When Democrats regain Congress, one of the first legislative acts should be

[jaysunb]

Election reform.

There should be federal laws of uniformity that supersede States ability to rig or manipulate voting rights. There should also be severe penalties for aiding, abetting or conspiring to rig or manipulate the vote.

[sandensea]

1. Hear, hear. The sine qua non of any future reforms.

Keeping our congresscritters bought and paid for is how big business prevents any sensible changes - and in turn how they promote third-world style monstrosities.

[olegramps]

24. Many of us have often called for laws to prosecute anyone who impedes a citizen's right to vote.

One thing that puzzles me is minorities who support the very people and party that is acting to suppress their right to vote. Only the most delusional refuse to accept that a large, if not major block, of Southern voters is driven by racism and concepts of white superiority dating from the Civil War era. History is not on their side and each generation is increasingly rejecting this philosophy. Time is their worse enemy.

[sandensea]

35. It's a Stockholm Syndrome of sorts

A sizable minority among minority voters seems to believe Republicans will "treat them better" if they just join them.

Reminds me of that story about the Colombian-American Cheeto appointee who was fired after trying to revive Pizzagate on her social media. If the lady only knew how Trumpkins talk about her behind her back.

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/10142120808

They forget the first rule of sadists: Always take out your aggressions on your butt kissers first.

[vlyons]

2. I disagree

I would like to see the minimum wage raised to $15/hr. Putting money in the pocket of working people ASAP is the best way to show them that the Dem has their back.

[NEOBuckeye]

14. At the same time, jack up the tax rate on the 1%

Sock it to the rich old SOBs like Charles Koch and Sheldon Adelson.

[greymattermom]

19. Take Trump's advice

Give a 10% tax cut to the middle class. AND add a 10% surcharge, or even more, to the top 1% to pay for it. Start using their old language about the deficit. That will confuse some folks.

[uponit7771]

36. If there's an ability to rig the vote what difference does it make if wages were 30 an hour and ever

... one had health care and the economy was organically growing (which rare happens under KGOP watch)?

The KGOP would just rig votes to change all of that.

I really believe the sanctity of the vote comes first otherwise it doesn't matter what we want or when

[OAITW r.2.0]

3. Totally agree....just before we investigate the shite out of Trump and the Repbugs.

[elocs]

4. Well if the Democrats don't win the House back there will be some major egg cleaning from faces.

Those who strut and celebrate last strut and celebrate best.
But just think if the GOP somehow holds the House how much wailing and gnashing of teeth there will be about how they cheated and we was robbed.

[Progressive Jones]

16. I don't believe that the GOP can retain the house without cheating. nt

[ooky]

30. Of course, the GOP certainly cheats. That's baked into their strategy.

We have to overcome it with turnout. Its all about the turnout.

[SWBTATTReg]

5. Get rid of dark money. One of worse things about our elections now is that they aren't ours ...

anymore but the ultrarich.

[Qutzupalotl]

6. Also, no one.should oversee a race in which they stand

as a candidate. Maybe that means Secretary of State is a one-term office, and they can’t run for anything else while SoS.

[JayhawkSD]

7. Eliminate the states altogether.

Federal speed laws. Oops, those were ruled unconstitutional.
National popular vote for president: Democrats will love that until it elects a Republican.
Senate gives too much power to Montana: House gives too much power to California.

No, don't start flaming me, I'm a Democrat. I'm just rational. This country is a Federal Republic; a federation of states. It is not run by a national government. It is run by a consensus of state governments, weighted (not perfectly, but weighted) by population.

People in Montana do not think they same way that people in California think, and they are entitled to have a voice that counts. They are entitled to conduct their affairs in a manner that suits their own way of doing things. They should not have to conduct affairs within their state the way that California thinks they should just because California has a bigger voice in the federal government than they do.

[jaysunb]

9. This Californian totally disagrees with you.

Minority rule is not a good thing, especially when my tax dollars support their bullshit. Their "way of doing things " is in direct conflict with the way of life of the rest of us.

[JayhawkSD]

12. Where did I suggest "minority rule" in my post?

What you want to do is render the minority impotent, imposing your way of doing things on everyone whether that is their choice or not. You want the federal government to dictate how the states govern themselves, and that is not what this nation is.

And, by the way, since you don't live in Montana, your tax dollars do not support the way Montana runs its elections.

People in Montana might call your elections, in which two Democrats are on the ballot for US Senate, "bullshit." They don't because a) they don't care how other states run their elections, believing that it is none of their business, and b) they are too polite to be that insulting of other people.

[mr_lebowski]

28. I don't believe people In Montana and California really 'think different'

There's just an overall higher % of right-leaning folks in Montana vs. left-leaning. Oh, and it's way 'whiter'.
But that's about it. There's PLENTY of right-leaning people in further-flung parts of CA that think EXACTLY like righties in Montana. Same is very true in OR and WA.

'States' no longer define jack squat about the homogeneity of their populations, where they grew up, 'how they think', etc. They're NOT like European countries, put it like that ... the term 'Montanan' is not equivalent to, say, the term 'Italian'.

I basically consider US States to be a meaningless anachronism at this point, arbitrary lines on a map.

BTW the imbalance created by Montana having 2 Senators is WAAAAAY more significant than the one created by CA having a lot of House seats, sorry.

Just MHO, fwiw

[JayhawkSD]

41. You obviously have not traveled much.

And have read even less. Just look at the legislators the states have elected and the which laws they have passed. The differences are vast.

Clearly, you favor power imbalance when it favors "your side" and oppose it when it favors the "other side."

[mr_lebowski]

47. No, I'm just saying you're overgeneralizing. Only takes 51% to elect legislators or pass laws ...

For example ...

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142193365

I've maintained I think 'states' are an anachronism that I'd be fine with getting rid of (or at least have the lines redrawn for 'Senate Districts' that are more fairly apportioned to population) ... for the better part of 2 DECADES, my friend.

I read a lot, thank you very much.

I worked very closely with a Montana guy for 8 years at my current job, he was my manager in fact ... and he lived his whole life there til he came to AZ a year before.

He's every bit as liberal as I am, maybe more so.

And it is absolutely a mathematical FACT that the average voter in small states has outsized political power vs those in large states, per capita.

[roamer65]

37. No. Hell no.

If anyone tries to eliminate states, I will definitely be in the secessionist camp.

I am a Michigander first, American second. The states belong to a compact called the Constitution of the United States. It is a compact that is only slightly more binding than the Articles of Confederation.

We are going to take a big step forward in progressive states rights by legalizing recreational MJ in Nov 6th. We may also have to do it to preserve abortion rights as well.

[JayhawkSD]

42. Indeed. Your state is entitled to define itself.

If your state believes that MJ should be legal, then it should be legal in your state. There are some states which believe it should not be legal, in which case it should not be legal in that state. I don't see what is so complicated about such issues. What California wants should carry zero weight in Michigan.

California, I'm ashamed to say, doesn't share that opinion. California thinks it should rule the United States because it has 55 members in the House of Representatives. California thinks Montana should have zero Senators because that state's population is too small to matter.

[jaysunb]

46. You're over the top yet again.

Californians don't want to rule the Country, we just don't want our voice to be drown out by small groups of people that don't share our needs and wishes.
If you want, we can start with gun control.

[IronLionZion]

48. They tried that with civil rights already

and "states rights" were over-ruled when it came to protecting Americans from segregation, terrorism, and Jim Crow state laws to suppress votes.

And it happened the other way when state or local gun laws were over-ruled by the 2nd amendment.

States shouldn't be taking away rights from people, especially to vote.

[olegramps]

50. States rights was a compromise forced on the founders to get radification.

The Federalist Papers discussed these issues at length including the compromise of the electoral system. They fully realized that it was a unfortunate compromise but due to the times a necessary one. The same in regard to slavery. It took nearly one hundred years and blood civil war to correct that problem which is still not fully realized another one and half centuries latter.

[JayhawkSD]

54. It is apalling that anyone could know so little of his own nation's history.

Robert E. Lee, for instance, was a graduate of the United States Military Academy and a general in the United States Army. He had sworn an oath of loyalty to the United States. When his home state of Virginia seceded from the union of the United States, he renounced that oath because his first loyalty was to his home state. This was by no means unusual, almost all officers in the US Army did likewise because when this nation was formed as a federation of states, and for many years afterward, people's first loyalty was to their home state and their second was to the nation.

In that same period, in the North, men would not sign up to serve in the United States Army, but eagerly signed up to defend the nation by serving in their state militias. This was because they were not willing to serve under federal officers, and would serve only under the officers in their own state organizations, appointed by their own state governors.

States rights was not a "compromise" at all. It was and remains an essential component of what this nation is. The constitution is filled with the limitations of the federal government and specifications of the rights reserved to the states because of the nature of the nation formed by that document which is, to repeat myself, a federation of states. That concept is spelled out in our name: The United States of America.

There are many who feel the same as Robert E. Lee did today, including those who govern the nation. Ask any federal legislator (Senator/Representative) and he/she will tell you, "My responsibility is to act in the best interest of the people of my state." I have heard that statement more times than I can count, and I've never heard anyone from their home state tell them not to do so.

In any case, you can't have it both ways. You can't demand that your legislators act in what you consider to be the best interest of your state and not allow legislators of other states to act in what the people of those states consider to be in the best interest of those states.

[JayhawkSD]

55. Legislators have it wrong, by the way.

When federal legislators say that, "My responsibility is to act in the best interest of the people of my state," they are wrong, and that is a very big part of the problem this nation faces.

Their real responsibility is to "represent the principles of the people of my state in serving the best interest of the nation as a whole."

When legislators represent only the best interest of the people of the state they serve, and not those of the nation, then we become the "Divided States of America," 485 constituencies all fighting for the biggest piece of the pie and willing to sabotage not only each of the other 484 constituencies, but willing to sabotage the nation as a whole in order to fatten the purse of one small piece.

The legislators are not supposed to be "bringing home the bacon," they are supposed to be governing the nation by casting votes in the legislature which are in accordance with principles that are held by their constituencies.

[olegramps]

63. You are absolutely correct. They framers of the constitution realized that it would create division.

A person who is a citizen of the nation can have a right that is guaranteed in their home state, relocated to an adjacent state that can abolish that right. An example is abortion or liquor laws that are enforced primarily because of ruling party's local religious beliefs. States rights are a unmitigated disaster that have been used by charlatans and religious fanatics to imposed their will on the people and in far too many cases to enrich selected groups. Just consider the disparity between educational systems, not to mention de facto segregation. As a nation we should have one set of laws, not some ridiculous hodge-podge of laws passed by legislatures that are purely discriminatory in nature. The system is unique and ridiculous.

[JayhawkSD]

64. On the other hand, it can assure freedom.

A person might abhor the use of alcohol, and based on that belief choose to live in a state that bans drinking on Sundays.

A person might be "pro-life" and because of that belief choose to live in a state that bans abortion.

"...relocated to an adjacent state that can abolish that right." Since we don't have slavery, how can a person be "relocated to an adjacent state" forcefully or unwillingly? How can a person, and we are talking about adults, here, not minor children, be forced to live in a state in which he/she does not wish to live?

If the federal government makes all states have uniform laws and eliminates the "evilness of states," with their "ridiculous hodge-podge of laws," they will have reduced freedom in the nation, because a person can no longer live in a place which has laws and customs which are consistent with his/her beliefs.

I lived for a long time in Arizona. They regarded my views as "bleeding heart liberal" and did not mind that I held those views. They welcomed me and I had many pleasant discussions with people whose views were not the same as mine. After I moved to California, those same views are regarded as offensively conservative and are met with invective and insult. I do not have political discussions in California, because they almost always become unpleasant, with perjorative and judgemental comments like "ridiculous hodge-podge of laws," and that something is "purely discriminatory in nature."

And, by the way, when I told my Arizona friends that the California primary election system resulted in two Democrats being on the general election ballot for US Senate, they were shocked and felt that such an election should be considered invalid. You may now go ahead and tell me that people from Arizona are ignorant, stupid and rude, and that their opinion is of no meaning to you. There said it for you and saved you some time.

[ChiTownDenny]

8. +1000

[jmowreader]

10. One yooge reform I would like to see

State-level elected officials affect interstate commerce, so this would be justifiable as a federal law.

“The State official responsible for that state’s election system may not seek election to any office other than the one the official currently holds. An official who desires to seek a different office must resign from the official’s current position no later than three business days anfter announcing candidacy.”

[jaysunb]

11. Wow ! what a crock of common sense. :) n/t

[RainCaster]

13. Me like!!

[MaryMagdaline]

29. Absolutely!

[jmowreader]

38. It would be much better...

The election supervisor shouldn’t be elected at all. The best thing would be for the Democratic caucus in the House to select all the supervisors for states that generally vote D (say, a majority of the elections over the last 20 years) for president, and the Republican caucus to do the same for the states that lean R. When a vacancy happens, the other supervisors in the group the departing one is in will choose a new one.

[patphil]

15. Only one problem

I agree, election reform is essential to protect the right to vote.
Only one problem.
Trump will never sign any legislation put forth by a democrat held congress.
The scales won't be balanced as long as republicans control the white house.
No point in the impeachment process either. It requires 67 senators to remove an impeached president from office. Do the math. Assuming the democrats control the house and the senate, it will still take a whole lot of republicans voting to remove Trump.
That's not going to happen either.
The 2018 election is just the starting point for taking back the republic. The real battle will be in 2020.
First we win the congress, then the white house. Then we fix what the republicans have broken.
Pat Phillips

[Stonepounder]

17. I was going to comment that this would require a Constitutional Amendment,

since Article I, Section 4 specifically states:

Section 4
1: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof.

Imagine my surprise and embarrassment (since I consider myself reasonably well acquainted with the Constitution since Mrs. Stonepounder has her MA and ABD in history) when I checked the get the exact wording of the above mentioned quote and discovered that Article I, Section 4 actually says:

Section 4
1: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

So yes, the Congress has the absolute right to pass a law codifying how national elections, at least for Congresscritters, should be carried out.

Wow, you never stop learning!

[allgood33]

18. Make Election day Tuesdays a national holiday.

[jmowreader]

39. Better idea

Make Election Day Election Week, and run it from the first Saturday after Independence Day to the next Friday.

Before that will be Primary Weekend, which will be the first weekend in April. Every state will do primaries that day.

And, most important, if we can’t get rid of the electoral college we change to a system where only a state’s House members are counted for the apportionment.

[Buckeyeblue]

56. I like that idea

We could replace Columbus Day with Election Day.

[jmowreader]

57. No...it needs to be right after the Fourth of July

We spend weeks before July 4th whipping the populace into a patriotic fervor. We can take advantage of that by holding elections when people are still in a patriotic mood, and by holding them over an entire week everyone will have the chance to get to the polls.

[lark]

20. They need to include mandating paper receipts and manual counting of these if the vote is within 1%

Another important thing, all voting machine mfgs have to share source code with US and be tested before and after elections to ensure machines can't be hacked and weren't hacked.

[Firestorm49]

23. Couldn't agree more.

[sarcasmo]

21. Paper ballots.

[Firestorm49]

22. Absolutely.

[Joe941]

25. Impeachment should be first priority.

[CountAllVotes]

26. +1,000 !!

n/t !!

[jcmaine72]

33. +100,000,000

[CrispyQ]

52. Without the Senate, what would be the point?

Our corrupt & compromised electoral process is the first thing that needs to be addressed or we will have permanent one-party rule. The GOP is playing for keeps. The pessimist in me thinks things are going to get really bad after November, no matter who wins. The right wing nut jobs are poor winners & even worse losers.

[pwb]

27. The legislature can't do it alone?

They have to work with the senate and then trump has to sign it. So?? Chances are slim of any election reform. What we will get is a check on trump.

[Amimnoch]

31. And every state we gain needs to follow Rhode Islands lead,

And require all Presidential candidates to reveal the last 5 years of their incom tax filings to even get on the ballot.

[More_Cowbell]

58. Jerry Brown vetoed this in California

When our legislature passed a "show your tax returns" law last year.

Just shows how important state offices are. And he's a Democrat!

[robbob]

32. The reThuglican party is the party of voter suppression.

I don’t know why the media can’t just come out and tell it like it is. The republicans blatantly push to suppress minority voters at every election and the media just sits there with their thumbs up their asses pretending it isn’t happening. Or they feature guest blathering on about “protecting the integrity of the elections” against almost non-existent voter fraud. It’s ludicrous; even if you could show me that 100, or even 1,000 people cast a fraudulent vote (you can’t because they didn’t), that somehow justifies purging 500,000 registered voters from the rolls? Who just “coincidentally” happen to be mostly minorities?

I always try to be fair minded, I always try to see both sides of any issue, but can anybody point out ANY examples of the Democratic Party using voter suppression as an election tactic?

The republicans are blatantly anti-democratic and anti voter rights. It’s plain for anyone to see, and unfortunately a majority of their supporters probably see nothing wrong with it, a combination of “win at any cost” and thinking that minorities shouldn’t be allowed to vote anyway.

[Sucha NastyWoman]

60. For years, every time someone calls us a democracy, Republicans are quick to object

and point out that, no, we are a Republic. I thought they were just concentrating on “states rights”, but now it seems to become clearer all the time that they don’t really favor a democratic form of government.

[BarbD]

34. Absolutely should be on the very long Dems to-do list.

If we are able to overcome the Republican suppression of the vote, congress should hold hearings on all of these issues. Nothing like sunlight to burn the corruptive rot.

[beachbum bob]

40. Until democrats have the presidency, NO democratic bills will be signed...

gotta face reality but that also means no trump initiatives have any chance.

[Doitnow]

43. Exactly. If you don't have a vote, you have next to nothing!

[Doitnow]

44. Starting immediately, if not sooner, everything the Rethugs object to from the Democrats

should be widely publicized.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

45. Absolutely election reform. Kicked and Recommended. . . . nt

[RightiswrongTn]

49. There was..

It was called the voting rights act, and it kept the worst offenders ( the South) in check. Supreme Court gutted it. Guess what? Jim Crow part II..

[LBM20]

51. BOTH Houses of Congress and Donny Rotten have to agree laws. Taking the House puts a check on Trump.

[Sucha NastyWoman]

59. That is what I worry about.

I’ve been hearing for months how Democrats need to talk about pocketbook and kitchen table issues, not just about stopping Trump. But I fear we may be setting expectations we can’t possibly fulfill if the House is the only thing we control. voters should understand that now, else the Republicans can credibly say, two years from now, that Democrats didn’t deliver on anything they promised.

[McCamy Taylor]

53. Paper ballots. Tell the Koch Brothers they can sell the US the paper and

the Kochs will make sure it happens.

[Nitram]

61. I agree with your sentiment, but I think there are two possible obstacles.

The Senate and The Supreme Court.

[zentrum]

62. Get rid of Electotal College.

Get rid of all voter suppression laws. Jim Crow is supposed to be over.