Where We Stand 4 — Political Violence

In this Where We Stand series, I am examining democracy and its wounds, many of them with a long American history, many of them intensified during the Donald Trump Administration.  This post is about violence that is designed explicitly to influence values and politics.

American political violence is hardly new: One has only to think of the Ku Klux Klan, anti-union violence of the early 20th century, or 400 years of state-sanctioned violence against African Americans.  The years before the Civil War saw more than 70 incidents of violence between lawmakers on the floors of Congress.  But after anti-war protests and the police response, violence again went mostly underground.  But the acceptability of political violence is growing again.  As I wrote in the introduction to this series,  

Openly carried assault weapons are legal and frequently visible, militia [come into the open], threats of violence against political “enemies” are not unusual.  Then-candidate Trump suggested violence against protesters at campaign rallies.   A peaceful demonstration across from the White House was violently suppressed.  Our political language is ever-more violent.  Incredibly, some members of Congress fear violence from their congressional colleagues.  With such violence comes fear, and fear inhibits democracy.

 Unfortunately, American political violence exists within the larger American culture of violence: guns on the streets; far-right white-supremacist groups and (to a lesser degree) far-left groups espousing violence; openly carried military assault weapons; and so on.  It is not surprising that this culture spills over into politics.  Even before the January 6 insurrection at the US Capitol, the sight of armed militia at marches and protests had become common.  In April of last year, a handful of people in camouflage armed with semiautomatic rifles stood in the Michigan Senate Gallery as the lawmakers went about their work.  Heavily armed with assault rifles, a group “guarded” the door to the office of Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer in protest of the governor’s Covid-mask requirement.

Heavily armed protesters outside Michigan governor’s office

 The pictures still stun me. Take a moment to consider those images of assault weapons in the political context.  What have we become when people armed with those weapons are a normalized part of our politics?

They call themselves “peacekeepers,” but legitimate peacekeepers are sent to areas already engaged in violence to keep the violent combatants apart.  These “peacemakers,” however, are combatants themselves and they enter into peaceful protests, intentionally threatening violence.

It is not surprising, then, that even legislators have begun to carry guns in the Capitol (and clandestinely, into the congressional chambers).

The state of national politics has resulted in near-complete partisan divide on any disputed issue.  Worse, these battles are accompanied by accusations of “bad-faith”.  The other side is not just wrong but un-American, a threat to our way of life that must be opposed at any price … including threats of violence and, increasingly, violence itself.

Unless we manage to de-escalate the wider culture of violence, the only solution to the problem of political violence is gradually to turn down the temperature in our politics.  This is certainly most difficult and, as the Civil War demonstrated, not always possible where core values are threatened.  But it is not impossible: Previous times of extremism and political violence have eventually resolved … usually, however, requiring years.  

As the Republican Party retreats into ever-more extremist positions (see my last post), there is a possibility that the conservative point of view will, with time, find expression in a new, less extreme, party (or repurposing of the current Republican Party) comprising conservative Democrats, independents, business interests, and at least some libertarians.  The major challenge, then, may simply be to hold the country and our politics together long enough, a difficult but not impossible task.

The "boring" first months of the Biden Administration may be a beginning.

The Beginning of the End for the Republican Party?

David Hilfiker

Predicting American politics is a fool’s game, especially given the uncertainty that clouds the future of the Republican Party.  Nevertheless, I have been fascinated to watch Republican leaders make decision after decision that could hardly be better calculated to destroy their party.  Jumping on the “Big Lie” of a 2020 election as riven with fraud and “irregularities” seemed perhaps politically imperative when Donald Trump was still president, guaranteed to hammer anyone who crossed him.  The last stand by the majority of GOP congressional lawmakers on January 6 trying to overturn the results of the presidential election— even after the insurrection had left blood on the walls of Congress — will perhaps not hurt the standing of Republican candidates’ in large swaths of the party, but counting on moderate Republican voters to forget such egregiously unconstitutional moves seems unwise at best and, at worst, suicidal.  

A series of unforced errors since then may signal the ultimate incapacity of the Republicans to recover and remain a national party.  Caught between the advancing wildfire of the Trumpists and the dwindling firebreak of Republican moderates, there may be no way out.  Consider these decisions.

Opposing immensely popular legislation

Since its initial proposal, President Biden’s $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan with its $1400 per-person stimulus checks had the overwhelming support of American voters, including over half of Republicans.  Given that strong public endorsement; the certainty of the bill’s eventual passage in a Democratic Congress; the public’s strong, on-going desire for an end to the partisan bickering; and Biden’s repeated invitations to the GOP to join him in crafting the bill, complete Republican intransigence cannot but hurt the party.  McConnell and his fellow Republican lawmakers now appear poised to make the same mistake with the equally popular $2 trillion infrastructure bill and perhaps the nascent voting-rights bill, too.  

Supporting voter suppression

Over 350 voting restriction bills have now been proposed (and some cases passed) in forty-seven states (almost all by Republican legislators) across the country.  In the absence of any significant voter fraud in the 2020 election, these bills — to restrict voter registration, cut down on absentee ballots, remove drop-in ballot boxes, increase voter ID requirements, even (in Georgia) make it illegal to pass out food and water to people waiting in line to vote — can only be interpreted as attempts at voter suppression.

As the Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin writes:

The fight nationwide is not about Georgia, or whether limiting each county to a single drop box is justifiable. It is about a party determined to invalidate the last election and to suppress votes against them. One party believes in making it as easy as possible for everyone to vote despite hurdles such as physical disability, age, job requirements, no broadband Internet or lack of a driver’s license; the other party thinks disenfranchisement, often aimed at minorities, is a legitimate partisan weapon.

Threatening their own donors

In a bizarre little misadventure,

[t]he National Republican Congressional Committee threatened donors that it will tell former president Donald Trump that they are defectors if they opt out of giving recurring monthly funds to the campaign arm for the House GOP.

The threat is unlikely to survive the attendant publicity, but it does give some indication of the extremes to which the party is willing to go.

Alienating corporate sponsors

Coca-Cola, Major League Baseball (MLB), Delta Airlines and others with important ties to Georgia and (traditionally) to the Republican Party have strongly condemned the Georgia voter suppression laws; MLB even pulled its all-star game from Atlanta.  In response, Senator Minority Leader Mitch McConnell called the corporate opposition “stupid” and tweeted: “My warning to corporate America is to stay out of politics.”  Perhaps recognizing the irony, he added “I’m not talking about political contributions.”  To the extent the Republican Party alienates its corporate sponsors, it loses a major source of reliable funding.

The corporate response is much more likely an expression of the profit motive than an indication of changing conscience.  Given the rapidly changing American demographic — more people of color, more immigrants, more urban voters — corporate executives know which way the wind is blowing.  Getting on the demographic train is a rational business decision against which McConnell doesn't have much leverage.

A reasonable response?

At first blush it may appear that the Republican leadership’s response — whatever their personal thoughts about the right-wing extremism now dominating the party — is necessary political maneuvering.  After all, according to polls, large majorities of Republicans still

• believe that the 2020 election was rife with fraud and that Trump actually won it,
• believe the Jan 6 insurrection was either non-violent or was caused by antifa “members” (sic) posing as Trump supporters,
• support Trump and consider him the leader of the Republican Party.
  

Without the support of these Trumpists, the thinking undoubtedly goes, there is no Republican Party.  The current strategy is designed to hold on to this intensely loyal group, which, as in 2016 and 2020, will form the core of the party.

The problem, of course, is that the party cannot win nationally without adding moderate Republicans and independents to its core.  As the party strays into more and more extremist rhetoric, however, it inevitably pushes those moderates away.  After the Jan 6 insurrection, there was still a chance that the leadership would recognize their folly and begin to rebuild the party on the basis of traditional conservative issues.  McConnell’s aggressive speech calling Trump “practically and morally responsible” for the insurrection gave hope that the party would move back to its moderate stance. But, as the above indicates, that wasn’t really an option: Without maintaining the Trump base, the party was lost, at least in the short run.

So, they have no way out.  The party leadership has committed itself to radical, right-wing extremism.  It can’t move forward or back.  

Neither the polls nor any other technique, of course, can give us a reliable, accurate picture of who we are as a people, and certainly not whom we will become.  Most likely is a Democratic resurgence.  One can’t rule out the possibility — however unlikely — that the United States has passed beyond the pale and will ride the Republican elephant directly into fascism.  Either way, one has to wonder whether this is the beginning of the end of the Republican party as we have known it.

Against Voter Suppression: The For the People Act

 David Hilfiker

In response to the voter suppression we examined in the last post, Democrats in the House of Representatives have passed and sent to the Senate the For the People Act.  In addition to two articles addressing voter suppression, the wide-ranging bill contains sections concerning voter security; campaign financing and transparency; a constitutional amendment to reverse the Citizens United decision; DC statehood; presidential, congressional and Supreme Court ethics; and presidential and vice-presidential tax-return transparency.  A Brennan Center report here examines the entire act in detail.

While the bill would certainly face legal challenges if it became law, there is a section of the act that justifies its own constitutionality by noting that the Supreme Court has affirmed that the Constitution gives Congress the power to protect the right to vote and regulate federal elections.

I’ll examine here the first two titles of the For the People Act that aim primarily to increase voter participation, in many cases, by prohibiting state or federal laws suppressing the vote.  

Much of the following is taken from the Brennan Center for Justice’s Annotated Guide to the act.

VOTER REGISTRATION — Some states have made voter registration difficult, especially for those without easy transportation.  The most common issue is that people have to register ahead of time, making two trips necessary.  

• The bill would mandate all states provide online registration.  Forty states already do, significantly increasing voter participation, especially during the pandemic. 
  
• Another provision mandates automatic registration for federal elections whenever a citizen provides appropriate information to the government via other avenues, for example, a driver’s license application, school ID, or application for government benefits.
• Traditionally voters have had to register before election day, sometimes far in advance, creating an unnecessary obstacle to voting.  This provision mandates that states allow same-day voter registration.
  

LIMITS ON PURGING VOTER ROLLS

• States regularly purge their voter rolls to remove those who have moved.  They usually do this by cross-checking databases, a process subject to high rates of error, especially if too few details are included to differentiate one voter from another.  The bill would require that a voter’s full name, date of birth, and the last four digits of their social security number be identical before purging.  
• The bill prohibits states from sending mail to a voter’s address on file and purging the voter just because the letter is returned undelivered.
• Any voter purged must be notified six months in advance and given the opportunity to challenge the decision.
  

PRESERVING AND PROTECTING VOTING RIGHTS

• States must restore voting rights to felons as soon as they have completed their time of incarceration and notify them of their restored rights.
• The bill prohibits the practice of targeting groups of voters with misinformation that is intended to interfere with voting — including the time, place, or manner of elections; public endorsements; and the rules governing eligibility and registration.
• The For the People Act commits Congress to restoring important provisions of the 1965 Voter Rights Act (VRA), perhaps the most important civil rights legislation in our history.  The vaunted success of the VRA was due in large part to the requirement that states and localities with histories of discriminatory voting practices secure federal government approval prior to making any changes in their voting rules.  Unfortunately, in 2013 the Supreme Court disabled this requirement, ruling it wasn’t necessary any more.  Immediately undercutting that rationale, many of the states that had previously required pre-clearance, began to pass a flurry of voter suppression laws. While the For the People Act wouldn’t in itself restore what’s left of the VRA, it does commit Congress to doing so.
• The bill would commit Congress to making findings of fact and conclusions of the law to secure voting rights for Native Americans and residents of US territories, such as Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.
• While the Supreme Court has forbidden racial gerrymandering, it has, so far, permitted partisan gerrymandering, which has allowed states to create sometimes grotesquely shaped voting districts that give one party the ability to win a number of congressional seats disproportionate to their share of the population.  The bill would prevent partisan gerrymandering by mandating state-wide, independent commissions to draw congressional districts using uniform rules.
• The Census Bureau counts incarcerated people as living in the communities in which their prison is located, which entitles those communities to a larger share of legislative seats and government resources.  The For the People Act would require the Census Bureau to use the last residence before incarceration, giving those areas (often with a higher concentration of poverty) more political power.
  

While most provisions in the first two articles that concern voter suppression should seem uncontroversial to anyone who wishes to expand American voter participation (and recognizes that there is no voter fraud in the US), it has drawn no support from the Republican side of Congress.  This is not surprising since Republican-led voter suppression keeps millions of mostly Democrats disenfranchised.  Republicans claim that the bill is partisan since it will strengthen the Democrats and weaken the Republicans, which is certainly true.  Unfortunately, Republican hegemony depends at this time in our history on unconstitutional voter suppression.  The vote for the bill as written will divide the Senate along strictly partisan lines.

Titles III – XII contain myriad other proposals that will give reasonable excuses to those who object to it.  The ACLU, for instance, claims that provisions regulating campaign financing “dark money” tread on free speech.  So it might be reasonable to separate out the voting rights provisions from the rest of the bill and have a clean, up-or-down decision on whether democracy includes all of us.  

Current Senate filibuster rules require sixty votes for any non-budget matter, eg combatting voter suppression.  With the filibuster still in place, the bill will, therefore, require at least ten Republican votes, which is not going to happen.  

This brings up the question of removing the filibuster, which, interestingly enough, requires only a majority, so the Democrats could remove it without any Republican support.

Two Democrats, West Virginia’s Joe Manchin and Arizona’s Kyrsten Sinema, however, have pledged to keep the filibuster.  Whether one thinks doing away with the filibuster would be a good idea or not, without Manchin and Sinema’s votes, the For the People Act isn’t going anywhere.

I’m no longer surprised that the Republican Party can commandeer the votes of “senators of conscience” — like Mitt Romney, Susan Collins and Ben Sasse — to support voter suppression, but it does give us another marker for the depths to which the Party has fallen.

It's unlikely there will be a single Republican vote for the bill, which — along with the hundreds of mostly Republican states’ voter-suppression laws — reveals the Republican platform: to suppress the vote of as many Democratic voters as possible.

Where We Stand 3 — Voter Suppression

 David Hilfiker

Unable to win majorities in national elections and unwilling to change its policies to attract more voters in a country where demographics challenge its future, the Republican Party has turned to voter suppression as a primary tool for maintaining power.  When voter suppression determines political power, however, the United States is no longer a democracy.  When the Supreme Court refuses to move against voter suppression decisively and when the population is apathetic and uncertain of the value of a democracy, it is not at all clear how we can restore what has been lost.  

Americans tend to believe that wide-spread voter suppression died with Jim Crow.  In fact, it’s just become more subtle and in all of its manifestations remains a profoundly anti-democratic, usually racist, institution.  

Republican voter suppression has been much in the mainstream press recently, and I have written about it extensively (here, here, here, and other places).  I don’t want to be redundant in this post, but some points should be emphasized.  As is well known by now, there is no voter fraud in the United States except for the Republican effort to thwart the will of the majority.  Nevertheless, after four years of right-wing haranguing about “voter fraud,” a third of Americans (and two thirds of Republicans) cling to the belief that President Biden’s victory was not legitimate.  The Republican rationale now: to restore confidence in the electoral process … that they have themselves intentionally undermined.

Since the beginning of the year, Republican lawmakers, have introduced over 250 bills in 43 states* to limit  voter participation.  The Brennan Center for Justice reports the impact of some of these laws. 

1. Restrictions on Mail-In Voting: In  2020, vote-by-mail was responsible for a large increase in voter participation.  The following state, Republican-initiated bills would:

• limit vote-by-mail to those who can give a valid reason, eg members of the military,
• make it harder to obtain the mail-in ballot forms,
• increase barriers to returning a mail-in ballot, or
• require ballots to be mailed unnecessarily far in advance of the election.

2.  Stricter Voter ID laws for in-person voting by:

• requiring picture IDs (in more states),
  
• reducing the kinds of ID that are acceptable, eg prohibiting student IDs or out-of-state drivers’ licenses, or
• requiring proof of citizenship.
  

3. Slashing Voter Registration Opportunities:

• Not allowing mail-in registration,
• prohibiting same-day registration, and
• prohibiting online registration.

4. More Aggressive Voter Purging Practices — Using methods directly targeting the poor, persons of color, immigrants, the young and those who vote irregularly, states have purged voter rolls of people who have supposedly died, moved away or are no longer eligible to vote.  This is often-flawed process can incorrectly and permanently purge a person from the voter lists, often without even communicating the action to the purged voter.

The Supreme Court has, for the most part, been missing in action, allowing most voter-ID laws, most voter purges, and most instances of gerrymandering.  In 2013, the Supreme Court in Shelby County vs Holder effectively struck down the heart of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that had required nine states and other smaller jurisdictions with a history of voter suppression to seek pre-clearance for changes to its voting regulations.  According to the Brennan Center for Justice,

[w]ithin 24 hours of the ruling, Texas announced that it would implement a strict photo ID law. Two other states, Mississippi and Alabama, also began to enforce photo ID laws that had previously been barred because of federal preclearance.

Since then, these states have introduced “hundreds of harsh measures making it harder to vote.”

OTHER FORMS OF VOTER SUPPRESSION

• Disenfranchisement: Felon disenfranchisement is a straightforward attempt by states to limit or outright prohibit voting by felons, often regardless of whether they have served their sentences.  Over the past several years, there has been a flurry of legislation and pending bills about felony disenfranchisement, some relaxing the restrictions, some tightening them.
• Gerrymandering: We don’t usually think of gerrymandering as a form of voter suppression.  In redrawing voting districts so that one group receives fewer representatives than they otherwise would, however, gerrymandering effectively violates the voting rights of that group.  

The Supreme Court has ruled that gerrymandering on the basis of race is unconstitutional.  However, it has also ruled that partisan gerrymandering is constitutional, even if the results violate the Constitution.  This bizarre, self-contradictory decision (5 - 4 along strict conservative/liberal lines) is extraordinary.  Since today’s Supreme Court is even more conservative (6-3), it seems likely to give states even more leeway to suppress the vote.

AND STILL MORE TINKERING WITH THE VOTE

Other measures go well beyond the above, including:

• tweaking Electoral College and judicial election rules for the benefit of Republicans,
• clamping down on citizen-led ballot initiatives, and
• outlawing private donations that provide resources for administering elections, which were crucial to the smooth November 2020 vote.

WHERE WE STAND

The practice of one-person-one-vote — sacred to our American values — now stands shredded and continually under even greater threat.  Not since Jim Crow have we seen such violation of our constitutional principles of equality before the law.  We have not arrived here by accident (here and here).  We watch as the leaders of the Republican Party progressively dismantle our democracy.

The Democrat House has passed HR1 into law and submitted an identical bill (S1) to the Senate that would significantly reverse the process.  Although many of its provisions have wide popular support, it is unlikely to pass the Senate where 60 votes will be required (unless the filibuster is removed).  

I will review HR1/S1 in the next post.

_____________

* Conversely there have been 541 bills introduced to enhance voter participation.  These are qualitatively different from the restrictive laws, however, since they are only attempting to restore what has already been restricted.  The most representative democracy would be one in which 100% of voters participated.  The enhancement bills are simply attempts to move in that direction.