With one Reconciliation Bill left to be used in 2021, it must be changed to HR1/VRA/S1 from the

[OnDoutside]

Infrastructure Bill.

I say this for a number of reasons :

1 Red States are trying to pass widespread voter suppression laws.

2 If HR1/VRA/S1 is left to next January, I fear (with potential court challenges), there may not be time to properly protect the Nov 2022 Elections, and there is NOTHING more important than that, now that the Rescue Bill is going through.

3 With a 1.9TN Covid package, there is every likelihood that the US Economy will be roaring back by the end of the year, to be the bolstered by an Infrastructure Package in Jan 2022.

4 Once the Voting Rights Bill is passed, I would still introduce the Infrastructure Bill, and now with earmarks back, make it excruciating for any Republican to vote it down. If they don't support it, they will be ads made in heaven.

5 by passing HR1/VRA/S1, and the elections are protected with voter suppression tricks outlawed, Republicans will need a distraction of something like Infrastructure money. To me, this is the proper sequence.

6. I believe Joe Biden when he said he wanted to bring bipartisanship back to Washington, and I believe that's why he decided on Covid Rescue followed by Infrastructure, but it surely must be clear to him now that McConnell has no intention of cooperating on anything.

So which do you want to see next ?

15 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	HR1/VRA/S1
	14 (93%)
	Infrastructure Bill
	1 (7%)
	Other
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[meadowlander]

1. Can they definitely use reconciliation for voting rights?

I thought there was some question about whether on not you could use reconciliation for non-budget related matters and that was why they were proposing to use it for infrastructure instead.

[OnDoutside]

10. I'm going only on what Norm Ornstein said, to Al Franken. Maybe I took it up incorrectly but

here is pat of the transcript, and link.

You know, what they did through the Obama years was the McConnell used this as a weapon of mass obstruction because all you had to do was barely lift your little finger and say, okay, we deny unanimous consent. We're going to filibuster this. You're going to have to take two days for a cloture motion to ripen. So you can put it on the table. And then you'll have to take a lot of time to get, try and get those 60 votes. And then eventually, if you do get the 60 votes, there are 30 hours allowed of post closure debate. And we're going to use every minute of that. So we can keep the floor occupied and keep you from doing other things. You know, we can do that. Even for nominations, they did a number of them that ultimately passed unanimously.

And if you change the burden and put the burden on them and require them regularly to have to come up with those 40 votes, I'd even raise it to 45. You can go round the clock. And they're the ones who have to be they're all the time, just in case there is a vote called. And if they have some people who are sick or who can't make it back to a Washington, that's the problem for them. And if you're in the majority schedule votes at times that might be inconvenient for them. And what it means is they can't use the filibuster for everything. They could use a delaying tactic for a smaller number of things. But if they do that, then you're going to get a real spotlight on them to, you know, just to take a one good example right now, imagine if we had the John Lewis voting rights act brought up as a separate bill, something widely popular around the country.

It's for bringing voting rights to people in the name of one of the great icons of the 20th century. And they decide to filibuster that the majority leader says we're going to go round the clock on this one, just like the old days, when the segregationists locked civil rights bills, the new segregationists, and it's going to get huge amounts of attention. And the burden is on them, not just to have to be there at three in the morning for the votes, but to explain why they're against voting rights,

Let's explain what this is is it's, it's a response to Shelby County and Shelby County was a Supreme court decision that struck down the pre-clearance provision of the voting rights act, which meant that these places in that had been designated a, in the original voting rights act had to get pre-clearance on the federal government to change their election rules. And just to make sure that they weren't disenfranchising people, they, those districts, those voting areas had done before. And they tended to be in a lot of Southern States. So Shelby County got rid of that, got rid of pre-clearance and immediately after Robert's, by the way, wrote that decision.
As soon as that happened, Texas, South Carolina, North Carolina, all started rewriting there, the rules and trying to suppress votes of black people. So the new voting rights act with just extend this to every voting District in America.

All right. Yeah. And you know, when Shelby County came out, Rob Robert's decision, he basically said, look, we've gone through all this time. And they haven't tried to do laws that would block people of color from voting. So everything's just fine right now. Of course they hadn't done it because the law had been in place and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, you know, in her dissent said, this is the equivalent of saying, okay, it's been raining, I've had the umbrella up and I'm not getting rained upon. So I guess it's fine. I can throw my umbrella away. And of course it wasn't just Texas and North Carolina, Shelby County itself, the day after this decision went back to a voter suppression action.

Yeah. Okay. So yes. So that's right. And, and, and there were some egregious agregious changes in North of North Carolina than one of the fourth circuit when they finally got the rule on, it said that they had targeted blacks with almost surgical precision, but that would be a good standalone one to test the filibuster,

You know, So would a background checks, a universal background Checks for a gun, you know,
Supported by 90% of Americans.

Now, the John Lewis voting rights act is a part of a big on the bus bill that the house has passed. Right?

Yeah. They passed a, made an HR one, which signals it's priority a big democracy package. Last Congress. They've introduced it again. And we have a counterpart in the Senate that was crafted by Jeff Merkley, which will go in as S one.

Okay. Do you think it would be more strategic just to go with the John Lewis voting rights act, just start with that, because that seems to be pretty powerful way to begin.

You know, I can imagine at least as a strategy, bringing up the big package, talking about how we have real challenges in our democracy challenges in elections challenges with campaign finance challenges with gerrymandering, and that almost certainly would be filibustered by McConnell. And then coming back with the specific element with the John Lewis voting rights,
The filibuster Again in our plan would require Chuck Grassley, a, the sleep overnight on a, an air mattress in the Capitol,
Right? So Chuck Grassley, a 87, 86 year old Richard Shelby, 87 year old Jim Inhofe, soon to be 80 year old Mitch McConnell, you know, a lumpy air mattress, most likely or a lumpy mattress. I think that's the way to go. Yeah, we've got an Agenda out there. And if we're back to business as usual, if what we get is a few platitudes from Republicans about how now it's time to work together, and then they fall back on the strategy of blocking everything that they can
Connell filibustered, more executive appointments or nominees of, of Obama's than had been filibustered in the entire previous history of the time,

The country, and all designed to make a difficult to govern. And, you know, we're seeing now Biden comes in. The normal practice would be to hold a confirmation hearings on the critical cabinet nominees, significantly in advance. We didn't get any done until yesterday. And now we see at least a few that are being blocked by the likes of Josh Holly and Ted Cruz and Tom cotton at least finally gave up on blocking the confirmation of Avril Haines as the director of national intelligence. No imagine now, after we know that the Russians have hacked into our most sensitive government sites and probably have a capacity to bring us to our knees after we know of all the foreign threats that are out there with some question about whether some of them might of had agents in the Capitol on January 6th, that after all that we had senators who were willing to keep a smooth transfer of power to those who will be in charge of intelligence of Homeland security.

You know, the most sensitive positions, even though the threshold's been reduced to 50, instead of 60 for these executive nominees, they can still be delayed. And we're seeing some of that happen. Even as we speak,

We haven't even started on what the president needs to address right now, which is COVID obviously getting everyone inoculated getting, you know, he's, he signed executive orders. And one of them is to, in all federal property, after wear a mask, I need to start doing some common sense stuff to address COVID, but we're also gonna, he's also gonna have, he was going to try to pass a $1.9 trillion a COVID package, which includes a relief for families and also a stimulus package, but it is, do we have infrastructure within that package or that be something I can't believe that the one thing that Trump didn't try to do is infrastructure.

I mean, here's a guy who his whole thing is, I'm a builder. Yeah. And he had run in 16 on a trillion dollar infrastructure package for the country and he never did it. He now, and everyone wants it. I mean, Americans want our airports and our roads and our bridges and our rail to look like something like the rest of the developed world

https://app.picassoknows.ai/episode/61120467

[Trueblue1968]

14. Why don't they COMBINE the Infrustructer and Voter Bights bill into ONE.

[FoxNewsSucks]

2. If everyone can't vote,

there will never be another Democratic House, Senate or President.

[Funtatlaguy]

12. Yes. Voting rights and suppression are the entire BALLGAME.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

3. Will HR1/VRA/S1 be eligible for reconciliation? NT

[Fiendish Thingy]

4. Voting rights won't qualify for reconciliation, otherwise I would agree. Nt

[Bettie]

5. Infrastructure can be put into appropriations

and an argument can be made that it belongs there.

HR1 is probably THE single most important piece of legislation we have. People have a right to vote and have their votes counted.

Republicans might vote for infrastructure, they will NEVER support the right to vote.

[SheltieLover]

7. +1,000,000!!!

[crickets]

17. "HR1 is probably THE single most important piece of legislation we have."

No question. None. Everything hinges on it.

[FBaggins]

6. I'll say infrastructure - since it can't be used for the other

Reconciliation isn't a "one filibuster-free package" card. As shown with the parliamentary failure of the $15 minimum wage.

[Demsrule86]

8. I don't see voting rights qualifying for reconciliation.

Infrastructure can be done in reconciliation and also tax reform...too.

[dsc]

9. It is unimaginable that HR1 would qualify for reconciliation

we have to get rid of the filibuster for this bill or at least get a restriction on it that changes it into something which merely slows down legislation instead of stopping it dead.

[BumRushDaShow]

13. Thre are only 3 types of bills that can be done by reconciliation

Something that deals with "spending", something that deals with "revenue" (taxes), and something that deals with the "debt limit". Each type can only be used once in a fiscal year (although as a note, the fiscal year ends September 30 and the tool would become available again starting October 1, which is the next fiscal year but could then end up being in the same calendar year).

And I doubt what you propose, other than infrastructure (which would deal with "spending" ), would qualify. It would have to be budget-related, although it's possible the VRA could be shoe-horned in if funds were to be provided for increases in elections access and for the enhanced security of the elections (I know there was discussion about paying the cost of the postage for mail-in ballots for example).

[OnDoutside]

15. Two things on that.

1 There are budgetary elements in HR1

Election security
The bill contains election security provisions, including a voter verified paper ballot provision mandating the use of paper ballots that can be marked by voters either by hand or with a ballot marking device and inspected by the voter to allow any errors to be corrected before the ballot is cast. The bill would also require state officials to preserve paper ballots for recounts or audits, and to conduct a hand count of ballots for recounts and audits.[15] The bill would require the voting machines used in all federal elections to be manufactured in the U.S.[15]

Campaign finance reform
The bill would introduce voluntary public financing for campaigns, matching small donations at a 6:1 ratio.[9] The money would come from a new “Freedom From Influence Fund” under the U.S. Treasury, which would collect funds by charging a small fee assessed on criminal and civil fines and penalties or settlements with banks and corporations that commit corporate malfeasance.[18] It also incorporates campaign finance reform provisions from the DISCLOSE Act,[9][19] which would impose stricter limitations on foreign lobbying, require super PACs and other "dark money" organizations to disclose their donors, and restructure the Federal Election Commission to reduce partisan gridlock. The bill expresses support for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United, in which the Supreme Court held that limits on independent political expenditures by corporations, labor unions, and other associations are unconstitutional.[4][20]

Ethics
The bill would require the president and vice president, as well as presidential and vice-presidential candidates, to publicly disclose their previous 10 years of income tax returns. The bill would also eliminate the use of taxpayer money by members of Congress to settle employment discrimination claims, by requiring members of Congress to reimburse the Treasury for any such payments.[2][4][20][15][a] Another part of the bill would require the Judicial Conference to establish rules of ethics binding on the Supreme Court of the United States, the only court in the U.S. without a binding canon of judicial ethics.[15][2][4]

The legislation would also set new disclosure rules and limitations on presidential inaugural committees.[16] Inaugural committees would be barred from taking money from corporations; a contribution limit to inaugural committees of $50,000 per person would be imposed (under current law, there is no limit); contributions of more than $1,000 would have to be disclosed within one day; and the use of funds donated to inaugural committees would be restricted only to use for inaugural events and for charitable contributions.[15]

Statehood for the District of Columbia
The 2019 version of H.R. 1 made findings in support of admitting the District of Columbia as a state, affirming Congress's power (under the Constitution's Article IV) to create a new state in the populated area that is now D.C., while retaining a separate federal district comprising the Capitol Complex, White House, National Mall, and certain other federal areas.[15] In June 2020, the House approved H.R. 51, a separate piece of legislation that would make the populated portion of the District a state, on a nearly party-line vote; the measure was not taken up in the Republican-controlled Senate. This bill alone would not admit Washington, D.C. as a state; it just affirms Congress's authority to do so.[21][22]

Gerrymandering
The bill would thwart gerrymandering by requiring states to use independent commissions to draw congressional district lines,[23] except in the seven states with only one congressional district.[2] Partisan gerrymandering (creating a map that "unduly favor[s] or disfavor[s]" one political party over another) would be prohibited.[15] The legislation would require each commission to have 15 members (five Democrats, five Republicans, and five independents) and would require proposed maps to achieve a majority vote to be accepted, with at least one vote in support from a Democrat, a Republican, and an independent. The bill would require the commissions to draw congressional district lines on a five-part criterion: &quot 1) population equality, (2) compliance with the Voting Rights Act, (3) compliance with additional racial requirements (no retrogression in, or dilution of, minorities’ electoral influence, including in coalition with other voters), (4) respect for political subdivisions and communities of interest, and (5) no undue advantage for any party."[23]

Number of Federal Election Commissioners
Under current law, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) has six members, no more than three of whom can be members of the same political party, with at least four votes required for any official FEC action. The complaint is that this has resulted in an impotent and gridlocked FEC, with important reforms left unaddressed, such as the updating of campaign finance law for the digital age[24] and effective regulation of political donations.[25] Some advocates for reform have blamed the Republican FEC members for unwillingness either to investigate any potential violations or to impose tougher restrictions,[26] and for loosening restrictions simply by signaling what standards they are willing to enforce.[27]

The proposed bill would give the FEC five commissioners instead of six, reducing the likelihood of tie votes, and require that no more than two can be members of the same political party. It would set up a "Blue Ribbon Advisory Panel" consisting of an odd number of individuals selected by the president from retired federal judges, former law enforcement officials, or people with experience in election law, except anyone who holds any public office at the time of selection, but the president would not be required to choose from among those recommended by the panel. Some observers claim that there would be no built-in benefit for either party.[28]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_the_People_Act#Election_security

SEC. 1017. PAYMENTS AND GRANTS.
(a) In General.—The Election Assistance Commission shall make grants to each eligible State to assist the State in implementing the requirements of this part (or, in the case of an exempt State, in implementing its existing automatic voter registration program).

(b) Eligibility; Application.—A State is eligible to receive a grant under this section if the State submits to the Commission, at such time and in such form as the Commission may require, an application containing—

(1) a description of the activities the State will carry out with the grant;

(2) an assurance that the State shall carry out such activities without partisan bias and without promoting any particular point of view regarding any issue; and

(3) such other information and assurances as the Commission may require.

(c) Amount Of Grant; Priorities.—The Commission shall determine the amount of a grant made to an eligible State under this section. In determining the amounts of the grants, the Commission shall give priority to providing funds for those activities which are most likely to accelerate compliance with the requirements of this part (or, in the case of an exempt State, which are most likely to enhance the ability of the State to automatically register individuals to vote through its existing automatic voter registration program), including—

(1) investments supporting electronic information transfer, including electronic collection and transfer of signatures, between contributing agencies and the appropriate State election officials;

(2) updates to online or electronic voter registration systems already operating as of the date of the enactment of this Act;

(3) introduction of online voter registration systems in jurisdictions in which those systems did not previously exist; and

(4) public education on the availability of new methods of registering to vote, updating registration, and correcting registration.

(d) Authorization Of Appropriations.—

(1) AUTHORIZATION.—There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section—

(A) $500,000,000 for fiscal year 2021; and

(B) such sums as may be necessary for each succeeding fiscal year.

(2) CONTINUING AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS.—Any amounts appropriated pursuant to the authority of this subsection shall remain available without fiscal year limitation until expended.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1/text

2 If Manchin agrees, they can take on the Parliamentarian

He said this today

House Democrats just passed a major ethics and voting reform bill last week but that legislation is unlikely to get much bipartisan support. There are strict rules as to what types of provisions can qualify to pass under reconciliation, so it's unclear how much of that bill could survive the reconciliation process.

“I will change my mind if we need to go to a reconciliation” if “we have to get something done,” Manchin said, but only after “my Republican friends have the ability to have their say also.”

[BumRushDaShow]

16. If they can shoe-horn it into one of the categories

then they can try to go for it.

When I was searching for some other stuff today, I did see what you mentioned about what Manchin's most recent remarks were on the multiple shows that he appeared on today, and he seems to be doing tiny tiny backtracks when it comes to what is "Rule 22".

[OnDoutside]

18. Yes it certainly looks like it, and he's covering the bases that a Red state Dem would

do, to be able to say "Look I tried to give my Republican friends every accommodation to engage in bipartisan negotiation but they weren't interested this time...."

I know and understand that a lot of progressives here are losing their mind here over Manchin and Sinema, but they were there on Saturday when it mattered.

[BumRushDaShow]

19. I mentioned in another thread about this dynamic--

i.e., the so-called "Problem Solvers Caucus" -

Problem Solvers Co-Chairs Tom Reed (NY-23) and Josh Gottheimer (NJ-5), as well as Reps. Dusty Johnson (SD-AL), Dean Phillips (MN-3), Fred Upton (MI-6), Abigail Spanberger (VA-7), and Anthony Gonzalez (OH-16) were joined today by Senators Joe Manchin (WV), Susan Collins (ME), Mark Warner (VA), Bill Cassidy (LA), Jeanne Shaheen (NH), Lisa Murkowski (AK), Angus King (ME), Mitt Romney (UT), and Maggie Hassan (NH).

(bolded are the Senate members and that Senate list was included in a press release for their version of the COVID relief package here)

The other Democrats (and one Independent who caucuses with Democrats) in that group have not been as bombastic and attention-getting as Manchin or Sinema, but they have been right there behind those two vocal ones as well. So it's a matter of whether they feel the same way when it comes to certain types of legislation that really shouldn't be held up by a filibuster - particularly something that impacts voting rights for minorities, which doesn't seem to be on that caucus's agenda (at least yet).

But agree that for pretty much everything else, they lock-step voted with Democrats.