Today’s Edition: Holding the line for future generations.

July 30, 2021

          Amid yesterday’s excitement over the Senate’s vote to advance the bipartisan infrastructure bill, a story about voting rights flew under the radar. Per the Washington Post, Senators Manchin, Schumer, and Warnock met on Wednesday to discuss a revised voting rights bill. See WaPo, “Democrats craft revised voting rights bill, seeking to keep hopes alive in the Senate.” On the one hand, a “revised voting rights bill” could be viewed as a disappointment because it effectively concedes that the For the People Act will not be passed by this Congress. If true, that will be a bitter disappointment for many Democrats. On the other hand, a “revised voting rights” bill could nonetheless enact important safeguards. So, which is it? Defeat or partial victory? We don’t know the answer yet, but if Manchin is involved in the negotiations, we must assume that whatever bill emerges will conform to his previous statements. In June, Senator Manchin said that he would support a bill that mandated two weeks of early voting and required non-partisan commissions to establish district boundaries. But he also called for a national I.D. requirement and opposed public financing of campaigns.

          I have heard from many unhappy readers who feel that the Democratic Party reneged on campaign promises about voter protection. As an observer who knows only what he reads in the newspaper, I am skeptical about prospects for a revised voting rights bill. (I was also skeptical that Senators could agree on a bipartisan infrastructure bill so don’t put too much stock in my opinion.) But if a revised bill is passed, it will be significant for two reasons. First, passage of any voting rights bill in this Congress will require a “carve out” from the filibuster for voting rights legislation. Second, requiring non-partisan commissions to set congressional district boundaries will be an enduring change to the way our democracy operates.  Such a change may not be passed soon enough to affect the administration of the 2022 election cycle, but it will be a strong step in the right direction.

          If there is a revised bill (read: “watered down”), it will be a mixed blessing for Democrats. It will be better than nothing, which is the most probable outcome at this moment. If Congress passes some protections, we should be grateful for that progress and then redouble our efforts to secure a larger margin of control in the both chambers of Congress. We can then begin the real work of voting rights reform in federal elections.

          Before leaving this topic, it is worth noting that the DOJ has issued a strongly worded memo cautioning state authorities who are running privatized audits. See Department of Justice, “Federal Law Constraints on Post-Election “Audits”.” The DOJ previously sent a letter to Arizona in May, which did nothing to slow the illegal audit of Maricopa County election results. It is not clear why the DOJ believes that a memo repeating the substance of an earlier letter will make any difference. Given that the DOJ generally makes its feelings known by issuing indictments, sending letters and issuing memos seems like an odd approach. The delivery of ballots to a third party who fails to adhere to federal chain-of-custody requirements is a violation of federal law. (“Section 301[of the Civil Rights Act] makes it a federal crime for “[a]ny officer of election” or “custodian” of election records to willfully fail to comply with the retention and preservation requirements.”) What is the DOJ waiting for?

          Oh, and one more point. It turns out that the Maricopa County audit is being paid for by a handful of private citizens who claim that Trump won the 2020 elections. So, who are those private citizens? Answer: Michael Flynn, Sidney Powell, and the former CEO of Overstock.com. See Talking Points Memo, “With Millions In Donations, Celebrity MAGA ‘Sponsors’ Bankrolled 97% Of Arizona Audit.” As I said, what is the DOJ waiting for?

Texas Governor Abbot’s hypocrisy and anti-government orders are dangerous

          Texas Governor Greg Abbott issued Executive Order GA37 that authorizes Texas authorities to stop and re-reroute any vehicle suspected of transporting immigrants detained by Customs and Border Patrol. The rationale for the order is that “the admittance and movement of migrants under the Biden Administration is exposing Texans to COVID-19 and creating a public health disaster in Texas.” Although the order makes an exception for federal officials, CPB uses private contractors to transport detainees. Attorney General Garland sent a letter to Governor Abbott demanding that he rescind Executive Order GA37. Garland’s letter includes the following:

          The Order violates federal law in numerous respects, and Texas cannot lawfully enforce the Executive Order against any federal official or private parties working with the United States. . . . To the extent the Order interferes with immigration enforcement, the Order is unconstitutional.

          Garland goes on to say that the DOJ will pursue all remedies to enjoin enforcement of the Order. Let’s hope that the DOJ is preparing the lawsuit now; Abbott will ignore the demand from Garland.

          Note that the rationale for Executive Order GA37 is the supposed “public health disaster” posed by transportation of immigration detainees through Texas. So, one would think that Governor Abbott is concerned about the threat of the Delta variant in Texas, a state that is in the bottom tier of state vaccination rates. Not so! Governor Abbott has effectively outlawed mask mandates in Texas. See Dallas Morning News, “Texas Gov. Greg Abbott issues broad COVID-19 order that touts ‘personal responsibility,’ not edicts.” Per the article,

          [Abbott’s] rewrite of old orders scuttles mask mandates and mitigation moves by counties with high hospitalizations. It also outlaws vaccine requirements by public and some private entities.

          Abbott is a first-class hypocrite. He seeks to pre-empt federal jurisdiction over immigration law to prevent a “public health crisis” from Covid transmission by immigrants but has prohibited actions by public health authorities to contain the pandemic in the cities and counties they serve. But logical consistency or concern for his constituents has never been a strong point for Governor Abbott. Speaking of hypocrisy, read on.

Republicans defy mask mandate in House.

Although the Republican Party recently reversed some of its anti-vaccination propaganda, Republicans in the House refuse to comply with the mask mandate issued by the House physician and Nancy Pelosi. Indeed, forty GOP Representatives took the House floor without masks to demonstrate their manliness and ignorance. See The Hill, “House GOP stages mask mandate protest.” They claim that the mask mandate “infringes on personal liberty, and is based on politics, not science.” Sigh. This is why we can’t have nice things . . . like a nation that is not convulsed by successive waves of coronavirus variants. See The Atlantic, “The CDC's Mask Guidance Gives Vaccines a Fighting Chance.” (“Delta also appears to be especially good at accumulating in airways and seems to eke past some of our immune defenses. . . . Masks cut down on all of this risk.”)

          So, who are the Republicans who protested on the House floor, claiming that they “know better than scientists” whether masks are effective? Let’s say their names together: Marjorie Taylor Greene, Matt Gaetz, Lauren Boebert, Louie Gohmert, Andy Biggs . . . you get the picture. Think of the GOP’s best and brightest . . . only the opposite. The sad fact is that their stunt will kill some Republicans who follow their example.

Help oppose Republican efforts to recall California Governor Gavin Newsom.

          Many California readers are worried about Governor Gavin Newsom’s recent dip in the polls relating to his recall. See FiveThirtyEight, “Gavin Newsom Has Reason To Worry.” Turnout is key. Per FiveThirtyEight, “eighty percent of Republican registered voters said they were absolutely certain to vote, compared with only 55 percent of Democrats and about half of independents.” Having a Republican Governor in California would be a disaster on many levels, including the ability to fill any unexpected vacancy in a U.S. Senate seat for California (e.g., Senator Feinstein). Visit Gavin Newsom’s website to volunteer, text / phonebank, or donate. See Gavin Newsom, “Stop the Republican Recall.”

Quick notes.

Based on an unscientific sample from my email, 100% of the people who supported Kyrsten Sinema in 2018 are angry, feel betrayed, and won’t give her a penny in 2024. See also, The Hill, “Poll: Two-thirds of AZ Democratic voters back primary challenge to Sinema over filibuster.”

Concluding Thoughts.

A longtime reader suggested sending letters of thanks to the four officers who testified at the first hearing of the January 6th Select Committee. The suggestion is wonderful. The officers have been vilified for their honesty and service to America, so they deserve our support. Moreover, taking the time to write a note of thanks will serve as a moment of contemplation about the sacrifice others have made to protect our liberty. Gratitude is the secret to happiness. Let’s show gratitude to four brave officers who held the line for democracy on January 6th. It will be a blessing for them and for you.

For Harry Dunn and Aquilino Gonnell: United States Capitol Police, 119 D St NE, Washington, DC 20510

For Michael Fanone and Daniel Hodges: Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia, 300 Indiana Ave NW. Washington, DC 20001

          I hope that all of you have a restful and restorative weekend. It has been a busy week in our household, with a busy weekend ahead. We will celebrate the baptisms of our first grandchildren—four months and ten months old. The arrival of two granddaughters during a pandemic has been a blessing, but it has deepened our sense of resolve and urgency to preserve American democracy. Like the officers who defended the Capitol on January 6th, we must hold the line until our granddaughters can take our place. Ours must not be the generation that falters. We owe it to future generations.

          Talk to you on Monday!