Deadline for Democracy

July 2, 2021 10:08 AM

Between June 28 and July 10, Deadline for Democracy is encouraging US voters to help get the For the People Act passed by putting pressure on politicians. "Together, we can ensure Americans can safely and freely cast our ballots so that every voice is heard and our elections reflect the will of the people. But every day, we get closer to a very real deadline to take action to pass the For the People Act." Over 80 organizations launched Deadline For Democracy, "a cross-movement mobilization plan for the July Recess to demand lawmakers act urgently to defend democracy and pass the For the People Act by August." The need to protect voting rights became all the greater with yesterday's Supreme Court ruling that Arizona's restrictive state voting law is A-OK.
posted by Bella Donna (27 comments total)

What one thing can I (a California resident) do to contribute? Like, who do I call/email/write and what do I say?
posted by aniola at 10:15 AM on July 2, 2021 [5 favorites]

Allowing anything to happen strictly according to the will of the people is not necessarily a good thing. It seems to me at least that this would be akin to mob rule, which is never a good thing. You can't have ten foxes and one chicken voting on what to eat for dinner. Things like individual rights need to be taken into consideration. Mobs generally are not conducive to displaying this kind of thinking. It's either black or white to them, with little to no consideration of the ever-present gray area. Perhaps I just don't fully grasp the premise though. Feel free to enlighten me.
posted by Quasimike at 10:24 AM on July 2, 2021 [1 favorite]

The Supreme Court Is Putting Democracy at Risk

It is hard to see what laws would be so burdensome that they would flunk the majority’s lax test. A ban on Sunday voting despite African American and other religious voters doing “souls to the polls” drives after church? New strict identification requirements for those voting by mail? More frequent voter purges? All would probably be OK under the court’s new test as long as there are still some opportunities for minority citizens to vote — somewhere, somehow.

What’s worse, the court did not decide Brnovich in a vacuum but after two other significant decisions that undermined the fight against restrictive voting rules. In a 2008 decision, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, the court again put a thumb on the scale favoring a state’s restrictive laws when it upheld Indiana’s voter identification law against an argument that it violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. And in the infamous 2013 Shelby County v. Holder case, the court killed off the part of the Voting Rights Act that required states and other jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination in voting to get approval before they could adopt laws that could burden minority voters.

We were assured back then not to worry about the loss of this preclearance provision because there was always Section 2 to fall back on. So much for that. There are now fewer and fewer tools with which to fight suppressive voting rules in the federal courts.

And Justice Alito ended with a shot across the bow for Congress, should it consider amending the Voting Rights Act to provide an easier standard for minority plaintiffs to meet, such as Justice Kagan’s disparate impact test in dissent. Such a test, he wrote, would “deprive the states of their authority to establish nondiscriminatory voting rules,” potentially in violation of the Constitution.

Rick Hasen is one of the best reporters on the voting rights beat, and the fact that he's this pessimistic about not just what's left of the VRA, but any future legislative solutions as well, makes me feel ill.
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 10:29 AM on July 2, 2021 [18 favorites]

Yes, yes, we all agree that the ideal form of government involves an immortal, omniscient philosopher-monarch. But people have been equating democracy with "mob rule" for thousands of years, and no one has come up with a more practical alternative, so unless you want to hand everything over to the fascists and feudalists, just go along with democracy, okay?
posted by Faint of Butt at 10:29 AM on July 2, 2021 [22 favorites]

When pessimism about voting rights haunts me, I remind myself that there was a time when we didn't HAVE a Voting Rights Act - and yet we built one, and passed it. Heck, there was a very long time when women couldn't vote in this country, and women couldn't vote to change that - but we could do a lot of other things to change the law, and we did, and the law changed.

Nobody wants to do as much work as it would take to start from scratch, and there is a terrifying urgency to fix voting NOW - but we have gone from nothing to something before, so if we have to, we can do it again.

For me, part of doing everything I can now is remembering that it's extremely, horribly dire - but nothing is hopeless.
posted by kristi at 10:39 AM on July 2, 2021 [13 favorites]

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) broke with colleagues who have said they would “choose democracy” and scrap the filibuster if Republicans tried to block H.R. 1, Democrats’ sweeping election reform bill, telling Forbes, “If democracy were in jeopardy, I would want to protect it,” but “I don’t see it being in jeopardy right now."

Whew, looks like we've got our Top Minds on it.
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 10:43 AM on July 2, 2021 [11 favorites]

But what about two foxes and ten chickens voting for lunch, with the chickens not being allowed to vote? Is that the kind of "democracy" you want?

(Democracy is the worst form of government, except for everything else that has been tried.)
posted by phliar at 10:45 AM on July 2, 2021 [9 favorites]

Thank you for posting this. Signed up.
posted by humbug at 10:57 AM on July 2, 2021 [1 favorite]

It's genuinely embarrassing that a true blue state like CA still goes with Feinstein. She's horrific on copyright, horrific on encryption, and now horrific on voting rights. What's the benefit of her?
posted by jaduncan at 10:58 AM on July 2, 2021 [12 favorites]

I find this so exhausting. Don't Democrats see that they will lose their majority in the Senate (and possibly also the House) in 2022 if they don't pass at least Manchin's watered down voting rights act? It's difficult to motivate unmotivated Democratic voters when the Democrats don't even try to protect their own majority status.
posted by wittgenstein at 11:00 AM on July 2, 2021 [9 favorites]

1. AZ progressives will be collecting signatures to place referenda on the ballot to undo these Republican vote-suppressing laws. IIRC, they have 90 days to collect about 113k signatures. I don’t know if they’ve already set up their process yet — I just read about this yesterday.

2. In reference to a comment upthread: equating “allowing everyone to participate in selecting their representatives” with “allowing anything to happen via mob rule” (paraphrasing) is…quite the hot take. I’m not quite sure what to make of it in the context of this discussion.
posted by darkstar at 11:01 AM on July 2, 2021 [16 favorites]

Dem leadership appears uninterested in majority status as long as they can keep cashing donation checks.
posted by kokaku at 11:11 AM on July 2, 2021 [5 favorites]

I would like the present administration to make voting day a legal holiday. It’s a small, but a step, and within their power.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:29 AM on July 2, 2021 [5 favorites]

As long as the Republicans don't filibuster it, of course, and Manchin doesn't see it as uncouthly partisan or something.
posted by acb at 11:32 AM on July 2, 2021 [1 favorite]

Quasimike, human rights are taken into account -- in the constitution. If the lawmakers we elect pass legislation that violates the human rights delineated in the constitution, the Supreme Court can strike those laws down. Lawmakers can amend the constitution, but that requires a long process with a large supermajority.

You could argue (and I tend to) that referendums are mob rule. But democracy does not guarantee you referendums, and in fact states all have different rules regarding referendums. What democracy does guarantee you is the right to choose your representatives. And those representatives are bound by the constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court.
posted by antinomia at 11:49 AM on July 2, 2021 [2 favorites]

aniola, there is a phone bank in San Rafael on July 3rd you might sign up for. You should be able to find that and other virtual events here. At least on my phone, it is not easy to find real events. People in California should certainly be faxing or phoning or emailing Diane Feinstein’s local offices to complain about her position on the filibuster and to also encourage her to do everything in her power to help the for the people act pass.

I will note that at least when I called, they don’t ask for my name they only ask for my ZIP Code. Which means that I can call several times, which I honestly think is a fine thing. Alas, being able to write a check for $5000 or being on the staff of a lobbyist group would probably be more effective but I don’t have money and I am not a professional lobbyist.

Elbow grease is all I have. If you can only do one thing, I say contact Feinstein’s office about both the filibuster and the proposed voting rights legislation. I will post contact info later.
posted by Bella Donna at 11:58 AM on July 2, 2021 [2 favorites]

Great, thanks! If someone can give me a brief script, I will call Feinstein's office about the filibuster and the proposed voting rights legislation.
posted by aniola at 1:44 PM on July 2, 2021

The Forbes Feinstein quote is from June 10; Sen. Feinstein issued two press releases afterward, June 21's "Feinstein Supports Stronger Voting Rights Protections" & June 22's "Feinstein Statement in Support of Voting Rights Bill."

Progressive groups ask for town hall with Feinstein to talk filibuster (The Hill, July 1, 2021); links to the Deadline for Democracy letter to Feinstein and its excellent talking points. (There are links within that document to previous letters to the senator, in March and June.)

Third letter close: Yet, in the face of this outpouring of concern from your constituents, you have been unwilling to acknowledge the clear danger to our democracy as evidenced by a deadly insurrection at our Capitol and the introduction of at nearly 400 bills this year to restrict voting rights in 48 states, none of which is restrained by a filibuster. On June 10th, you were quoted in Forbes as stating, “If democracy were in jeopardy, I would want to protect it,” but “I don’t see it being in jeopardy right now."

On June 23rd, regarding the filibuster you reportedly said, “I’m giving it thought… I managed to pass the first assault weapons bill. So it hasn’t been an impediment, that I have seen. Now somebody, for their bill, may find different.” However, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, enacted seventeen long years ago, expired in 2004 and all attempts to renew this ban have failed due to the filibuster.

We await word from you on the date and time of a Town Hall to address your positions and our collective concerns.

Sen. Feinstein assumed office in 1993, her current term ends on January 3, 2025, and US senators cannot be recalled [*groans like a rusty hinge*]. (Governors can; the election to recall Newsom is set for Sept. 14.) She put her (waterfront, $41 million) Tahoe property on the market this week, and I fantasized that signaled a resignation in the works (rather than savvy estate planning).
posted by Iris Gambol at 2:17 PM on July 2, 2021 [2 favorites]

Hey, aniola. Via RepresentUs: The For the People Act is the most impactful anti-corruption law in decades. It already passed the House, but getting it through the Senate won’t be easy. We need to do everything we can to push our lawmakers to vote YES on this historic bill. Enter your information below and we'll give you the numbers to call and generate a custom script for you to use.

Indivisible SF provided a Feinstein-specific call script in Feb. 2021, while warning: "Hate the phone? Resistbot is your friend, and we’ve included a longer script below. If you use Resistbot or write an email to your elected officials, make sure to use your own words. Copy-pasted emails are discounted by Congressional staff. In-depth, personal stories are most effective."

Tell Senator Feinstein: To Save Democracy, Kill the Filibuster
Call Script
My name is __________. I am a constituent, and my zip code is _______. I am a member of Indivisible SF.

To save democracy you must kill the filibuster. Our democracy is under attack by Republican voter-suppression and violent intimidation, by gerrymandering, and by outright subversion. Without swift and effective legislation such as the "For the People Act," the "John Lewis Voting Rights Act," and the DC Statehood bill, America's government of inclusive-democracy will become a sham. McConnell has made it clear that so long as he can wield the filibuster no voting-rights or democracy-preservation legislation will ever pass the Senate. To save democracy you must kill the filibuster.
posted by Iris Gambol at 2:26 PM on July 2, 2021 [3 favorites]

I’m especially concerned about Republican legislation that gives legislatures (presumably safely Republican ones) the power to overturn election results by taking over boards of election and putting in their own people if the numbers aren’t in their favor. Seems …. Illegal? Dictatorish? Corrupt?

Plus angry about shit like forbidding people from giving folks without cars rides to polling places. Party of small government imposing restrictions on our right to let people ride in our damn cars, sheesh.
posted by zenzenobia at 4:59 PM on July 2, 2021 [6 favorites]

Thanks, Iris Gambol & Bella Donna! I have called my senators.
posted by aniola at 6:31 PM on July 2, 2021 [1 favorite]

Quasimike, I am not even sure what point you're attempting to make with your comment. Voting restrictions are awesome? We should be imposing them? It's a-OK to knowingly disenfranchise minority voters because otherwise "individual rights" would be violated? Which individuals, exactly? Who, in your mind, deserves to have a vote? Please stop dancing around the subject with your analogies and vague warnings and do tell.
posted by Anonymous at 7:09 PM on July 2, 2021

If the For the People Act passes, won’t some states challenge it before the Supreme Court, which will most likely strike it down?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:27 PM on July 2, 2021 [1 favorite]

I would like the present administration to make voting day a legal holiday. It’s a small, but a step, and within their power.

Take a poll of Joe Q Public and ask them "Do you get every single Federal holiday off, with pay?" I would wager that number is quite low. So adding another Federal holiday, even if it is to vote, will add zero benefit. Hell I know people who work on holidays because it's double or triple pay. Triple pay or go vote? it's not even a close call.

Multiple day voting, in person, via the mail, drop-off is the way to go. I've had more luck getting people to vote via the mail than any other.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 9:16 PM on July 2, 2021 [1 favorite]

If the For the People Act passes, won’t some states challenge it before the Supreme Court, which will most likely strike it down?

Yep! Which is why we need to unpack the courts by expanding the Supreme Court to 11 or 13 Justices.

Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett are illegitimately installed.
posted by Gadarene at 10:43 PM on July 2, 2021 [6 favorites]

If the For the People Act passes, won’t some states challenge it before the Supreme Court, which will most likely strike it down?

Elie Mystal has a great piece about this in The Nation. His closing is:

The only solution is to protect voting rights by expanding the courts with judges and justices who will protect voting rights, and then hope and pray that enough people avail themselves of their rights that the white supremacist rump of the Republican Party never gets full control of all three branches of government again. That is the way. That is the only way. I know that is the only way, because we’ve tried every other way.

Conservatives will never stop trying to take away the right of nonwhite citizens to vote. That has been their unyielding position since the end of the Civil War. You can have a free and fair democracy, or you can have conservatives in control of the judiciary, but the history of this country says that you can’t have both.

But seriously, read the whole article. It is powerful stuff.
posted by bcd at 2:03 AM on July 3, 2021 [8 favorites]

Would the 2022 election happen before the court has a chance to strike down the For The People Act? Doesn't it take time for cases to make it to the Supreme Court?
posted by wittgenstein at 2:56 AM on July 3, 2021 [2 favorites]