Image 01 Image 03

Senate Republicans Use Filibuster to Block Election Reform Bill

Senate Republicans Use Filibuster to Block Election Reform Bill

You know this will keep the fight going over the filibuster. The Democrats and progressives will only apply more pressure on Dems. Manchin and Sinema.

The Senate Republicans used the filibuster to block the election reform bill “For the People Act.”

You know the Democrats and progressives will up their anger towards Sens. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema because they refuse to end the filibuster.

The bill needed 60 votes:

The “For the People Act” needed 60 votes to clear a procedural vote in the Senate Tuesday, but Republicans filibustered and killed the legislation from advancing to debate. No Republicans joined with the 50 Democrats on the motion to proceed.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said Republicans won’t stand for Democrats’ attempt to impose new voting standards on states that would “rig” elections in their favor. He called the substance of the nearly 900-page bill “rotten” to its core.

Republicans took issue with imposing federal standards on state elections that they said would weaken state ID requirements. They also oppose starting a new public financing system for congressional elections and politicizing the Federal Elections Commission that enforces campaign finance laws.

You know the bill is not redeemable when centrist Republicans disapprove of it:

Sen. Susan Collins, a Maine Republican, pointed out voter participation increased to record levels in many states in the 2020 election.

“This information contradicts the underlying premise in S. 1, that we must overturn the law in every state in our nation in order to preserve the right to vote,” Collins said.

Collins said the new regulations imposed under the measure would be burdensome and overturn voter integrity laws, such as the requirement to show voter identification in 35 states.

Collins said a provision to allow ballots to be turned in seven days after the election would create chaotic elections. She called the measure “flawed” and said it could not serve as the basis for a bipartisan agreement.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, a centrist Republican from Alaska, said the measure contained “noteworthy goals,” but she would vote against it.

“This bill before the Senate isn’t so much about voting rights as it is a partisan federal takeover of the election system,” Murkowski said.

The Democrats pleaded with Republicans to at least pass the bill through the procedural vote so they can at least debate it.

Sinema Wants to Keep the Filibuster

The news comes after Sinema felt the heat from her colleagues, media, and pundits who cannot accept the fact that she does not want to get rid of the filibuster.

The outrage machine came out on Tuesday after she stood firm in her Washington Post op-ed.

Sinema’s Stance on the Filibuster

The Washington Post got hasty in January, writing that “she might be willing to eliminate the filibuster.” The newspaper had to update the piece because her office said she “is firmly opposed to doing so and ‘is not open to changing her mind.'”

No one heard Sinema because ever since then reporters will not stop asking her about the filibuster.

On Monday, Sinema penned an op-ed in WaPo explaining her position once again. She first mentioned what Arizonans worry about and her job is to represent them. What they want is her job, not the party, media, or pundits.

Sinema also looks at the future along with the present: “Lasting results — rather than temporary victories, destined to be reversed, undermining the certainty that America’s families and employers depend on.”

You know, like what would the Democrats do if the Republicans had control? Sinema explained:

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?

How Dare Sinema Not Bend the Knee

The op-ed is crystal clear. It is a perfect diamond. No one can misconstrue how Sinema feels about the filibuster.

Reporters on Tuesday:

Democrats and progressives have not let up on Sinema. By the way, I do not blame her for chuckling. They’ve asked her this stupid question for months.

Personal Praise for Sinema

I’ve been trying not to get personal and stick to straight news, but lately, it’s been hard. Can you blame me?

Well, Sinema deserves some praise.

I’ve liked Sinema since she literally burst onto the scene. Does not care what people think about her. She does things her own way when it comes to voting, legislation, and even her fashion. A real breath of fresh air among the drab in the swamp. Love her.

I hoped the swamp would not poison her mind, make her put her political career ahead of her oath and the people of Arizona. Would she cave to the party and swear allegiance to them over her constituents?

Nope. I don’t always agree with Sinema, but I respect that she sticks to her guns.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


AF_Chief_Master_Sgt | June 22, 2021 at 7:26 pm

Stephen Wolf: “She needs to be primaried by a Democrat who actually understands the stakes of the GOP’s attacks on democracy if it’s looking like Biden will win Arizona again in 2024.”

Biden didn’t win Arizona in 2020. That’s why Demitards insist on shutting down the audits.


    There has already been a recount and an audit, the follow on ‘audit’ is partisan, and mainly focussed on nut job conspiracy theories. ITs NOT an audit.

    Biden won Arizona 2020, that’s a done. There is no mechanism to reverse that legally.

      AnAdultInDiapers in reply to mark311. | June 23, 2021 at 8:51 am

      Could you perhaps explain what’s partisan about the forensic audit and why it’s bad that they prove the falsehood of conspiracy theories?

        kingofbytes in reply to AnAdultInDiapers. | June 23, 2021 at 9:06 am

        They can’t

          mark311 in reply to kingofbytes. | June 23, 2021 at 10:40 am

          The burden of proof is on you to show there is a reasonably basis for the conspiracy theories. Not the other way around. In the absence of evidence you can claim anything and therefore you need to have some lower limit of evidence t actually take what’s said seriously. At the moment the go fund me for the pretend audit has wasted a lot of peoples money.


        1) Lack of chain of custody for machines and ballots
        2) Failure to follow prescribed election laws for audits and forensic audits
        3)Poor counting processes which allows inaccuracies to creep in. A normal election audit has batches of 1o ballots checked by 3 separate groups and they have to tally. They cannot disagree, if they do its counted again. In this case its batches of 50 and if they don’t tally as long as two match. In other words its not an accurate count
        4)Audit being carried out by a conspiracy theorist and totally partisan entity Cyber Ninja) which is against the principle of an audit (which should be conducted in a neutral objective and non partisan way. The company and its sub contractors have no experience of audits or forensic audits.
        5) Ballots being recounted by partisan actors not neutral ones, recruitment has been from those attending stop the steal rallies
        6) release of specific findings part way through the process
        7) attempts to find evidence of conspiracy theories like bamboo etc. with an unknown methodology, lack of transparency
        8) Observers have documented poor practise including misplaced ballots, leaving them unattended
        9) There have already been recounts and audits here, why is another one going to change anything
        10) is there actually any evidence for the conspiracy theories, no, so why the hell would you carry out a pretend audit that actually will likely confuse the situation more.

          You sound like a guilty defendant trying to blab his way out of bad verdict.

          mark311 in reply to mark311. | June 23, 2021 at 5:52 pm


          You sound like someone with nothing to say of substance

          Milhouse in reply to mark311. | June 23, 2021 at 6:52 pm


          You sound like someone with nothing to say of substance

          Ah, you noticed.

          AnAdultInDiapers in reply to mark311. | June 24, 2021 at 12:40 pm

          Ok, points 1 to 3 apply to the 3rd November election but I haven’t seen any evidence that they’re applicable to the recent audit.

          Point 4 is ad hominem and you haven’t told us why you think they’re partisan or demonstrated that the audit itself is.

          Point 5 is an extension of part 4, but you really really don’t want people to start checking the political views of everybody that counted ballots on 3rd/4th November because I promise you, it won’t look remotely objective.

          Point 6 is null. The audit has released no findings as yet.

          Point 7 is one I consider a strength. An objective forensic audit should be able to demonstrate that conspiracy theories are false by proving that they have no basis in reality. Why would you be against that?

          Point 8 requires evidence that I haven’t seen. Indeed, the audit has protected ballots a lot better than the Secretary of State and her organisation appear to.

          The response to point 9 is simple: Because the previous recounts and supposed audits were done under the political control of the person that allegedly failed to protect the initial election. You don’t let the poacher count the pheasants.

          Point 10 is, at risk of being personal here, pathetic. As with point 7 you carry out a proper audit to establish traceable facts and bring to light all of the evidence. If that demonstrates that conspiracy theories are false then how is that a bad thing?

          I fear you’re worried that it’ll prove the opposite. You really want to know why the audit is so necessary? It’s because so many people are demonstrating such fear about what it might actually find.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to AF_Chief_Master_Sgt. | June 23, 2021 at 4:42 pm

    Biden is so impaired that he cannot walk and chew Gum at the same time. That was true before the election.

    It follows that he, or should I say his handlers, ran a fraudulent campaign, backed up by wide spread fraud to get him elected. Biden, his family and Harris are collectively crooked.

Sinema has a choice between bending to the left and being a one term senator, or not bending and getting re-elected.

ANY plan that relies on Sinema and Manchin being the deciding votes in your favor is doomed to failure. They have NEVER, EVER been the deciding votes in favor of any issue conservatives care about. They wait until they are sure that their votes are irrelevant before making a big fanfare and casting show votes to fool the stupid rubes that vote them in.

Manchin is already ‘evolving’ (i.e. his bribe demand has been met). Stand by for Sinema to ‘evolve’ on this issue.

When the Democrats actually bring it up for a vote, both of them will line up and vote how The Party tells them, like the good little dogs they are.

    CommoChief in reply to Olinser. | June 22, 2021 at 8:12 pm


    Until there are 60 votes to advance the motion to proceed (override the legislative filibuster) the bill does come to the floor for a vote on passage. That means ten r must join the d/progressive.

    If you mean that Manchin and Sinema will vote to change or eliminate the rule (legislative filibuster), they might. However, other d/progressive with longer memories and more sense, who have been able to stay silent as those two draw fire publicly might not be as sure a vote to end the filibuster as is being presented.

    IMO, this isn’t going to happen. The risk is too high. Remove the rule and the Senate majority no longer needs to work with the minority to achieve more consensus.

    I believe enough d/progressive recall what happened when they blew up the judicial filibuster to advance Obama nominees and a few short years later the r majority confirmed two SCOTUS, 60+ Appellate Judges and hundreds of District Judges nominated by DJT.

    They had their act of hubris stuck where the sun don’t shine. Once bitten, twice shy.

      artichoke in reply to CommoChief. | June 22, 2021 at 9:49 pm

      I think some intelligent Dems want the cover of having their party’s craziness blocked by the filibuster. They realize the country is in a very fragile state and might not last. Very little is holding us together at this point. We agree on almost nothing and we don’t like each other much.

        gonzotx in reply to artichoke. | June 22, 2021 at 10:13 pm

        I don’t think the Dems care about the fragility of the USA at all… unfortunately

          artichoke in reply to gonzotx. | June 22, 2021 at 11:45 pm

          I must say, I don’t either. I lost interest at the stolen election. The deal is over, we’re in a new situation now.

          jmccandles in reply to gonzotx. | June 23, 2021 at 8:10 am

          Exactly the bill is miss titled ,if they were honest in there intentions it would read We The Marxist’s Stealing Elections,that would be a truthful title

      mark311 in reply to CommoChief. | June 23, 2021 at 4:19 am

      “Remove the rule and the Senate majority no longer needs to work with the minority to achieve more consensus.”

      Isn’t the issue that GOP aren’t actually willing to achieve consensus?

        mailman in reply to mark311. | June 23, 2021 at 4:38 am

        How do you reach a concensus with a political party thats sole objective is the destruction of America? There is no conensus to be achieved with Democrats. Its like trying to reach a concencus with Hamas on how gently they can kill Jews.

          mark311 in reply to mailman. | June 23, 2021 at 8:41 am

          That’s pretty debateable, issues like infrastructure, health care, investment in a wide variety of things are fully capable of having a consensus view and recent history tells us that GOP doesn’t negotiate in good faith that makes consensus building very difficult.

          Destruction of America, that’s an obviously hyperbolic nonsensical statement. Far from a balanced view.

          kingofbytes in reply to mailman. | June 23, 2021 at 9:07 am

          Does mark mean consensus line consensus on Obamacare?

          mark311 in reply to mailman. | June 23, 2021 at 10:46 am

          @King of bytes

          Indeed, taking the view that reforming a system that is rated as the worst in the developing world is a god starting point. The Republican position of endorsing a system which performs so badly even in terms of Republican values isn’t really credible. When I say Republican values I mean its not really applicable to a competitive environment and its really really expensive. I’ve read stats that apparently 1/3rd of the health care cost is actually admin, which is absolutely horrendous.

        Why is it that people fall for the lie that it’s the GOP which is the obstacle to consensus? That they’re the ones who need to compromise? Doesn’t matter if they’re in the majority or minority, they’re the evil non-compromisers. Look at the infrastructure bill they’re trying to get done; a bunch of GOP senators have been negotiating in good faith but now it looks like the Democrats are going to tell them to buzz off and pass a bill via reconciliation like they did with the “American Rescue Plan” in March.

        As an aside, this would not be removing the rule. The rule would stay exactly the same and read exactly the same. The precedent is what would be changed, and the precedent overrides the rule when it comes to how things are run.

          mark311 in reply to p. | June 23, 2021 at 8:48 am

          Well hate to point it out but GOP hasn’t negotiated in good faith. Take Trumps Covid relief measures, they were passed on a partisan basis and then when it comes to Biden its suddenly no for very poor reasoning.

          The issue is that GOP doesnt compromise, look at the voter reform. It was filibustered before being debated. Thats not a sign of a party of compromise

          Infrastructure well from what I’ve read there has been some compromise on both sides but shall see.

          Not being funny but GOP through the Obama years made a lot of people very cynical about the motives and intentions of GOP.

          kingofbytes in reply to p. | June 23, 2021 at 9:07 am

          Democrats never negotiate in good faith. Just ask Bill Maher

          mark311 in reply to p. | June 23, 2021 at 10:48 am


          Well id rather be informed by the reality of the Obama years. Democrats spent an age negotiating with Republicans and what happened practically nothing. Why do you think Biden doesn’t give GOP so much time now, because he was burnt by GOP intransigence in the past.

          “Why is it that people fall for the lie that it’s the GOP which is the obstacle to consensus? …”

          They either watch CNN, read the ny times, washington post and the like; or, they are country club republicans who do same, rationalizing they
          want to keep an eye on the other side’.

        CommoChief in reply to mark311. | June 23, 2021 at 9:32 am


        No, not really. The majority in the Senate, regardless of party, must convince enough members of the minority to vote for both passage and a motion to proceed.

        Two hurdles there. Remember the make up of a majority in favor of a bill doesn’t have to be along party lines. It could be a bipartisan coalition of members from rural States.

        To the main point. If you want someone’s vote you need to convince them. That’s true in the Senate and for citizens casting a ballot.

        The term ‘log rolling’ is how this was traditionally accomplished. At root the majority would, in effect, bribe enough members of the minority to achieve passage. Obamacare/ACA is an example of this: see ‘Louisiana Purchase’ in reference to ACA.

        The purpose of the filibuster rule is to make sure that legislation has a broader consensus than a simple majority. This has the effect of slowing down sweeping change based on a temporary majority.

        If the majority offers a bill that has enough things that members of the minority approve of and the minority members decide the pro outweigh the con then they will vote for it.

        Until they reach that point they won’t.

          Milhouse in reply to CommoChief. | June 23, 2021 at 9:43 am

          The Louisiana Purchase was the majority bribing its own members to stick with it. They didn’t manage to get any minority members, not even the real squishes who later came over to their side to maintain what they’d done; even those could not be convinced to do it in the first place.

          CommoChief in reply to CommoChief. | June 23, 2021 at 10:04 am


          The distinction that I am making is:
          Majority = favor passage of the bill
          Minority = doesn’t favor passage of the bill

          A bipartisan or even nonpartisan coalition of Senators who favor a particular piece of legislation that benefits their States is just as much a majority as the formal partisan Majority in terms of the filibuster rule.

          Each type of majority must garner widespread support of at least 60 Senators to overcome a legislative filibuster.

          mark311 in reply to CommoChief. | June 23, 2021 at 10:54 am

          Your missing the point, GOP hasn’t in recent history demonstrated much in the way of willingness to compromise nor has it provided much of an alternative to policy. Its also the case that it acts radically differently on similar legislation with a different president. That’s not good faith. Sure there will be disagreements over policy but from the historical lens GOP doesn’t look very good.

          Well the Louisiana Purchase is an example of compromise, except given that GOP wouldn’t negotiate one way the Democrats had the negotiate the other way internally. In effect GOP forced the Democrats to make a law that was more left leaning.

          CommoChief in reply to CommoChief. | June 23, 2021 at 11:28 am


          So if a party which has a temporary majority fails to achieve the passage of legislation which represents the policy preferences of that party then it isn’t because they didn’t compromise enough with the minority it’s because the minority isn’t willing to compromise.

          Ok that’s your definition of compromise so lets see what the record show in recent years.

          Filibuster by d in DJT admin(4 years) 314

          Filibuster by r in Obama admin(8 years) 175

          So for comparison that’s 22 by r per year and 78 by d per year. Which means that r are more willing to compromise by a factor of nearly 400%.

          mark311 in reply to CommoChief. | June 23, 2021 at 4:20 pm


          That’s not quite what I ment by compromise.

          For clarity I mean negotiating in good faith for the purposes of a better law or laws. From where I’m sitting the GOP have a pretty poor record on that.

          Your point on the overall use of the filibuster is a fair one in the sense that the Democrats did use it a lot during the last administration. I think there are a number of factors influencing that. Increased partisanship, bad faith from both GOP and Democrats. Not least of course Trump, the overall atmosphere with Trump was outright hostility between the sides. I’m not clear on either side coming out well with respect to the filibuster. The picture on that issue is quite convoluted so I don’t have a definite position.

          CommoChief in reply to CommoChief. | June 23, 2021 at 6:56 pm


          The way legislation is crafted isn’t an idealistic vision of comity. It is about trading favors at the simplest.

          You and I are Senators. You want x +y to be included in the bill. I want x+ z to be in the bill.

          Choices time. We could mutually decide that the component that we both support, x, should be the final bill and discard y and z entirely.

          We could mutually decide to include y and z even though neither truly supports the component championed by the other because x is too important not to pass. I might give half of y if you give half of z for the same reason.

          Beyond that things get sticky. If I am in the minority my option is a filibuster. This increases the the minimum votes to 60. That puts pressure on you to move much closer to my position to earn the needed minority votes.

          Why doesn’t that happen? Well sweeping change isn’t going to be agreed to without concessions. The majority hates giving any concessions and so does the minority.

          Why? It’s easier to not pass anything for each. Then each can tell their team send us $ and elect more of our team, if you voters will do that then next time we get it done.

          Look at two items. Police reform bill offered by r in 2020 and infrastructure this year.

          The police reform bill was widely acceptable to d/progressive based upon public statements. It failed because the d wanted to preserve the issue to campaign on then offer their own bill when they were in a stronger position.

          Infrastructure bill is twisted all out of meaning. Only about 15% of the 2.7 Trillion was traditional infrastructure and had big tax hikes as pay for. The r offer was 900 Billion with about 500 billion in traditional infrastructure and about 650 billion paid for by shifting unspent Rona emergency funds.

          President and d wouldn’t take it. Turned down the biggest infrastructure bill in history. Why? To preserve the issue and use it to campaign against r and to fundraise.

          Both sides do similar things so please don’t think I am picking on d/progressive. It’s a bunch of kubuki theatre in DC about 3/4 or more of the time.

          mark311 in reply to CommoChief. | June 23, 2021 at 7:00 pm


          “Both sides do similar things so please don’t think I am picking on d/progressive. It’s a bunch of kubuki theatre in DC about 3/4 or more of the time.”

          Id agree with that at least to some extent

        Milhouse in reply to mark311. | June 23, 2021 at 7:05 pm

        “Remove the rule and the Senate majority no longer needs to work with the minority to achieve more consensus.”

        Isn’t the issue that GOP aren’t actually willing to achieve consensus?

        It's not up to the GOP to achieve consensus. That's up to those advocating any specific legislation. On some issues consensus simply can't be achieved; on some of them the majority can at least persuade enough minority members to let it pass without their support, but on some of them it can't, and on those the rule says that the legislation ought not to pass. Sinema likes that system and correctly warns the Dems that if they break it they won't like the result.

          mark311 in reply to Milhouse. | June 23, 2021 at 7:21 pm

          “It’s not up to the GOP to achieve consensus” that’s a fair point

          “Sinema likes that system and correctly warns the Dems that if they break it they won’t like the result.” Also a fair point

      The_Mew_Cat in reply to CommoChief. | June 23, 2021 at 8:51 am

      I think most Senate Democrats fear their base and the Media more than they fear future consequences of their actions. If they lose a Democratic Primary, they are out.

        Sorry, replying to you so I can reply to mark311.

        Oh yeah, because Obamacare was a bastion of partisan compromise.

        Dude, did you read the “American Rescue Plan”? A lot of the spending wasn’t related to Covid relief, and a whole bunch of money from the previous relief bills hadn’t been spent yet (and still hasn’t). There were states and localities whose elected officials were saying they wouldn’t know what to do with the more money being thrown at them.

        Same with this infrastructure bill; a lot of the spending has nothing to do with infrastructure, so Republicans, who have no problem passing an infrastructure bill, want one to be focused on just that. Why is that a bad thing?

        And remember the first Covid relief bill last March? The White House was negotiating night and day with Democrats, and when there was an agreement Pelosi threw her hissy fit, demanded more stuff, and delayed passage of the bill for the better part of a week. What happened? She didn’t get anything because public opinion was decidedly against her stunt.

        Furthermore, there would have been a relief bill in September but Democrats intentionally held it up for political purposes, to use it as a weapon in the election.

        Biden’s WH works this way: He goes in front of the cameras and preaches compromise and working with Republicans, and will even say it to their faces, but his staff turns around and does the opposite.

        Finally, why compromise on a bill that is horrendous? To make it less horrendous? You don’t think Democrats have ever stood in lockstep against Republican legislation they thought was horrendous and that was that? Because they certainly have.

        Long rant over.

          mark311 in reply to p. | June 23, 2021 at 11:22 am



          Well that’s no surprise if GOP wouldn’t in good faith come to the table

          American Rescue Plan

          Sorry don’t agree, many of the measures address issues caused by Covid and the consequnces of covid on specific industries, getting people back to work and covid testing measure

          160B for covid testing, etc
          360B making states solvent which were hit hard due to reduced tax revenue
          8.5B to allow rural hospital to stay open
          25B child care – to allo
          w people to get back to work due
          15B for essential workers child care
          130B schools – additional teachers etc to open schools, cope with measures required by covid (reduced class sizes etc)

          can you cite any measures that weren’t covid related?

          Infrastructure bill

          Such as? What aspects aren’t related to infrastructure and job growth?

          Covid relief bill last march

          The trump bill was poor which is why it ended up coming back for another round and then another once Biden became president.

          Actually there is broad agreement on the infrastructure bill in the sense that the US has underinvested for years on it. It also makes sense to frame it in terms of modernisation given climate change issues. We know that it is more expensive to sort climate change the longer it waits so investing now will reduce costs later.

          Republicans principle disagreement is not really the content but how its going to be paid for.

        CommoChief in reply to The_Mew_Cat. | June 23, 2021 at 9:38 am

        Mew cat,

        In deep blue States like CA or NY you are absolutely correct. In States where there is actual competition in a general election? Not so much.

The media’s coverage of these so-called “voter suppression” efforts has been shameful. Eliminating drive thru voting (as in the draft Texas legislation) is hardly “Jim Crow 2.0@

“Sen. Susan Collins, a Maine Republican, pointed out voter participation increased to record levels in many states in the 2020 election.”

Susan Collins is quite smart, so maybe she knew what an uppercut this was. Those fake-voters didn’t actually vote, participation was not that high. But since the Dems want to fake the participation, they can live with the consequences.

I object. It is not an “election reform” bill, any more than Stacey Abrams is the Governor of Georgia or Joe Biden* is President of the United States. Instead, it is an attempt to normalize the truly massive cheating we saw last year and outlaw any efforts to maintain election integrity.

Call it what it is: the Venezuela-ization of America.

“You know the bill is not redeemable when centrist Republicans disapprove of it”

Not because they’re virtuous in any way, but because it directly and personally threatens their future chances of election.

Babies in a Democrat chamber of social progress? Self-preservation is the highest form of evolutionary fitness, and, presumably, their continued viability is correlated with our own. Well, maybe not Republican per se, but our republican representatives who are Pro-Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness under a Constitutional framework less the Twilight Amendment (i.e. establishment of the Pro-Choice religion).

Shouldn’t it be called the “For the Power Act”? Because that’s all this is about, and nothing else.

    p in reply to UJ. | June 23, 2021 at 7:08 am

    Bingo. If you want a permanent Democrat majority, this bill is a good way to get it.

    As someone put it, this bill is a solution in search of a problem.

      The_Mew_Cat in reply to p. | June 23, 2021 at 8:47 am

      Staying in power is always the #1 priority for a political party. The Democrats are obviously worried that they won’t stay in power. Methinks they worry too much.

        “Staying in power is always the #1 priority for a political party….”

        Not the GOP! They’ve made an art form out of losing, but getting rich off taxpayers while working part time and avoiding all conflict.

      mark311 in reply to p. | June 23, 2021 at 8:51 am

      What. There are circa 35 voter suppression laws. That’s the problem. The electoral system already favours Republicans by several % points hence why Republicans struggle in terms of the popular vote.

        Milhouse in reply to mark311. | June 23, 2021 at 9:27 am

        No, there aren’t any “voter suppression” laws. On the contrary, not only is it far too easy to qualify to vote in the first place, it’s also far too easy to pretend to qualify when you haven’t. Both problems must be addressed.

        CommoChief in reply to mark311. | June 23, 2021 at 10:41 am


        Please provide the names of those who’s vote was ‘suppressed’.
        Note suppression isn’t the creation of a series of laws, rules and procedures that advance a compelling State interest in ballot integrity, ballot security and the maintenance of accurate voter registration lists which are created and applied in a transparent and neutral manner.

        Any law which isn’t applied in a neutral manner and lacks a compelling State interest is unconstitutional and would be struck down by our Judiciary.

          mark311 in reply to CommoChief. | June 23, 2021 at 11:26 am

          Election integrity in terms of ID laws is a non issue. So why make laws that will tend to restrict voting in terms of younger voters, minority voters and elderly voters who tend to have lower percentages of ID.

          Neither of you address the fundamental point which is there is no evidence of an issue, until you do so voter suppression laws have zero credibility.

          CommoChief in reply to CommoChief. | June 23, 2021 at 11:35 am

          So you will not provide the specific evidence that any individual had their vote suppressed.

          In the absence of evidence of the actual suppression of an individual’s ability to cast a ballot what are you concerned about?

          As to voter ID you do realize that both Stacy Abrams and SEN Warnock, among other prominent d/progressive have explicitly stated that voter ID is a good thing?

          That is a very recent flipflop on the position so you might not have gotten the memo.

          mark311 in reply to CommoChief. | June 23, 2021 at 4:09 pm

          @ commochief

          See comment later, it went there for some reason

When it comes to fighting against the Communist Party, the Franz von Papen Republicans are largely useless. It is sobering to realize that this vote was merely an effort by the crooked von Papen Republicans to keep their place at the Federal feeding trough, and not a sudden outbreak of concern for the Republic.

The_Mew_Cat | June 23, 2021 at 8:45 am

Trying to ram through a hard left agenda through a 50:50 Senate that depends on a tiebreaker is pretty darn bold. The Democrats are shameless and bold if nothing else. The bottom line – to ram this stuff through, they will have to increase their majority in the Senate in the Midterms and retain the House. Retaining the House may be their biggest problem.

“For the People” Act – I just want to start bitch-slapping every Marxocrat that opens their stupid mouths to speak.

The sole purpose of this “legislation” is to steal elections and they don’t even tray to deny it.

    mark311 in reply to Sternverbs. | June 23, 2021 at 4:22 pm


    What’s the mechanism by which they would steal the election using this voter law?

      Milhouse in reply to mark311. | June 23, 2021 at 7:28 pm

      Many mechanisms. Mostly by making fraudulent votes easier to cast and harder to detect. (1) They’re sending a gilt-edged invitation to would-be fraudulent voters, in the full expectation that this will benefit them. (2) They’re also enabling their own in-house fraud operations. (3) By increasing the likelihood that their own legitimate supporters will vote; this is another form of rigging the game in their favor, albeit a lawful one. (And no, increasing turnout is not a nonpartisan goal. There is no reason to suppose that higher turnout leads to better results. And there’s no reason Republicans should go along with measures designed to help their opposition win elections.)

        mark311 in reply to Milhouse. | June 23, 2021 at 7:44 pm

        Again I’m not clear there is any real evidence of an issue with fraud of that nature. There are quite a few assertions there, I suspect for 1) and 2) its a agree to disagree moment.

        That’s a strange statement, increasing voter turnout is usually thought of as inherently good. What’s your reasoning on this point?

          Milhouse in reply to mark311. | June 24, 2021 at 1:44 am

          The fact that fraud is so easy to get away with makes it completely implausible that it’s not an issue. Especially when one party is fighting tooth and nail to make it easy to get away with. Seriously, how can anyone argue with a straight face that although fraud is so easy to commit and almost impossible to get into any trouble for it, few if any people take advantage of that? Why wouldn’t people cheat? Because they’re all so naturally honest?! It is to laugh.

          That something is “usually thought” is not an argument, it’s an admission of not thinking. In fact it’s only “usually thought” that way on the left. The fact that you thought this is a universally agreed-on position speaks loudly to the sort of leftist bubble you exist in.

          Why would higher turnout be a good thing? What is gained when someone who has no interest in politics, who knows little or nothing about the issues or the candidates, is encouraged to choose between them? How could that possibly improve the quality of the result? How does encouraging ignorant or stupid people to vote improve the quality of the result? How does it makes sense to encourage those who pay no taxes to vote on how they are to be raised and what they are to be spent on? For those who have no stake in the public fisc to vote on its disposal? Most of our problems today stem from the abolition of literacy tests and the requirement to be a net taxpayer.

          mark311 in reply to mark311. | June 24, 2021 at 7:07 am

          I’m not sure id agree that fraud is easy, CISA were pretty explicit that the elections were very secure. I’m not also sure that its true to say that Democrats are making it easy to commit fraud given the reform bill includes security measures. Well cheating at voting implies a desire to do so, people generally need a return in order to cheat. Getting an extra vote for party x doesn’t seem a strong motive especially in context of it likely only being a tiny number of votes in most instances.

          Well “usually thought” in this context is me asking a question, that was my intuition. Its an honest way of speaking and openly implies I’m willing to have my mind changed. I’m not clear to it implies anything about anything, its pretty clear given my frequent comments here I’m not in a bubble.

          Higher turn out legitimises a result, it also ensures that everyone feels valued within the democracy, actually part of the system. The issue you speak of is in regard to how valid a vote is. I used to hold that position actually but the reality is that its pretty problematic sifting through what makes a vote valid from the point of view of how informed someone is. I could quite legitimately argue on that basis that the vast majority of the viewership of Fox news shouldn’t be allowed to vote since its a desperately partisan and has terrible journalist values. Again you could do the same with the viewership of CNN and you might have a point but that leaves us with a tiny percentage of people and in terms of elections that wont work. In other words the argument is a slippery slope to elitism and unlikely to lead to a functional government.

          “Most of our problems today stem from the abolition of literacy tests and the requirement to be a net taxpayer.”

          That’s a pretty bold claim, I think you’d need to look more deeply into the issues involved to find specific causes. I think if you looked deeply you’d likely find a range of socio-historic issues as well as political trends.

          I’m sure thefinereport would like to continue to vote, and I couldn’t in good conscious deny him/her the vote based on the displayed ignorance and stupidity. Tempting though it is!


I’ve already provided numerous studies as you well know.

The specific reason Stacey abrams has endorsed a comprise bill is because it seems to address another more serious issue which is that of redistricting. Having fair redistricting would be a big deal relative to voter ID and would balance out the effects.

    You don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. Ever.

    CommoChief in reply to mark311. | June 23, 2021 at 7:10 pm


    You cite studies offered by partisan actors. These studies purport to show that some groups might be more heavily impacted.

    That isn’t evidence of any individual’s franchise being suppressed. That is speculation that it might happen. A speculative harm isn’t generally actionable.

    In any event we do not have group rights . We have individual rights. You have to have a person who was actually harmed. You can’t produce a list of persons who has been harmed by voter ID.

    You shouldn’t feel bad about that, because neither have any of the numerous public interest law firms who have tried this in several attempts to litigate this issue.

      mark311 in reply to CommoChief. | June 23, 2021 at 7:31 pm

      With respect those studies are based on data from previous election before and after election ID laws being implemented, that’s not partisan nor is the interpretation.

      I’m not clear your group rights argument really works by extension if a group of people are having there rights infringed that’s intrinsically and necessarily means that the individual rights are being infringed.

      The issue with the litigation as you rightly point out is being specific as to who has been harmed. The standard with the court is to be specific, and thus a more generalised pattern is insufficient.

        CommoChief in reply to mark311. | June 23, 2021 at 7:56 pm


        Those studies, if they actually identify individuals who were harmed could be used to advance the lawsuit.

        If individual had experienced an actual harm then they are called plaintiffs, if they wanted to be. The reason there are no plaintiffs is that there is no evidence of harm to any specific person.

        In 2016 more votes cast and rising turnout among those groups. Same in 2020. Record or rising turn out with voter ID laws among groups which you contend are being suppressed doesn’t pass muster. Those increases are in absolute terms and % terms. Suppression doesn’t seem effective.

        Bottom line: you may not like voter ID. It is here to stay, IMO. A significant majority of voters want it. That’s r, d and independent voters. That’s also across ‘white, black, Hispanic and Asian’.

        Powerlineblog has some good graphs that charts these questions over time.

    Milhouse in reply to mark311. | June 23, 2021 at 7:32 pm

    “Studies” won’t cut it. Who exactly are these people with no ID and no means to get it, and how do they get through ordinary lives now? And if they’re marginal people, why do they want to vote? And why should they be encouraged to? The franchise is already too broad.

      mark311 in reply to Milhouse. | June 24, 2021 at 7:09 am

      What do you mean the franchise is too broad? It sounds like you have some specific criteria?

      Yeah dismissing studies out of hand isn’t helpful, do you have a substantive issue with the studies?

    Milhouse in reply to mark311. | June 23, 2021 at 7:38 pm

    There’s nothing “fair” about taking over redistricting. For the better part of a century Democrats gerrymandered shamelessly; those were the rules of the game, and they played it to the utmost. Now that Republicans have overcome their handicap and started playing the same game, the Democrats suddenly cry foul and try to change the rules. That is not fair and not acceptable.

    Objectively speaking, “nonpartisan” commissions are almost guaranteed to be biased in favor of Democrats, and that is sufficient reason for Republicans to oppose them.

      CommoChief in reply to Milhouse. | June 23, 2021 at 8:04 pm


      Yeah, Milhouse hit this point out of the park.

      If you can show me a commission made up of ‘non partisan’ individuals….. I have a bridge to sell you.

      No-one is nonpartisan. They voted or held office or campaigned or assisted or supported a campaign or ballot initiative or donated to a campaign or a partisan organization or in support of a single issue cause or endorsed a candidate or party or issue.

      For every position they took someone held the opposite position. That’s called partisanship. IMO.

      mark311 in reply to Milhouse. | June 24, 2021 at 3:30 am

      Well that depends on how it’s implemented doesn’t it. Given what you say surely it’s an issue that warrants making work in a fair direction. That historical context is an argument in favour of reform not against it. It’s also the case that if it were to be shown that the commission didn’t fairly redistrict it could be held to account under the proposed law since it wouldn’t be in compliance with it’s provisions.

      Objectively speaking it leans towards Democrats? How did you reach that conclusion?