority.
Once in a majority, it is tempting to believe you will stay in the majority. But a Democratic Senate minority used the 60-vote threshold just last year to filibuster a police reform proposal and a covid-relief bill that many Democrats viewed as inadequate. Those filibusters were mounted not as attempts to block progress, but to force continued negotiations toward better solutions.
And, sometimes, the filibuster, as it’s been used in previous Congresses, is needed to protect against attacks on women’s health, clean air and water, or aid to children and families in need.

My support for retaining the 60-vote threshold is not based on the importance of any particular policy. It is based on what is best for our democracy. The filibuster compels moderation and helps protect the country from wild swings between opposing policy poles.

To those who want to eliminate the legislative filibuster to pass the For the People Act (voting-rights legislation I support and have co-sponsored), I would ask: Would it be good for our country if we did, only to see that legislation rescinded a few years from now and replaced by a nationwide voter-ID law or restrictions on voting by mail in federal elections, over the objections of the minority?

To those who want to eliminate the legislative filibuster to expand health-care access or retirement benefits: Would it be good for our country if we did, only to later see that legislation replaced by legislation dividing Medicaid into block grants, slashing earned Social Security and Medicare benefits, or defunding women’s reproductive health services?

To those who want to eliminate the legislative filibuster to empower federal agencies to better protect the environment or strengthen education: Would it be good for our country if we did, only to see federal agencies and programs shrunk, starved of resources, or abolished a few years from now?

This question is less about the immediate results from any of these Democratic or Republican goals — it is the likelihood of repeated radical reversals in federal policy, cementing uncertainty, deepening divisions and further eroding Americans’ confidence in our government.

And to those who fear that Senate rules will change anyway as soon as the Senate majority changes: I will not support an action that damages our democracy because someone else did so previously or might do so in the future. I do not accept a new standard by which important legislation can only pass on party-line votes — and when my party is again in the Senate minority, I will work just as hard to preserve the right to shape legislation.

Good-faith arguments have been made both criticizing and defending the Senate’s 60-vote threshold. I share the belief expressed in 2017 by 31 Senate Democrats opposing elimination of the filibuster — a belief shared by President Biden. While I am confident that several senators in my party still share that belief, the Senate has not held a debate on the matter.

It is time for the Senate to debate the legislative filibuster, so senators and our constituents can hear and fully consider the concerns and consequences. Hopefully, senators can then focus on crafting policies through open legislative processes and amendments, finding compromises that earn broad support.

A group of 10 Democrats and 11 Republicans that I am helping lead has reached an agreement on an infrastructure investment framework. We are now negotiating with the administration. Bipartisan working groups to which I belong are negotiating how to address our broken immigration system and raise the federal minimum wage. I strongly support bipartisan discussions underway on police reform. The Senate recently passed a critical water infrastructure bill, as well as crucial research, development and manufacturing legislation.
It’s possible that not all of these efforts will succeed — and those that do may not go as far as some of us wish.

But bipartisan policies that stand the test of time could help heal our country’s divisions and strengthen Americans’ confidence that our government is working for all of us and is worthy of all of us.

Instability, partisanship and tribalism continue to infect our politics. The solution, however, is not to continue weakening our democracy’s guardrails. If we eliminate the Senate’s 60-vote threshold, we will lose much more than we gain.”


At the end of the day both Sinema and Manchin live in a world that no longer exists.  Their actions will hurt a lot of Americans including the very people that voted for them.  And maybe it’s justified because it’s the choices voters made that got us to this place.

The only ones showing disdain for the American People’s choices is this idiot and other Republicans in Congress and Republican State Legislators.

Yeah good luck with that…

Marc Elias is one of the attorneys that is involved in the lawsuits filed as the voter suppression bills become law.  

Because of the obstructionist Republicans in the Senate this is all we have to salvage what’s left of the belief all eligible voters should be able to vote without suppression laws passed to make it harder.




“It Is Time To Protect the Certification Process”

By Marc Elias

“In state after state — from Florida to Montana — Republican legislatures are enacting laws making voting more difficult. These laws, which often target minority and young voters, are a scourge on our democracy that threatens the right to vote in order to gain partisan electoral advantage.

Though Congress has taken notice, progress has been difficult. While the House of Representatives passed the For the People Act (H.R. 1), which would preempt many of the worst of these new state laws, passing it in the closely divided Senate has so far proved more difficult. Additional legislation is also in the works — including the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which would restore a critical portion of the Voting Rights Act that was struck down by the Supreme Court.

While most of the legislative focus has been on the registration and voting process, significantly less attention has been paid to another point of vulnerability in our election system — the rules for tabulating and certifying elections. The right to vote is hollow if it does not include the right to have your vote counted and, if your candidate receives the highest number of votes, to have her assume the office to which she was elected. Republicans are taking aim at this vulnerability.

Historically, the period between election night and Inauguration Day was celebrated as the peaceful transfer of power. Diligent election officials rechecking their math to ensure every lawful vote was accurately counted gave confidence to the public that elections were fair, free and honest.

While there have been occasional disputes in close elections, they have not centered on the election certification process. In his 2000 concession speech, Al Gore noted that “other disputes have dragged on for weeks before reaching resolution and each time, both the victor and the vanquished have accepted the result peacefully and in the spirit of reconciliation.”

Unfortunately, Donald Trump offered no similar words of reconciliation. Instead, Trump used the time when we have traditionally celebrated democracy to degrade it. In the days between November 3, 2020, and January 20, 2021 (and continuing ever since), he fought tooth and nail to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power, including improperly pressuring those responsible for certifying elections to ignore their duty to count every vote.

In Michigan, for example, Trump and his allies waged efforts to prevent Michigan from certifying its election results.

First, there was a concerted effort to pressure the Republican members of the Wayne County Board of Canvassers not to certify the election results in the state’s largest county and home to the city of Detroit. Initially, the two Republican members of the bipartisan four-person Michigan State Canvassing Board blocked a move to certify the votes, producing a party-line deadlock that Trump celebrated. Later that evening, after public pressure mounted, both Republican Board members reversed their votes and the election results were unanimously certified. Had the Republican members not reversed their votes, Michigan would have faced an unprecedented failure to certify its election results for president.

When that effort failed, an intense campaign was aimed at the two Republican members of the four person Michigan State Canvassing Board. In the end, one of the two Republican members succumbed to the pressure and refused to certify the results by abstaining. Had he been joined by the other Republican member, Michigan would have again faced a failure to certify its election results for president.

While these efforts did not succeed in 2020, there is no guarantee that they will fail again in the future.

Since the violent insurrection on January 6, Trump and his allies have turned their attention to the state processes that are used to certify election results. In a number of states, they are enacting laws and policies that weaken fair election administration and nonpartisan election certification. In Georgia, for example, a new law allows the state legislature to effectively control the counting and certification process — stripping the secretary of state of some of his authority as retribution for his handling of the 2020 post-election and certification process.

It is clear that we need new safeguards to ensure a fair counting of ballots and certification of the winner.

First, the powers of state officials in the certification process must be clearly defined and limited. State officials responsible for certifying federal elections should not be allowed to rely on any information other than the election returns themselves. The job of a state official reviewing election returns for certification is to make sure the math is correct, nothing more. A state official who fails to abide by their duty should be subject to immediate removal.

Second, it is time to remove unnecessary steps in the certification process. With current technology, there is no longer reason for local boards of election to certify election results before passing them on to the state. While it may be charming to have villages, towns, cities and counties have a role in the process, our democracy can no longer afford to have these additional links in the certification chain. Once the local election officials have completed their final counting, they should provide those results to the state official in charge of elections.

Finally, Congress should abolish the requirement that a state’s governor, secretary of state, or partisan election board issue and sign the final certificate of election. Instead, Congress should require — for federal elections at least — that states certify their elections via a three-person certification commission that is comprised of the state’s chief justice, the justice who most often voted contrary to the chief justice in published decisions of the state supreme court during the year prior and a third justice to be chosen by those two justices. This certification commission would be responsible for reviewing the results, tabulations and underlying election records to ensure that the final certified results are accurate. The signatures of at least two of those commission members would be required on the certificate of election to have a binding effect.

The solution I propose will not solve every problem of election administration or post-election dispute. It won’t, for example, address many of the shortcomings of the Electoral Count Act, including Congress’s role in certifying presidential elections. Nor would it affect each House of Congress’s unique authority to “Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members.”

Nevertheless, these three steps to narrow, shorten and depoliticize the election certification process will help ensure that the candidate who receives the most votes is declared and certified the winner. It will also help restore the confidence in our election system that Trump continues to attack.”