April 9: Democrats Have a Clear National Position on Voting Rights. Republicans? Not So Much.
Some of the contradictions in Republican talking points on election law and voting rights are becoming clear to me, so I wrote about it at New York:
During the intense controversy raised by Georgia’s new election law, which included a negative reaction from Major League Baseball and a number of corporations, many defenders of the law have played a game of whataboutism. What about voting laws in Colorado, the state to which the MLB’s all-star game has been shifted? What about liberal New York? A lot of these comparisons have been factually challenged, or have zeroed in on one benign feature of the Georgia law while ignoring others. But it does raise a pretty important question: What is the posture nationally of the GOP or the conservative movement on the right to vote and its limits?
Not long ago you might have said that Republicans and conservatives were firmly committed to the view that rules governing voting and elections —even federal elections — were purely within the purview of state and local policy-makers. But that was before Donald Trump spent four years disparaging the decisions made by liberal and conservative jurisdictions on voting procedures whenever they contradicted his often-erratic but always forcefully expressed views. If, for example, voting by mail was as inherently pernicious as Trump said it was, almost daily from the spring through the autumn of 2020, allowing states to permit it was a Bad Thing, right? That simply added to the complaints made by Trump after the 2016 elections that California’s alleged openness to voting by noncitizens cost him a popular vote win over Hillary Clinton, and the widespread Republican whining after 2018 that the same jurisdiction had counted out Republican congressional candidates (whining that somehow subsided when Republicans did better in the exact same districts following the exact same rules in 2020).
And that was before Team Trump and his many Republican enablers spent the weeks and months after November 3, 2020, shrieking about state and local election procedures around the country, culminating in efforts to get the U.S. Supreme Court to
overrule state court interpretations of state election laws. Indeed, since Trump, his congressional Republican backers, and the Capitol riot mob were trying to block the certification of state election results by Congress on January 6, you could say that a major segment of the GOP wanted the federal government to impose its will on the states with respect to voting and elections.
And if the prevailing conservative idea is that decision-makers closest to the people should determine voting and election rules, then it’s hard to explain the provisions in the Georgia law (and in pending legislation in Texas) that preempt local government prerogatives decisively.
So what doctrine of voting rights does the GOP favor, other than whatever is necessary to produce Republican election victories? That’s hard to say.
Yes, at the Heritage Foundation you will find experts who more or less think everything other than in-person voting on Election Day should be banned everywhere. And now and then you will get someone like Kevin Williamson who will articulate the provocative old-school conservative case for restricting the franchise to “better” voters, which was pretty much the ostensible case for the poll taxes and literacy tests of the Jim Crow South. Unfortunately, snooty contrarianism isn’t a particularly helpful guide to the development of voting laws, and most Republicans (other than those caught in a gaffe) are unlikely to agree out loud with the Williamson proposition.
Until quite recently, most Republicans agreed that the jurisdictions that had for so many years discriminated against the voting rights of minorities deserved extra federal scrutiny and some additional hoops to jump through before changing their rules. In 2006, George W. Bush signed a 25-year extension of the Voting Rights Act that did just that, after it passed the Senate unanimously and the House with scattered opposition. Then a conservative majority of the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a key feature of the VRA, and now it’s almost exclusively Democrats (via the John Lewis Voting Rights Act) who want to restore it. Where are Republicans on that idea? With the states and localities, or just with the states and localities where federal intervention in voting and election practices doesn’t inconvenience Republicans?
Whatever you think of Democratic attitudes toward voting and elections, at least they can answer such questions coherently. They have united to an amazing extent around highly detailed legislation (the House and Senate versions of the For the People Act and the aforementioned John Lewis Act) that generally expands voting rights and sets clear federal standards for procedures in and surrounding federal elections. The Republican response to these proposals has been almost universally negative. But it’s unclear what, if anything, they would propose of their own accord.
If the implicit GOP position on voting and elections is simply that such rules are part of the give and take of partisan politics and that both sides are free to play fast and loose with the facts and get what advantages they can, then I can understand why they are loathe to make it explicit. But in that case, people who care about voting rights one way or the other should simply choose sides and have it out.
One point to shoehorn into your point, Mike: there is now a growing base of suburban support for Dems in Texas. I know there’s anecdotal evidence in the other big southern states to agree with that. And I’m doubtful of there being much to corroborate this in the smaller ones.
That’s one of the aspects I wanted to look at beyond my own home state of Texas.
You’re definitely right about the WD40-class of Dems being a diminishing breed in many areas. I was really surprised, though, to see how less of a problem it was in states like MS and AL in particular compared to TX. In looking at the Texas vote by precinct, I think the reality is more accurately stated as the pool of Dem support is diminishing as the rural areas get older. There are still similar pockets of support that exist in these areas for other candidates higher than State Rep. But the vote share in Dem areas has generally decreased as other areas around them have gotten more and more Republican. So I think that several of these seats – although definitely fewer – may be survived by other Dems. But they’ll have GOP State Senators and GOP Members of Congress.
Then again, there are some pretty creative tools for redistricting available these days 😉
I can comment on Greg’s map at least in so far as Texas is concerned. Of those State House of Representative Districts are concerned, the Democratic districts fall into one of three categories: 1) minority held districts; 2) urban districts; and 3) rural Democratic districts.
Category one and two are growing. Category three is a vanishing species. They’re called WD-40’s om Texas — white Democrats over 40. People like Jim McReynolds (Lufkin), Chuck Hopson) Jacksonville), and Stephen Frost (Atlanta, though not over 40), etc. In all likelihood, these guys (with the possible exception of Hopson) can hold their seats until they retire. But then, the Republicans will take those seats.
But all the growth in Texas in Democratic State House seats is coming in urban areas, and to a lesser degree in minority districts. And if the Republicans control the redistricting process in Texas again in 2011, even these white rural Democrats will find themselves with tougher fights than they presently have.
Interesting timing of your post, Ed. I just wrapped up a minor mapping project that shows that Democratic candidates for State Rep. in the south aren’t quite as dead as conventional wisdom leads us to believe. It’s a pretty remarkable view of the remaining strength the party has in the south after 30 or so years of conservative activists driving religious voters over to the GOP.
http://www.gregsopinion.com/archives/009358.html
But then again, I’m sure this is nothing new to you 😉
Blanche should do fine unless there’s some broader tilt in public opinion heading into 2010.