I fear your fix has a big problem. The Constitution gives the authority to each state's legislature as to how that state's electoral college members are chosen. Trump's 2024 strategy is to pack state legislatures with Trumpists who will override the voters choice, if Trump loses that state. All that is required is enough of the Republ…
I fear your fix has a big problem. The Constitution gives the authority to each state's legislature as to how that state's electoral college members are chosen. Trump's 2024 strategy is to pack state legislatures with Trumpists who will override the voters choice, if Trump loses that state. All that is required is enough of the Republican base to believe the election was stolen, or to believe that the Republican Party is the party of God and therefore has the right to steal the election itself. Amy Klobuchar's bill is what we need.
I haven't read Barton Gellman's piece in The Atlantic, but he had a fascinating if dispiriting and terrifying discussion with Ben Wittes on today's Lawfare podcast. From the sound of things, the Constitution basically lets state legislatures do whatever they want when it comes to determining their slate of electors for president; it becomes dicier if the state holds an election to determine whom to give the electors, and then the Legislature disregards those results and sends in its own electors, because that may be a violation of its own election laws, but it's not clear that there would be anything to do about it. Add a likely GOP congress into things, when it comes time to certify electors, and the potential for states to send in either multiple slates or slates that are not reflective of the results of their own elections, and all of the chicanery going on in GOP state Legislatures installing stop-the-stealers in key positions within the election process, and 2024 is shaping up to be an all out crisis.
What is most problematic of all, though, is that this all may be completely legal within the framework of the US Constitution. The Constitution needs amending in several areas, with how presidents are chosen, the Second Amendment, and other areas, and it is impossible to imagine it being amended.
The Constitution leaves the method of choosing Electors to the state. That is basically it. It says nothing about elections or about those electors being elected by popular vote.
Art II Sect 1:
Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.
Texas could write an election law that simply said that the electors for the State of Texas would be appointed by the Legislature on Election day. That would be fully constitutional. The SCotUS could say absolutely nothing against it.
The thing is that the GoP and the Legislatures that they currently control do not feel confident enough to just outright do this yet. Notice the yet, there. I think it is just a matter of time before someone tries and takes that plunge (if the other ways they are trying do not work).
What they are doing instead is making it harder for people to vote--particularly people who are not GoP supporters. They are also setting it up so that if there is an outcome that they do not like the can scream fraud and THEN get the electors they want.
They want to (at this time) maintain the fig leaf of popular participation in the choice of electors. If that doesn't work, at some point someone will point out to them what I just pointed out to you (because I don't think a lot of these state legislators are necessarily all that bright or educated especially WRT the Constitution) and they will try that.
Welp, if we can't pass filibuster reform, then amending the constitution should be a snap. I personally think we should abolish the electoral college, but that's another thing that ain't happening soon. If we could get Mansinema on board with amending the filibuster just to pass John Lewis Voting Rights act, that might be the easiest step forward since it's basically just reinstating the Voting Rights Act of 1965. This gives GOP the least ammo in attack ads as I think it would be hard to run against John Lewis.
Amending the Constitution would be more difficult than getting rid of the filibuster--and no state or political party that benefits from the current setup would sign on for it. How long has the ERA been floating around now?
Most of the politicians have little or no interest in making changes in the current system as it is the system that they are used to and have benefitted from. Manchin knows which side of the bread his butter is on... as do some of the others.
Racists, of course, don't think that racism exists or that, if it does, it isn't bad enough that we need actually do anything about it. We are past all that, right? Apparently not... but SCotUS says so in their ivory tower.
Any political faction that controls the SCotUS has the ability to negate laws.. or precedent.
There are a lot of things that need to change in our system if you want it to actually be more Democratic. Those things are unlikely to happen because you will be asking people that benefit from the status quo to change the status quo.
The Constitution is showing its age, unfortunately. It wasn't a terribly democratic document to begin with as a product of the late 18th century, and a lot a what we have today that is democratic apparently is more the product of norms than due to the actual text of our founding document. Direct election of Senators had to be added to the Constitution, but at least that can't go away now. Obviously the franchise originally excluded virtually everyone in the Republic, quite the irony for the revolution sparked by outrage over taxation without representation.
No one has decided to exploit the lack of democracy codified into the Constitution until the present incarnation of the GOP. The Electoral College is by its nature undemocratic, since we've had a recent spate of presidents getting elected while losing the popular vote, but the GOP is bent on eliminating whatever is democratic even in that institution, because nothing says states must hold elections to determine Electors. I agree with you that Federal oversight of state-run elections is probably the best model, but I don't see any enforcement mechanism through legislation that could pass constitutional muster if challenged.
Another concern I have is, if we do pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, which will require some sort of filibuster reform at the very least, it would be, as you say, basically re-establishing the original Voting Rights Act of 1965 that the SCOTUS recently dumped into the wastebasket, I believe when conservatives held a 5-4 majority on the bench. I'm not entirely clear on what the grounds for their decision was, I think basically the rationale was that racism doesn't exist anymore or something, but if they eliminated the 1965 provisions, what would prevent a 6-3 court from doing the same to this John Lewis bill? And then we've eliminated the filibuster to pass a bill that will just end up overturned by SCOTUS. I don't have any bright ideas.
Your ideas sound a heck of a lot brighter than mine tho! Lol! Yeah, the court would be an issue, but maybe they wouldn’t touch this because they’re worried about seeming overly political with all these very partisan rulings… but I have no idea. It’s a solid point. John Roberts was very responsible for gutting the voting rights act, which is why whenever I think of John Roberts it’s like pulling petals off a daisy. “I hate him, I hate him not, but I hate him, hate him not.” 🌸 😂
I support federal oversight, but elections should be decentralized and run by the states. The last election was the safest in history, we just have one sociopath that won't accept the results. I still believe decentralized voting is the way to go. Think about if we had federalized, centralized elections. It would just take one hacker from Russia or China to screw everything up. Also, Trump could have argued that Russia/China screwed with the election and he could have pursued one law suit rather than having to file in all of the states he lost. It would be way easier for him to cast doubt on centralized elections vs. decentralized ones.... because he's going to cast doubt no matter what! Make it harder/more expensive for him to do so.
I fear your fix has a big problem. The Constitution gives the authority to each state's legislature as to how that state's electoral college members are chosen. Trump's 2024 strategy is to pack state legislatures with Trumpists who will override the voters choice, if Trump loses that state. All that is required is enough of the Republican base to believe the election was stolen, or to believe that the Republican Party is the party of God and therefore has the right to steal the election itself. Amy Klobuchar's bill is what we need.
I haven't read Barton Gellman's piece in The Atlantic, but he had a fascinating if dispiriting and terrifying discussion with Ben Wittes on today's Lawfare podcast. From the sound of things, the Constitution basically lets state legislatures do whatever they want when it comes to determining their slate of electors for president; it becomes dicier if the state holds an election to determine whom to give the electors, and then the Legislature disregards those results and sends in its own electors, because that may be a violation of its own election laws, but it's not clear that there would be anything to do about it. Add a likely GOP congress into things, when it comes time to certify electors, and the potential for states to send in either multiple slates or slates that are not reflective of the results of their own elections, and all of the chicanery going on in GOP state Legislatures installing stop-the-stealers in key positions within the election process, and 2024 is shaping up to be an all out crisis.
What is most problematic of all, though, is that this all may be completely legal within the framework of the US Constitution. The Constitution needs amending in several areas, with how presidents are chosen, the Second Amendment, and other areas, and it is impossible to imagine it being amended.
The Constitution leaves the method of choosing Electors to the state. That is basically it. It says nothing about elections or about those electors being elected by popular vote.
Art II Sect 1:
Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.
Texas could write an election law that simply said that the electors for the State of Texas would be appointed by the Legislature on Election day. That would be fully constitutional. The SCotUS could say absolutely nothing against it.
The thing is that the GoP and the Legislatures that they currently control do not feel confident enough to just outright do this yet. Notice the yet, there. I think it is just a matter of time before someone tries and takes that plunge (if the other ways they are trying do not work).
What they are doing instead is making it harder for people to vote--particularly people who are not GoP supporters. They are also setting it up so that if there is an outcome that they do not like the can scream fraud and THEN get the electors they want.
They want to (at this time) maintain the fig leaf of popular participation in the choice of electors. If that doesn't work, at some point someone will point out to them what I just pointed out to you (because I don't think a lot of these state legislators are necessarily all that bright or educated especially WRT the Constitution) and they will try that.
But also--- that is terrifying Don, and I'll need to check that Pod out.
Welp, if we can't pass filibuster reform, then amending the constitution should be a snap. I personally think we should abolish the electoral college, but that's another thing that ain't happening soon. If we could get Mansinema on board with amending the filibuster just to pass John Lewis Voting Rights act, that might be the easiest step forward since it's basically just reinstating the Voting Rights Act of 1965. This gives GOP the least ammo in attack ads as I think it would be hard to run against John Lewis.
Amending the Constitution would be more difficult than getting rid of the filibuster--and no state or political party that benefits from the current setup would sign on for it. How long has the ERA been floating around now?
Most of the politicians have little or no interest in making changes in the current system as it is the system that they are used to and have benefitted from. Manchin knows which side of the bread his butter is on... as do some of the others.
Racists, of course, don't think that racism exists or that, if it does, it isn't bad enough that we need actually do anything about it. We are past all that, right? Apparently not... but SCotUS says so in their ivory tower.
Any political faction that controls the SCotUS has the ability to negate laws.. or precedent.
There are a lot of things that need to change in our system if you want it to actually be more Democratic. Those things are unlikely to happen because you will be asking people that benefit from the status quo to change the status quo.
The Constitution is showing its age, unfortunately. It wasn't a terribly democratic document to begin with as a product of the late 18th century, and a lot a what we have today that is democratic apparently is more the product of norms than due to the actual text of our founding document. Direct election of Senators had to be added to the Constitution, but at least that can't go away now. Obviously the franchise originally excluded virtually everyone in the Republic, quite the irony for the revolution sparked by outrage over taxation without representation.
No one has decided to exploit the lack of democracy codified into the Constitution until the present incarnation of the GOP. The Electoral College is by its nature undemocratic, since we've had a recent spate of presidents getting elected while losing the popular vote, but the GOP is bent on eliminating whatever is democratic even in that institution, because nothing says states must hold elections to determine Electors. I agree with you that Federal oversight of state-run elections is probably the best model, but I don't see any enforcement mechanism through legislation that could pass constitutional muster if challenged.
Another concern I have is, if we do pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, which will require some sort of filibuster reform at the very least, it would be, as you say, basically re-establishing the original Voting Rights Act of 1965 that the SCOTUS recently dumped into the wastebasket, I believe when conservatives held a 5-4 majority on the bench. I'm not entirely clear on what the grounds for their decision was, I think basically the rationale was that racism doesn't exist anymore or something, but if they eliminated the 1965 provisions, what would prevent a 6-3 court from doing the same to this John Lewis bill? And then we've eliminated the filibuster to pass a bill that will just end up overturned by SCOTUS. I don't have any bright ideas.
Your ideas sound a heck of a lot brighter than mine tho! Lol! Yeah, the court would be an issue, but maybe they wouldn’t touch this because they’re worried about seeming overly political with all these very partisan rulings… but I have no idea. It’s a solid point. John Roberts was very responsible for gutting the voting rights act, which is why whenever I think of John Roberts it’s like pulling petals off a daisy. “I hate him, I hate him not, but I hate him, hate him not.” 🌸 😂
I support federal oversight, but elections should be decentralized and run by the states. The last election was the safest in history, we just have one sociopath that won't accept the results. I still believe decentralized voting is the way to go. Think about if we had federalized, centralized elections. It would just take one hacker from Russia or China to screw everything up. Also, Trump could have argued that Russia/China screwed with the election and he could have pursued one law suit rather than having to file in all of the states he lost. It would be way easier for him to cast doubt on centralized elections vs. decentralized ones.... because he's going to cast doubt no matter what! Make it harder/more expensive for him to do so.