Why liberals are wrong about the filibuster and a federal voting law

Joe Manchin’s Incoherent Case for Letting Republicans Destroy Democracy

In an op-ed yesterday, Manchin laid out a series of propositions that purport to explain his position, but upon close inspection make it difficult to understand what he believes or wants.

The internal contradiction of Manchin’s position is summarized in the first two sentences. The first one establishes that the right to vote is fundamental: “The right to vote is fundamental to our American democracy and protecting that right should not be about party or politics.” But in the next line, he qualifies that this right can “never” be protected in a partisan fashion: “Least of all, protecting this right, which is a value I share, should never be done in a partisan manner.”

Maybe Manchin thinks it’s fine for states to pass Republican-only voting restrictions. Or maybe he thinks it’s bad, but less bad than overriding it with a national-level bill to protect voting rights that requires curtailing the filibuster.

Why is he choosing this? Because, Manchin argues, “Voting and election reform that is done in a partisan manner will all but ensure partisan divisions continue to deepen.” And that is probably correct: Partisan divisions are likely to continue deepening if the Senate enacts protections for Americans’ right to vote. They will also probably continue deepening if it doesn’t. Partisan divisions have been deepening for a long time.

Let's be clear... the Constitution holds that States get to determine how they run their own elections. There are questions abound as to whether this sort of Federal law specifically designed to hand-cuff how States are running their elections would pass USSC muster to begin with. So we could start with that. 

But there is also no "bi-partisan" consensus on how to best hold elections. If there was then they would pass a bi-partisan bill. The general public is overwhelmingly in favor of things like Voter ID and other measures that would prevent fraud. They are also overwhelmingly in favor of more early voting and easier access. It certainly seems like something could be done to address the concerns of the public, but what the public wants really does not play a part in this particular argument. This is all about power and what laws will help which party.

So in the meantime you will see states offering differing manners in which they will hold their elections (as the constitution allows).  Conservative states will enact laws that concentrate on eliminating fraud, while liberal states will concentrate their efforts on laws that make voting easier.  Interestingly, both the Georgia and Texas laws do a little bit of both. Both increase security, while also expanding early voting opportunities and hours. 

While that might seem to be a fair compromise, liberals want everything to fall down on the side of "more access" and "less security". Moreover, liberals clearly doesn't care if there is a "bi-partisan" bill. Rather they somehow prefer one giant "federal" partisan bill that takes away State's rights to enact their own laws (as the constitution allows). Of course, that "federal bill" will ONLY address voter access and likely work to make security a secondary concern.

Oh, and let us not forget.  These laws in Texas and Georgia and elsewhere are very popular in the states that they are being passed in. These are also states that have enough votes to pass these without changing long standing traditions or breaking the system to get it done. The fact that liberals from New York and California want to tell Texas, Georgia, Florida and other conservative states how to hold election is proof positive that these people have a way larger impression of their own importance than they actually should.