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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY