Coming up on @npratc with @nprAudie at the top of the hour talking about the latest state voting laws and how the federal government might respond. Tune in!
Here's the link to my talk with @nprAudie@npratc about how the federal government can respond to state election laws that make it harder to vote and easier to manipulate election outcomes npr.org/2021/06/01/100…
When asked what the most important thing Joe Biden could do to protect voting rights and prevent election subversion, I said to get Joe Manchin in a room and figure out what he wants to not only support legislation but blow up filibuster for voting rights.
Back in 2018 in @Slate I made the case for blowing up the filibuster particularly for voting rights, which is akin to what both Dems and Republicans did for judicial (and other) nominations. slate.com/news-and-polit…
And I see Senator @ReverendWarnock made the same point that there is a compelling case to be made to eliminate the filibuster specifically to protect the right to vote, and to a fair election thedailybeast.com/joe-manchin-de…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I meant there were lots of other voting rights groups in the fight before you (that are not associated with the Democratic Party) and that are doing excellent work.
Here's the link to the full Facebook decision, which requires Facebook to reexamine Trump's "indefinite" expulsion within 6 months and come up with a standard for a "proportionate" penalty. oversightboard.com/decision/FB-69… Perhaps permanent removal IS proportionate in this case.More soon
"If Facebook decides to restore Mr. Trump’s accounts, the company should apply its rules to that decision, including any changes made in response to the Board’s policy recommendations below. ...
"...In this scenario, Facebook must address any further violations promptly and in accordance with its established content policies. "
I'll be listening to the Supreme Court's argument in the AFP case, which may have major implications for the constitutionality of campaign finance disclosure laws. Listen here: c-span.org/video/?510032-…
CJ Roberts out of the bat suggests skepticism of moving this analysis to "strict scrutiny." But in McCutcheon case, Roberts affirmed but redefined exacting scrutiny in contributions context to make it closer to strict scrutiny.
The level of scrutiny matters a lot because the stricter the scrutiny, the more likely the courts will strike down the law as an unconstitutional infringement on rights.
This @Nate_Cohn piece is a must-read, on the analytically distinct question of whether new laws like Georgia's allow for the subversion of election results, an analytically distinct question from voter suppression. /2 nytimes.com/2021/04/06/ups…
He writes: "trying to reverse an election result w/o credible evidence of widespread fraud is an act of a different magnitude than narrowing access.A successful effort to subvert an election wd pose grave&fundamental risks to democracy, risking political violence&secessionism."/3
MANCHIN likes mandated early voting, support for Native American voting rights, improved election security, and better disclosure of campaign financing (Disclose Act and Honest Ads Act). Not mentioned: restore VRA preclearance (in HR4), felon reenfranchisement, public financing