Prof. George Lakoff once described the conservative philosophy in ten words: strong defense, free markets, lower taxes, smaller government, family values. Democracy is not among them. Granted, the word appears nowhere in the U.S. Constitution. It underlies words that do appear frequently: elect, vote, majority, and their variants. And in votes required to pass laws: two thirds, three fourths, etc.
“Strong defense” in this scheme is outward looking. Defense of democracy itself is not among the defining characteristics of American conservatism no matter how often its spokespersons repeat phrases such as election integrity. Hence today’s editorial from the New York Times Editorial Board.
“Congress Needs to Defend Vote Counting, Not Just Vote Casting” is a headline-tight summary of what those committed to democracy see needs defending right now from enemies domestic. Republican legislatures are in a rush to secure the Blessings of Power for themselves and their Posterity.
It would be overreach to assign blame for this antidemocratic movement solely to the immediate past president, perhaps the most corrupt, emotionally damaged, and antidemocratic leader in the nation’s history. Republicans are not working furiously to rig upcoming elections because they are afraid of Trump, Eric Boehlert wrote this week. “Republicans are doing this because they want to.” They do not want to govern. They want to rule. Democracy is a cosmetic convenience for them, not principle. They’ve proven that with actions.
The Times Editorial Board, however, believes the Democrats’ H.R. 1 is too broad, and inadequate to defend the republic against the systematic assault on democracy from within. Rather than wage a losing symbolic fight, Democrats should craft a more focused bill perhaps more palatable to more senators (Senate Republicans) “that aims squarely at ensuring that Americans can cast votes and that those votes are counted.”
That advice may be sound on its face, but ignores the fact that such legislation is needed because one major party in this country has rejected democracy as a foundational principle. Democracy itself has become unpalatable for Republicans, however well-seasoned.
The Board nonetheless presses on:
The vote-counting process necessarily relies on the judgment and integrity of local officials. No rules can perfectly prevent malfeasance. But Congress can take steps to protect the integrity of the election process.
One important measure included in H.R. 1 is to require a paper record of every vote, so that outcomes can be verified independently.
But the bill needs to go further. Congress also should establish uniform rules for vote counting, certification and challenges. It should also clarify its own role in certifying the results of presidential elections to prevent the possibility that a future Congress would overturn a state’s popular vote.
Some of the areas that are addressed by H.R. 1, including protections for voting and provisions to limit gerrymandering, are also urgent, because the threats to electoral democracy are interlocking. Restricting participation in elections, and playing with district boundaries, both conduce to the election of more extreme politicians, who in turn are more likely to regard elections as purely partisan competitions waged without regard to the public interest.
In addition to setting minimum standards for voting access, there is also a need to constrain states from moving backward, even if existing standards exceed those minimums.
Democrats are separately pursuing the revival of a key provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which required certain states and counties, mostly in the South, to obtain approval for any changes from the Justice Department. A 2013 Supreme Court ruling effectively ended this system, helping to clear the way for the restrictions that states are now imposing.
The problem with H.R. 1, the Board argues, is that it is too “sprawling.” And it may be. But that is not the source of Republican opposition. Republicans bent on undermining democracy itself are. Narrowing the bill’s scope will not change that.
“If Democrats can find 50 votes for reform, they should not postpone necessary interventions in the illusory hope of a bipartisan breakthrough, nor allow Republicans to filibuster,” the Board concludes.
On this, at least, we agree.