Elections

Federalizing Elections Doesn't Make Much Sense and Won't Save Democracy

The "For The People Act" was a flawed package that would have solved some problems while creating new headaches.

|

Arctic Village, Alaska, is about as remote a spot as you'll find in the United States. Tucked into a sweeping bend in the east fork of the Chandalar River, Arctic Village and its roughly 150 full-time residents live more than 100 miles from the nearest "metropolis"—that would be Fort Yukon, Alaska. Population: 582.

And yet, under the terms of a sweeping federal elections bill that hit a wall in the Senate on Tuesday evening, Arctic Village would have been required to keep its polling place open for 10 hours every day for at least 15 days prior to every future federal election.

"The whole town could practically vote in an hour," Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R–Alaska), pointed out Tuesday during a speech on the Senate floor that deconstructed some of the practical issues with the sprawling For The People Act. "When you nationalize something—when you have federal overall oversight—it ends up being a one-size-fits-all mandate coming out of Washington, D.C., that in many cases doesn't work in a place like Alaska."

Federalizing control over elections is a major goal of the bill, which would give federal officials a much-expanded role in regulating things that states have always been left to decide, like when polling places are open and how much early voting occurs. But in a country as diverse as America, one set of rules doesn't make sense everywhere. A possible solution to long lines at polling places in Atlanta creates a ridiculous and expensive mandate in places like Arctic Village.

"The bill that we have in front of us is not so much about voting rights as it is a federal takeover of the election system, and a partisan federal takeover of the election system," Murkowski said Tuesday. A few hours later, she joined the 49 other Republican members of the Senate in voting against a procedural maneuver that would have allowed the bill to come to the floor for debate—a vote that effectively kills the For The People Act's chance of passing into law anytime soon. (It cleared the House in March.)

The bill is a response to what Democrats see—with good reason, in some cases—as Republican-led attempts to undermine voting rights in some states. Efforts to disenfranchise voters should be steadfastly opposed at the state level, but senators like Murkowski are rightly hesitant to use the hammer of federal law to accomplish that goal.

That's not only because of the silly mandates it would impose on places like Arctic Village. There are also serious legal and constitutional issues with other parts of the bill, which would regulate political speech and mandate state-level behavior in ways the federal government has never before attempted. Even if you don't care about the First Amendment issues in the bill, they would guarantee years of litigation over its provisions.

Instead of creating more certainty about election rules, dozens of lawsuits and conflicting court rulings could create "messy litigation that leaves the state of election law uncertain for years to come," Murkowski said Tuesday. Imagine, for instance, if you had to understand the latest legal battles over Obamacare before being allowed to see a doctor.

What's more, federalizing elections to make them more secure might actually make them more vulnerable. Think back to the Republican-led efforts to disrupt the election last year. They were thwarted by state-level officials (including fellow Republicans) who applied the law correctly even when under intense political pressure from President Donald Trump and his top allies. If Trump had to exert pressure on a few federal officials rather than a diffuse network of state-level elections boards, most of which were staffed by people who owed him nothing and had little incentive to cave to his threats, would the outcome have been different?

These practical and legal concerns have been largely glossed over by the bill's advocates, who have framed the measure as the last stand for democracy. But the fate of America's democracy has never hinged on just one bill or one vote because most of our election systems are decentralized.

That said, there are many good ideas included in the For The People Act. Expanded early voting, automatic voter registration, and restoring voting rights to people who have served time in prison are worthy policies for increasing voter participation. Redistricting commissions, which the bill would mandate all states use for redrawing congressional district lines, are a decent solution to a messy problem. Banning states from using voting machines that don't provide paper trails for all votes would make elections more trustworthy.

But, as Murkowski argued Tuesday, those provisions could be considered separately from the "sprawling" proposal Democrats have been pushing. Though it is also fair to point out that Republicans were none too interested in a narrower proposal offered as a potential compromise last week by Sen. Joe Manchin (D–W.Va.).

Certainly, there is an element of partisanship to Murkowski's stance—particularly since she's facing the prospect of a Trump-backed primary challenger next year when her seat is up for re-election. But it would be wrong to dismiss her for that reason alone. For three consecutive congressional sessions, Murkowski has been the lead Senate Republican sponsor of the Voting Rights Advancement Act, a bipartisan bill that would update the 1965 Voting Rights Act to require that states get federal permission before making changes to their voting laws in advance of an election. That's an actual, practical way to stop some of the shenanigans that states might pull in the future. Murkowski also voted to convict Trump for his role in the January 6 riot—hence why she faces a Trump-backed primary challenger next year.

In short, some Senate Republicans have no qualms about supporting attempts to undermine elections, but Murkowski is clearly not one of them.

"It will make administrating elections more difficult, more expensive, subject to federal micromanagement," she said. "My fear is that this measure does not lead us further down the path" to fairer elections.

NEXT: High School Cheerleader’s Profane Social Media Rant Is Protected Free Speech, Says SCOTUS

Elections Voting Voting Rights Senate Alaska

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Please to post comments

118 responses to “Federalizing Elections Doesn't Make Much Sense and Won't Save Democracy

  1. Whoo boy.

    1. I suppose Mr Boehm believes Black Americans can not get photo ID, show up at a polling station, or find time to vote before the last possible minute. I mean, its not just poor people, but people of color who are being disenfranchised by the evil whites. If you are poor and white, then voting is easy, probably because of white privilege.
      Also, isn’t there something in the Bill of Rights, number 10 or so, that would make this bill unconstitutional anyway?

  2. Wow.

    What utter bullshit.

    1. Agree. It’s actually noteworthy and quite an accomplishment to write an article so full of it.

  3. The bill is an unconstitutional attempt to undermine federalism and free speech rights and the take is not apocalyptic but that it is wrongheaded yet well intentioned?

    No enemies on the Left.

    1. No enemies on the Left.

      Except when the author agrees with Republicans’ position on the bill, that it ought to be defeated, right?

      1. No Democrats arebeing taken task as illiberal malefactors for supporting this or proposing this.

        1. So it’s not enough that Boehm supports your position, he has to also yell and scream about how evil Team Blue is as well? Why it’s almost as if you care more about demanding outrage rather than substance.

          What do you want? Eric Boehm to accuse Democrats of hating America and yelling about how evil they are, like right-wing demagogues do?

          If you want right-wing demagoguery and a dopamine rush of outrage, why do you come here?

          1. You sure do spend a ton of time defending the perception of the left for not being a leftist.

          2. What do you want? Eric Boehm to accuse Democrats of hating America and yelling about how evil they are, like right-wing demagogues do?

            Considering he spent 5 years accusing Republicans of hating America and yelling about how evil they are like left-wing demagogues do, sure, why not? BOTH SIDES, right, cytotoxic?

        2. Don’t pay any attention to Jeffy. His job is to concern troll, lulling you into a false sense of security that if you just submit to big brother all will be well and any resistance is just so unreasonable.

    2. None whatsoever.
      Look for Boehm to write a detailed analysis of The Big Bad Wolf’s “Come Closer” proposal

  4. “The bill is a response to what Democrats see—with good reason, in some cases—as Republican-led attempts to undermine voting rights in some states. Efforts to disenfranchise voters should be steadfastly opposed at the state level”

    —-Eric Boehm

    I guess Binion and Boehm are trying to outdo each other on the “You’ve gotta be kidding me” scale today.

    I’d so Binion won. Some of the things Bunion wrote today weren’t just spin. They appear to have been factually inaccurate.

    1. And Eric goes with handing out water as an example. Really? Bring your own damn water bottle.

      1. Why should it be *illegal* to hand out water to people waiting in line? It is vindictive and petty to make that a crime. That is the point here.

        1. No, it’s to stop campaigns or their proxies from doing it at a polling place. I’m pretty sure you already know that and are just being deliberately obtuse.

          1. He is.

          2. Lying Jeffy doesn’t see any problem with electioneering.

            1. At the polling place.

            2. Unless it’s Republicans, of course. Ask him if 50 guys in MAGA hats should be allowed to post up outside polling places with billy clubs handing out cigarettes and booze to anyone with a TRUMP sticker.

          3. There already laws against electioneering near polls. There is no need for the water rule, it is simply adding unnecessary laws. Non-partisian groups should be allowed to distribute water if they chose to do so.

            1. The water rule was a no electioneering rule… you really are a parody.

        2. election officials are free to hand out water. Why lie jeff?

          1. For the same reason democrats destroy individual freedoms?

  5. Think back to the Republican-led efforts to disrupt the election last year.

    *snicker*

  6. Those darn Democrats and their good intentions.

  7. Three elements in the bill which, in my mind, guaranteed that it wouldn’t pass (though I don’t have much of a problem with #2):

    “…[1] It would institute an ethics code for the US Supreme Court that would apply to justices and would implement measures intended to prevent presidential conflicts of interest.

    [2]It would stop lawmakers from using taxpayer money to reach settlements in employment discrimination cases stemming from their own actions.

    [3] The bill also takes aim at Citizens United, the landmark 2010 Supreme Court decision, by calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn the ruling, which opened the door to unlimited spending by corporations and unions to influence elections.”
    https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/22/politics/senate-democrats-voting-bill/index.html

    1. Cool, we can shut down CNN (owned by AT&T), NBC News (Comcast), ABC News (Disney), etc. We can also make sure no anti-Republican films like Fahrenheit 911 are ever made by media corporations.

      1. https://dailycaller.com/2021/01/23/joe-biden-dark-money-donations-trump-record/

        President Joe Biden rode a record-breaking $145 million in “dark money” donations into the White House, Bloomberg News reported Saturday.

        “Dark money” is donations from anonymous donors to outside groups backing a given candidate. Biden’s $145 million is the all-time record for a candidate challenging an incumbent president, according to Bloomberg. Former President Donald Trump received $28 million from such donations.

        1. https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/1407404803207188484?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

          Democrat Jamaal Bowman admits S.1 legislation is a power grab.

          “If we deliver [S.1], we maintain power in 2022. If we don’t…we risk losing power.”

          1. Wisconsin Official Blows Whistle on Zuckerberg-Funded Group That ‘Seized Control’ of Election

            https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2021/06/23/wisconsin-official-blows-whistle-on-zuckerberg-funded-group-that-seized-control-of-election-n1456606

            Emails revealed earlier this year showed efforts by CTCL and other groups to, in part, redesign ballot instructions and other election documents in multiple cities around the state, including Green Bay.

            Juno said the state normally has a clear procedure by which such alterations are made.

            “As clerks, we meet with our state elections commission at least three times a year,” she told Solomon, “and [we] have continuous and ongoing correspondence with them, so that, you know, the whole state is conducting the elections in harmony.

            “When you have an outside group coming in, and all of a sudden trying to dictate how to run an election — and these people were all from out of state. They had no expertise in Wisconsin, for our processes and procedures for conducting an election.”

            Juno argued that the management “had an impact on the overall election,” and that the process itself was “very closely monitored by individuals who are normally not running elections.”

            1. People like Zuckerberg make me miss the plaid, leisure suit-wearing car salesman, who I’d choose in a hearbeat over the sandals and cargo short-wearing trillionaire with a TedTalk head mic telling me he’s not in it for the money, he just wants to change the world.

          2. Democracy dies without H1.

        2. President Joe Biden rode a record-breaking $145 million in “dark money” donations into the White House, Bloomberg News reported Saturday.

          Time covered this six months ago, and detailed not just the dark money, but the deep state and social media collaboration that got him elected. Just a minor back page story, like the county fair largest watermelon contest.

  8. http://ace.mu.nu/archives/394417.php#394417

    Republican Senators Block Democrats’ Attempt to Nationalize Elections and Make the Corrupt, Rigged 2020 Voting Rules the Rules Forever
    Strange how Republicans object to the 2020 voting rules being applied to their future races, while continuing to insist that there was nothing to complain about in the 2020 presidential election.

    …And yet there was no fraud, using the same corrupt techniques, in Trump’s supposed defeat!

    Extraordinary.

    It’s almost as if the corporate-controlled pawns of the Ruling Class we call “Republicans” joined with their Democrat buddies to “fortify” the election against Trump.

    Leftwing “journalists” of course acted like DNC Enforcement Thugs and began crying out for vengeance.

    You know, like objective writers of the First Draft of History always do.

  9. The dems shrill cries of racism and white supremacy seem to be fading a bit into the background. That’s what happens when you yell all the time. They got tuned out.

    Also the stats are clear people want voter ID and they don’t want dems in charge of every damn thing.

    1. Uhh no. The fact that people keep the issue of race on the table does not mean the issue went away.

      1. Your response makes no sense.

      2. Fuck off socialist.

      3. Hi shreek. Fucked any children lately? You know, because you’re a sick piece of shit who fucks children and posted your disgusting child pornography here?

  10. stop with the ‘save democracy’ shit.

    1. Seconded.

    2. I agree. Democracy is the last thing a Constitutional Republic needs.

  11. Here’s hoping people don’t read past the headline?

    1. What’s the fun in that? And I’m not sure it got better in doing so. Federalizing things usually makes whatever problem exists worse.

  12. I thought it was an excellent article. Ignore the morons around here who treat Democrats as if they are cartoon villains. OF COURSE they have political motivations for what they do, JUST LIKE Republicans do, but they ALSO present some good ideas that ought to be considered. For example we hear around here all the time that we should conduct our elections with greater security, “like other advanced countries do”. Well, if you actually look at how many advanced countries run their elections, their procedures tend to be much more standardized across the whole nation. So I do think it is definitely something to look at. Because having this mish-mash of rules governing voting procedures does change the meaning of a person’s vote from state to state, where the rules are often rigged in different ways to benefit different constituencies. Plus in many other countries, citizens do not have to go through a process of registering to vote; once citizens reach the legal voting age, they are automatically registered to vote without the citizen having to do anything. That is also something worth considering. And yes, mandatory voter ID is an idea also worth considering.

    There ARE some good ideas out there for electoral reform, no one party has a monopoly of them.

    1. The reality is that we already have good election laws and the 2020 election was both secure and well participated. Both sides would do well to back away from wanting sweeping reforms.

      1. Never mind that almost every election in every voting district violated its own laws because Covid or some equally ludicrous bullshit. The most secure and honest election eva! You and Jeffy should really consider fucking right off.

        1. No because if laws were broken they could have been addressed in court. The courts did not find any laws were broken.

          1. You sure about that. Better check your sources because you are 100% wrong.

          2. Almost a dozen courts ruled election laws were violated….

            An example.

            https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/judge-rules-michigan-sec-state-broke-law-absentee-ballot

            1. You need to read beyond the headline. The judge in the case did not rule that election laws were violated, but rather that administrative procedures were not followed. Any difference in any of dozens of cases you alluded too but did not care to be specific about?

              1. The judge in the case did not rule that election laws were violated, but rather that administrative procedures were not followed.

                Did you know that violating administrative procedures that are laid out in the law is……… wait for it now………………… a VIOLATION OF THE LAW?

                Do you honestly just hope nobody reads the link, or do you actually think someone out there might be as stupid and dishonest as you are?

                1. Procedural violation are not necessarily the same as a violation of law. Note that the judge in the case did not feel that way. You are trying to establish an equivalency that does not exist.

          3. JFC. Another parody account?

            1. They are multiplying

      2. Blue Anon in action

    2. LOL. Just can’t stop defending any negative perception of democrats can you. Yell from the rooftops Jeff. Then whisper how you aren’t a leftist in the very next breath.

  13. I know the comment section here doesn’t respond well to nuance, but the bill appears to already have a provision allowing for variances on polling hours based on population and when polling hours are set by the local government. Did neither Murkowski nor Boehm think to read the bill, or at least search for if the supposed issue was already addressed?

  14. The fact is that the voting hours are not the real problem with S1. We don’t need the federal government dictating to the states and we need states to back off trying to ratchet down the voting, particular among some minority groups.

    Image if Republican state legislators spend as much time trying to persuade people to vote for then as they spend trying to get people to not vote at all.

    1. GFY

    2. Imagine if you ever said anything that wasn’t a ridiculous outright lie.

  15. When states enact voting laws meant to suppress the votes of disfavored populations then it is up the Congress to step in and stop them. Some of the changes are normal, but some or horrifying. The Rs are literally setting in place the mechanisms for them to win by making it hard for their opponents supporters to vote and if that fails, then to overturn the election. And then there is gerrymandering which is just a whole other level of bad.

    1. Molly – can you enlighten me, what are the “horrifying” changes the R’s are proposing?

      1. The fact that the 2020 election were well participated and secure suggest that few new laws are needed.

        1. Ha Ha Ha

          1. You can’t just believe whatever lie you want to believe. That’s not how grownups act.

            1. No? Tell us more about how Trump colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election Tony.

        2. An election, that was “well participated” by dead people, ineligible voters, and fraudulent “mail-in” ballots is not a secure one.
          Nor is one where the print, television and social media censor stories that might change people’s mind.
          Something that post election polling has borne out.

      2. Those damn fools think you should only vote once per election.
        They also have the totally insane idea that you should actually live where you vote that one time.
        Crazy talk, right?

        1. Link to data supporting the things you are implying. Run along and find the evidence. I want to see it.

          1. It’s been shown to you thousands of times Tony. Maybe your antiretroviral treatments are affecting your memory.

            1. You are wrong. It has never been shown. It has been said many times but that not really the same thing as presenting evidence to support you accusations.

            2. You are wrong. It has not been show it has merely been said. That is not the same as showing evidence of your accusations.

              1. Sorry for duplicate comment.

      3. The ability of partisan groups to take over currently non-partisan election boards. The lowering of standards for judges to overturn the results of elections. Giving partisan poll watchers more power. Those are a few examples.

        1. Agreed, the left must be stopped from continuing to do these things.
          By any means necessary.

          1. It is Rs who are doing that you moron.

            1. Mark Zuckerberg is a Republican? That’s strange. First I’ve heard of that.

        2. The ability of partisan groups to take over currently non-partisan election boards.

          You mean like when Mark Zuckerberg sunk 500 million dollars into providing direct funding and staff to non-partisan local election boards and replaced them with Democratic party political operatives? Like that?

    2. Bullshit.

    3. When states enact voting laws meant to suppress the votes of disfavored populations then it is up the Congress to step in and stop them

      Absolutely. For decades now, one party has been manipulating election laws to suppress or negate the votes of disfavored populations. They have tried to limit the franchise by sex, by race, and now, bizarrely enough, by political position.

      They were defeated in their attempts to limit the franchise to their preferred race and sex largely by the actions of the other major party, but it was a short lived defeat.

      They had become skilled over the decades in the manipulation of the vote and soon had crafted policy in such a fashion that the populations they didn’t favor were either forbidden from voting or voted for rhetoric that had no action behind it.

      Eliminating the other party became the focus. Creating ‘open’ primary elections, non-partisan ballots, various conflicting vote counting, tallying, and ranking schemes coupled with the pursuit of control of election boards created a situation where, save in the most decisive elections, they could pretty much anoint the candidate they wanted and create, on the spot, a ‘legitimate’ counting scheme whereby they ‘won’.

      But an angry electorate saw through it and their edifice started to collapse. This forced them to show their hand with a open coup and installation of a puppet suffering from severe mental decline.

      And then bragging about having done such.

      The people hang on the verge of open revolt.

      So they went all in with the ‘For the People’ Act.

      And Congress stepped in and stopped them.

      1. Severe cognitive dissonance going on here.

    4. HI shreek. Fucked any children lately, you sick piece of shit pedophile?

  16. Boy this is a day late, isn’t it? Sorry Republicans stepped in the way of your libertarian/progressive paradise again, bub.

  17. It’s not intended to save “democracy”. It’s intended to save “Democrats”.

    Mind, some Democrats probably don’t think there’s a difference.

    1. The theory is that the more people are allowed to vote, the better it is for Democrats.

      What that should tell you is that Democrats are more popular and hence deserve to win, since we are a democracy.

      Do you believe Republicans should be out of power, ever, for any reason?

      1. Yeah. There’s 3.5 billion Chinese not allowed to vote in our elections. Imagine the progress we could make if we allowed them into our franchise.

        1. Chinese? I thought it was the Italians?

          1. I’m going to assume you’re being deliberately stupid.

            1. Always a safe bet.

      2. Rs do not accept that because they have already rejected the basic concept of democracy.

        1. So did the people who designed our system of government, shreek. Sorry.

      3. The theory is that the more people are allowed to vote, the better it is for Democrats.

        No. The theory is that the easier it is to create fraudulent voter registrations and fraudulent votes the better it is for Democrats. For example, 100% of the dead people who vote in every election because we are not allowed to prune voter registration rolls vote for the Democratic candidate. Democrats are very popular, as long as you count all of the ineligible or completely fake votes they manufacture when they are allowed to do so.

        What that should tell you is that Democrats are more popular and hence deserve to win, since we are a democracy.

        We are not a democracy though. See if you weren’t utterly and completely retarded you wouldn’t make these basic errors of logic and then reach false conclusions.

  18. But the fate of America’s democracy

    Democracy: Two wolves accusing three sheep of voter disenfranchisement, racism, and insurrection when they call for an election audit after losing the “what to eat for lunch” election.

    1. You got your multiple election audits.

      Stop being a baby, traitor. You lost an election. Donald Trump deserved to lose that election because he was the worst head of state in a democracy in all of history.

      1. And you got your multiple votes. Sorry they’re closing the gap on that loophole to ultimate democracy.

      2. You got your multiple election audits.

        There has not in fact been a single election audit conducted anywhere in the country since the election took place in November, although some are ongoing.

  19. States already spell out election rules for STATE senators, STATE reps, STATE governors so why should they also spell out rules for FEDERAL Reps, Senators AND President?

    If you want more VOTER confidence in FEDERAL ELECTIONS, maybe a FEDERAL STANDARD should be applied to ALL voters.

    1. Ridiculous. Nobody should have confidence in the Federal government to regulate itself. That’s the first premise of our Constitution.

    2. States already spell out election rules for STATE senators, STATE reps, STATE governors so why should they also spell out rules for FEDERAL Reps, Senators AND President?

      Uhh…. because the FEDERAL constitution says that STATES are responsible for making those rules you braindead sack of shit. Remember how the Pennsylvania supreme court set aside the state’s election laws in their entirety and you screamed from the rooftops that it was their right to do so because STATES make their own election rules? Well, that’s still the case even when you want to federalize all of the fraudulent bullshit you pulled and force every state to participate in your fraud.

  20. Hilarious.

    But see, elections are being nationalized right now. The same neo-Jim Crow laws and outlandish usurpations of the very concept of democracy are being passed in every red state. They didn’t think that evil shit up all at the same time by accident.

    You’re worried about 180 Alaskans? Fuck you, no you’re not. And you’re not worried about the integrity of democracy either, not that you mentioned it.

    For some reason it’s beyond the scope of libertarianism to concern itself whether people have self-rule or not. Has there even been a single article here critical of Republican efforts to turn this into a one-party autocracy? How is that compatible with libertarianism? Because you assume they’ll only throw the other guys in the camps?

    1. Many libertarians are strongly anti-tax and anti-regulation and they will sacrifice democracy to get what they want.

      1. Hi shreek. Have you fucked any children lately? You know, because you’re a self-confessed pedophile kiddie fucker who posted child porn all over this website and got yourself banned?

    2. Hey Tony, did you know that every single provision in the Georgia law that you called Jim Crow slavery was literally identical to provisions contained in the law of New York State? Isn’t it strange that you only have a problem with those laws in Georgia, but not in New York State? It’s almost like you’re a partisan piece of shit fascist who doesn’t give an actual fuck about anything other than getting your Marxist welfare state so you can get your AIDS drugs paid for.

  21. Increasing voter participation is only worthy in theory. Frigging idiots, uneducated, illiterates don’t bring much to the table. Fully 10% of the population will fail the basic tests to gain access to our military. If they fail to participate in voting we don’t lose out.

    1. The thing is, the people who vote for the worst politicians tend to be middle class. Endless culture war is a bit of a luxury, you know.

  22. We live in the United STATES of America, not the United STATE of America. We need to retain the ability to vote with our feet.

  23. “In short, some Senate Republicans have no qualms about supporting attempts to undermine elections”

    Same for Democrats, for example H.R.1 and S. 1. The purpose of these bills was to entrench Democrats in power forever.

    1. The only way the Ds will become entrenched is if more people vote for them, which is the point. There is nothing in that bill which will favors one party over another.

      1. It favors the party that is willing to cheat.
        We all know which party that is.
        You communists aren’t pushing this to make things fair.
        That’s not what the party of “the ends justify the means” is all about.

      2. The only way the Ds will become entrenched is if more people vote for them

        That’s not the way they became entrenched in power now. They did that by committing colossal amounts of voter registration fraud, vote fraud, and tabulation fraud. This bill makes it impossible for states to make rules that prevent voter registration fraud, vote fraud, or tabulation fraud and therefore favors the Democratic Party which has a lengthy and proven history of committing voter registration fraud, vote fraud, and tabulation fraud.

  24. Somehow, federal rules are unworkable, incompetent, disingenuous or exclusionary, but state rules are not.

    Somehow, golf, baseball, and God manage to function with top down rules, without every course, ballpark, and hamlet carving out their own exceptions.

    Running elections of national consequence based on what works in an Arctic village is insane. And using their example as a reason for avoiding needed reforms and cementing corrupt one-party domination should be called out for what it is.

    1. Top down election rules would make sense if they were ones that ensured integrity in the process.
      This piece of shit does the opposite. It enshrines the ability to cheat.

    2. Pass a constitutional amendment that authorizes the federal government to set election rules in every state then you fascist piece of shit.

  25. Again Reason can’t get it right but dances around the truth when it comes to Biden and the current Democrats:
    Federalizing Elections Will Destroy Democracy!

  26. “For the People Act”? Like the “New Deal” and “Fair Deal” administrations? Like the “Affordable Care Act”?
    When will “the people” ever learn they are being exploited? When will they stop voting, stop paying taxes, stop obeying regs, stop falling for the lies and promises?
    Reps can’t be held accountable so they serve themselves. It’s the norm in every country and has been since history began.

  27. I find the lack of knowledge and understanding here of “What” we “Are” as a nation beyond contempt. [“What Are We?”] A Democracy defends the principle of, “One Man, One Vote” [yes, I’m “That’ old – get over it] – nationwide. A Democratic Republic defends the principle of, “Individual Liberty” through the mechanism of a certain number of elected representatives from each population determined district in each individual state. “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.” -Benjamin Franklin. Or, as Candace Owens noted: “My freedom doesn’t end where your fear begins.” For those of you who are curious, go to the free, online, Heritage Guide to the Constitution for further edification.

Comments are closed.