[EL] Senate deja vu on "narrowly tailored" filibuster exemption?

[sean at impactpolicymanagement.com]

I would say that no, you are not missing anything this time. “The filibuster waiver on voting/election matters only applies if the legislation in question is GOOD according to one tribe” isn’t a thing.

 

Sean Parnell

 

From: Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> On Behalf Of Douglas Johnson
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2022 2:24 PM
To: Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu>
Cc: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: [EL] Senate deja vu on "narrowly tailored" filibuster exemption?

 

As I read the coverage of the voting laws / filibuster debate I am filled with deja vu. Is there some difference I am missing between this debate now and the debate back when the Democratic-controlled Senate waived filibuster rules for judicial appointments?

 

I have considerable sympathy for Sen. Sinema's point that if the filibuster is waived now for voting-related legislation, what voting-related legislation passes the next time Republicans control the House, Senate and White House? It would seem that waiving the fillibuster now opens the door to the goals of some Republicans such as a national voter ID requirement, limiting absentee voting, and/or abolishing Section 2 of the voting rights act (or at least removing that section's applicability to redistricting). To emphasize: I am not advocating any such proposals, just noting they are out there and would likely come up the moment Republicans have their turn back in control.

 

For those who might argue that the filibuster exemption could be "narrowly tailored," I would note the waiver of filibuster rules for judicial appointments also claimed to be narrowly tailored. The Democratic Senate waiver of the rule did not apply to Supreme Court Justice appointments. Is Sen. Schumer setting the state for national voter ID or the abolishment of Section 2 the way Sen. Reid set the stage for the current makeup of the Supreme Court?

 

Or am I missing something that is different this time? I fully admit that is possible. But I suspect the traditional American focus on the short-term gain yet again is obscuring the longer-term impact of the proposal.

 

I am surprised that the only mention of this that I have seen are tangential references to Senator Sinema raising this concern.

 

Douglas Johnson

National Demographics Corporation
djohnson at NDCresearch.com <mailto:djohnson at NDCresearch.com> 
phone 310-200-2058

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20220112/ad13ea24/attachment.html>