By Todd Lassa
In the end, affirmatives and negatives in last Tuesday’s Braver Angels National Coliseum Debate, “Resolved: Pass HR 1” agreed that the For the People Act is flawed, over-written at 800 pages and has no chance of passing a U.S. Senate blocked by a Republican filibuster advantage that Democrats cannot overcome. [The House passed HR 1 mostly along party lines last March.] They also agreed that Florida, almost counter-intuitively, has a good system, allowing for deep early and mail-in voting, a reversal of its “hanging chad” image from the 2000 presidential election.
Affirmatives argued that the minority is blocking the majority’s will, and that legislation making its way through Republican-controlled states will only make matters worse. Negatives countered that voting laws always have varied state-to-state, and that the federal government should not have overreaching control over the process. [See The Hustings’ pre-debate arguments by David Amaya in the left/affirmative column and Bryan Williams in the right/negative column by scrolling down this page.
In the face of Founding Father James Madison’s dictum that the will of the people should prevail, “they’re being overruled right now,” with the smaller populations of rural states controlling the vote of larger, more urban states through Republican Party rule, argued Zach Beauchamp, a writer for Vox.
Georgia’s recent voting rules bill “cuts the number of polling places to cut the number of minorities able to vote,” he said. “… there is one party that rejects minority rule – it’s not the Democratic Party. It’s the Republican Party.”
Asked in the parliamentary style Q&A why the federal government should insert itself into the states’ systems, Beauchamp noted that HR 1 would restore the pre-clearance requirement of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which restricted states with histories of minority-voter suppression to seek pre-approval[VJ1] for any substantive changes to voting laws from federal courts or the Department of Justice. The U.S. Supreme Court removed the requirement in Shelby v. Holder (2013), because a majority of justices found it outdated and no longer necessary.
“I would argue it was justified in ’65, and it’s justified now.”
The debate’s first negative, Craig Engle, head of political law at the firm Arent Fox, says the U.S. form of voting laws creates two layers of government.
“And when they compete with each other, then I think the people win,” Engle said. “There are no federal elections. There are state elections for federal offices.”
Engle doesn’t see HR 1 as a Democratic vs. Republican bill, “I look at this as a Washington, D.C. bill. If you’re a fan of the federal government and that’s all you know, then this bill is for you. … If I were a member of Congress, I would vote against this bill.”
Why should each state should have different laws for voting? “Because each state is different. Western[VJ2] states (with sparse urban populations) have different rules than urban states.”
In the affirmative, Osita Nwanevu argued that the issue stems from the United States’ status as a republic, not a democracy.
“We actually don’t have a voter fraud problem in this country,” The New Republic journalist said. “We have a system that confers more importance on some parts of the country.” Especially true, he said, in the Senate, where sparsely populated states each get two members, just like New York, California, and Texas.
“I’m a fan of democracy, personally,” Nwanevu said, though he doubts Congress can pass a voter bill that would protect the American people.
The second negative, Kaylee McGee White, of The Washington Examiner described HR 1 as “a power grab by Democrats who think they’re being disenfranchised, when that’s not the case at all.” Supporting the key issue of her fellow negatives in this debate, she said; “Quite frankly, the federal government does not have the power to do any of this.”
She called last November’s election “a disaster,” with no final results for days. “You’re asking for disorganized chaos every time.”
In White’s Q&A, The Bulwark publisher Sarah Longwell disagreed with White’s assertion that the election was a “disaster,” especially taking place during a pandemic, but that results would have come more quickly if all states were allowed to count early mail-in ballots before November 3.
The third affirmative, Sheba Williams, founder of Nolef Turns, said that the Jamestown Settlement 402 years ago was known for its slavery, poll taxes, lynching, mass incarceration and disenfranchisement.
“Tonight, on the one-year anniversary of George Floyd’s death, “lynching, mass incarceration and disenfranchisement still exist. … If we all love this country and believe people should have the right to civic engagement, then we should support HR 1.”
In Q&A, Williams said she favors a national holiday for elections. “It should be as accessible as possible.”
While Sarah Longwell of The Bulwark served as the third negative, she agreed with much of Zach Beauchamp’s arguments in the affirmative.
“Donald Trump has told a lie to the American public,” the publisher of the never-Trumper conservative outlet said. “And many of the laws going through states right now codify that lie.”
One-third of the 800-page HR 1, especially campaign finance reform with matching taxpayer funds are “a bad idea,” Longwell said.
“I think we should do something with voters’ rights, and I think the Voting Rights Act needs to be restored.”
The final affirmative, U.S. Rep. Dean Phillips, a Democrat, said of his state, “It’s easy to vote in Minnesota, and I had no idea other people didn’t have the same rights.”
“HR 1 empowers voters, not politicians,” Phillips added. “The only place these proposals do not have bipartisan support is Washington, D.C.”
He also supports redistricting that would be independent of the two parties. “I would definitely ban gerrymandering, in which politicians choose their voters.”
Retired U.S. Rep. Dennis A. Ross, R-FL, wrapped up the negative side saying, “I am a states’ rights person, and I always have been.” Ross was a member of the Florida state legislature when the 2000 presidential election vote from the state was “solved” by the Supreme Court.
“There are enough factions within each party that it always creates a multi-party system,” Ross said. He is worried HR 1 would lead to more “ballot-harvesting” and that its finance-reform provisions would be ineffective.
The federal government’s role in elections should be to “make sure states do what they’re supposed to do,” Ross said.
[VJ1]We should really put pre-approval of what…which I think is any changes that the state wants to make in the voting law. I would put that, but I’m not sure what it is.
[VJ2]I mean, this is his quote, but…every state in the West has urban areas and, well, every state has urban areas. This is informative bollocks to me.
I think you can safely cut everything after “different.”