Subterms
CaliforniaCalifornia Democrats vow to change ‘weaponized’ recall systemState has one of the nation’s lowest thresholds for the number of signatures needed to trigger a recall election A More
Fight to voteUS voting rightsHow Democrats could actually pass their new voting rights billDespite the huge obstacle that the filibuster poses, this new bill is significant – Democrats aren’t willing to let voting reform go The fight to vote is supported byAbout this contentSam LevineThu 16 Sep 2021 10.00 EDTLast modified on Thu 16 Sep 2021 13.16 EDTSign up for the Guardian’s Fight to Vote newsletterHappy Thursday,My inbox quickly filled up with statements of support on Tuesday morning after Democrats unveiled the latest iteration of a federal bill that would drastically expand voting rights.The bill, the Freedom to Vote Act, has been described as a “compromise”, hashed out over the summer by a group of Senate Democrats after Republicans filibustered an earlier version of it. But while the bill does get rid of some key things from the initial version, it still is pretty expansive. It would require states to offer at least 15 days of early voting, along with same-day registration, as well as automatic and online registration. It would enshrine new protections for local election officials and poll workers amid growing concerns about intimidation and partisan interference in their work. And it sets new criteria that states have to follow when they draw electoral districts to curb the practice of severely manipulating districts for partisan gain.We’ve been here before. It’s no secret that the bill is probably dead on arrival in the US Senate as long as the filibuster, the rule that requires 60 votes to advance legislation, remains in place. A handful of Democrats, led by Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema have vocally supported keeping the measure in place.As I read through the cascade of statements praising the new bill, I was struck by how many of them coupled their enthusiasm with calls to eliminate the filibuster. It was a grim recognition of the quagmire Democrats have confronted since taking control of Congress in January: voting reform is impossible while the filibuster is in place.So where do things go from here?Despite the huge obstacle that the filibuster still poses, I do think this new bill is significant. First, it shows that Democrats aren’t willing to let voting reform go; by coming back so quickly with a new bill, they’re signaling that they are prepared to force a fight over the filibuster.Second, Democrats are showing Republicans that they are willing to make concessions in their signature piece of legislation. They dropped a provision from the earlier version that would have required officials to send absentee ballot applications to all registered voters. They also got rid of a provision that would have required every state to set up independent commissions to draw districts. The new legislation also allows states to require identification to vote while also setting up a process for people who lack ID to vote. These will all up the ante on Republicans to negotiate in good faith.Third, it’s significant that Manchin played an active role in crafting the bill and is now the one shopping it around to get Republican support. That support seems unlikely (“It is a solution in search of a problem, and we will not be supporting that,” Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader in the Senate, said on Tuesday). If Manchin is unable to personally persuade Republicans to sign on, despite the concessions from Democrats, it will only increase pressure on him to revise his stance on the filibuster.Joe Biden also has indicated a new willingness to pressure reluctant Democrats on their filibuster position.‘All options are on the table’Manchin said this week “the filibuster is permanent”. But there are a number of things Democrats could do short of getting rid of the rule entirely. They could carve out voting rights legislation from the filibuster, or lower the threshold needed to advance legislation down from 60 votes. They could also require anyone who wants to filibuster legislation to actually speak continuously on the Senate floor to delay legislation, an idea Biden has endorsed.Whatever Democrats ultimately do, one thing is clear: it needs to happen quickly (Chuck Schumer, the Senate majority leader, has vowed to hold a vote on the measure as soon as next week). States are already beginning the once-a-decade process of redrawing district lines, making it all the more urgent to get the anti-gerrymandering provisions of the bill in place.“We are giving him the opportunity to do that with a bill that he supports and that he modified,” Schumer said of Manchin on Tuesday. “If that doesn’t happen, we will cross that bridge when we come to it. As I’ve said, all options are on the table.”Reader questionsThank you to everyone who wrote in last week with questions. You can continue to write to me each week at sam.levine@theguardian.com or DM me on twitter at @srl and I’ll try and answer as many as I can.Q: I’m originally from France, and don’t get me wrong, I’m not in support of any voting restrictions, however, we’ve always had to show our IDs in order to be able to vote in France, and it’s never really been a problem (I don’t think). So I’m wondering why ID requirements are such a big deal in the US to vote.Unlike many European countries, the US doesn’t automatically issue a free identification card to its citizens. There are some experts I’ve spoken with who believe that if the US did automatically issue free ID cards, a voter ID requirement would be more tolerable. (You can read more on this idea in this recent piece in the Atlantic.)Academic research on voter ID has shown mixed things on the effect it has on overall turnout. Nonetheless, courts in Texas and North Carolina have found in recent years that lawmakers have specifically enacted voter ID requirements intending to discriminate against minority voters.In many cases, the key part of a voter ID measure is not whether ID is required, but what kinds of IDs are acceptable and how easy it is for someone to prove their identity and vote if they don’t have an acceptable ID. In Texas, for example, lawmakers infamously allowed people to vote using a state gun permit, but not a student ID. In North Carolina, lawmakers excluded IDs they knew Black people were more likely to possess from those acceptable to vote.One last point: states often justify ID measures by saying they will offer free ID to anyone who cannot afford one. But that’s somewhat misleading. Even if there is no dollar amount attached to an ID, there’s a time cost for people to gather the documents they need to prove their identity and take the time to go to the DMV to do that.Q: I’m an ignorant Brit with a simple question: how come fair and equally accessible voting isn’t guaranteed in the US constitution?A lot of people are really surprised to learn there’s no guaranteed right to vote in the constitution. The Founding Fathers initially limited voting to a small group of people.Later amendments to the constitution protect access to voting by outlining the reasons why government can’t block people from the ballot box. The 15th amendment, for example, says that government can’t block someone from voting “on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude”. As concerns over voter discrimination rise, some scholars believe there should be a renewed push to add an affirmative right to vote to the constitution.TopicsUS voting rightsFight to voteUS politicsDemocratsRepublicansUS SenatefeaturesReuse this content More
Gavin NewsomWhat does Gavin Newsom’s recall victory mean for California?The governor easily defeated the attempt to remove him from office as voters indicated they didn’t want a dramatic change of course Dani Anguiano@ More
OpinionUS politicsRepublicans overplayed their hand in California – and Democrats are laughingLloyd GreenLarry Elder just discovered that his brand appeals to a tiny fraction of voters. Republican governors in Texas and Florida may learn similar lessons Wed 15 Sep 2021 09.39 EDTFirst published on Wed 15 Sep 2021 09.31 EDTOn Tuesday, Gavin Newsom, California’s embattled governor, convincingly beat back a Republican-driven recall effort. Once projected to be a nail-biter, the contest degenerated into a nearly 30-point blowout. Indeed, Newsom may have even outpaced Joe Biden’s 2020 margin in California.Larry Elder: defeated California recall challenger takes a page from Trump’s big lie playbookRead moreTen months later, Donald Trump’s name was no longer on the ballot, but his spirit still lingered. Before the polls had closed, the former president was carrying on about the recall being rigged. Meanwhile, Larry Elder, Newsom’s leading Republican opponent and a rightwing radio host, had tentatively planned a post-election legal challenge.In the end, the threat of Elder in the governor’s mansion galvanized Democrats. To put things in context, Elder, who is black, has argued for reparations for slave owners. Let that sink in.On 18 July, on the Candace Owens Show, Elder opined: “Their legal property was taken away from them after the civil war, so you could make an argument that the people that are owed reparations are not only just Black people but also the people whose ‘property’ was taken away after the end of the civil war.”Also, Elder separately confided his support for “appointing judges and regulators who respect the constitutional right to life”, and announced that “the ideal minimum wage is $0”. Not surprisingly, little more than a third of California’s voters held a favorable opinion of Elder.As framed by John J Pitney, the Roy P Crocker professor of politics at California’s Claremont McKenna College, “in a heavily Democratic state Newsom was probably going to survive anyway”. But Elder “helped him turn surviving into a triumph”, Pitney told the Guardian. Elder was a gift to the governor.To be sure, it wasn’t just about Elder. More than 60% of Californians hold an unfavorable view of the Republican party, seven in 10 support mask mandates for students, and more than three-fifths categorized vaccination as a public health responsibility rather than a personal choice. The ethos of what could be called “live free and die” had a limited number of takers.Meanwhile, talk of a foregone electoral outcome led Republicans and conservatives to stay home. Apparently, the 45th president and his minions forgot about how that same gambit cost them both of Georgia’s Senate seats in last January’s runoff elections. Sometimes, history repeats itself.Fortunately for the Democrats, the liabilities that Elder and the Republicans displayed will not vanish in the coming weeks. Rabid Republican resistance to Covid vaccination, Florida’s needless deaths, and Texas’s draconian abortion law are not going away. They are now baked into the Republican party’s creed and DNA.In that same vein, the pledge by Greg Abbott, the governor of Texas, to make rape magically disappear, and the embrace of Ron DeSantis, the governor of Florida, of Covid conspiracy theorists, will not be forgotten anytime soon.By the numbers, self-described moderate Californians opposed the recall by better than a three-two margin. Opposition to the recall ran broad and deep. To be sure, what happens in California doesn’t usually stay in California. All this may yet make a difference in Virginia’s upcoming governor’s race.There, Democrat Terry McAuliffe holds a small but steady lead over Republican Glenn Youngkin, a former equity management executive. According to a recent Monmouth poll, Covid is the leading issue in the state followed by public schools.Earlier this summer, Youngkin was captured on video telling supporters that he had to remain quiet about abortion lest it cost him the support of independents and suburbanites, but once in office he could “go on offense”. Youngkin has also opposed vaccine mandates and labeled the jabs a matter of personal choice.Once upon a time, Virginia was home to Robert E Lee, the commander of the Confederate army and Trump’s favorite general. These days, no Republican holds statewide office there. The Commonwealth last voted Republican in a presidential election in 2004.Democrats can momentarily exhale. Gloating, however, is strongly discouraged. Their relative weakness among Latino and Asian American voters persists.In California, Biden bested Trump by more than 50 points among each of those two demographics. Yet less than a year later, opposition to the recall among Latinos and Asian Americans was just 16 points and 24 points, respectively.Late Tuesday night, Elder conceded the election, saying: “Let’s be gracious in defeat,” but adding: “We may have lost the battle, but we are going to win the war.” One thing is certain: the embers of America’s cold civil war continue to burn red hot. California’s recall was one more scrum.TopicsUS politicsOpinionGavin NewsomCaliforniaRepublicansDemocratscommentReuse this content More
CaliforniaGavin Newsom will remain California governor after handily defeating recall attemptCalifornia voters resoundingly reject choice to replace Democratic governor, who faced a battle for his political life01:48Maanvi Singh in Oakland@ More
OpinionAlexandria Ocasio-CortezAOC’s guide to getting noticed at parties: drape yourself in the garments of class warVan BadhamThe backlash to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s ‘Tax the rich’ Met Gala dress was instant and glorious Wed 15 Sep 2021 00.42 EDTLast modified on Wed 15 Sep 2021 00.48 EDTAlexandria Ocasio-Cortez was not the only celebrity to take a political statement as her date to the Met Gala. The actor Cara Delevingne celebrated the “American Independence” theme of the visually dazzling annual ball in a vest that read “Peg the Patriarchy”. The US congresswoman Carolyn Maloney was resplendent in a “suffragette gown” made of trailing “Equal rights for women” banners. The actor Dan Levy donned Aids-era queer art. The Trump-baiting football megastar Megan Rapinoe carried a dainty purse embossed with the words “In gay we trust”.‘Medium is the message’: AOC defends ‘tax the rich’ dress worn to Met GalaRead moreBut it was AOC in a slyly bridal white Aurora James dress who made the most impact of the evening. James is an immigrant to the US, a black woman who built her brand from hard-work beginnings, selling her clothes in Brooklyn’s neighbourhood markets. Yet the congressional representative from New York’s 14th district bared her shoulders above James’ orchid-like couture creation not merely as a celebration of local effort and enterprise. The back of AOC’s gown came adorned with the words TAX THE RICH in the red Pantone shade “Beheaded Capitalist”.The backlash was instant and glorious. It was something of a delight to watch the US right prioritise a conniption about economic redistribution over so many immediate visible opportunities to be sexist and homophobic. Then again, the theme of “America” has always been implicitly twinned with “money” and, while capitalism happily finds markets to exploit among girls and queers, collectivised wealth has never been the radical chic it prefers to embrace.A symbolic case in point is the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the host and beneficiary of the Met Gala. It’s a taxpayer-funded institution, legislated into existence to serve a century-old mission to “be kept open and accessible to the public free of all charge throughout the year”. Yet its famous Costume Institute must fundraise for itself, hence seeking voluntary contributions from rich people in the form of $35,000-a-head tickets to this disgusting, decadent, fabulous Met Gala annual party. This week’s event raked in $16.75m.There are those who condemn the fatuous, end-of-empire-level-indulgence event that sees Debbie Harry turn up as a floating ribcage while the more-money-less-talent Kardashian women conspicuously underwhelm on the couture front every year. I am not one of them. I say let the rich eat all the cake they want if paying for it means a kid from a poor community can experience, for free, the transformative joy of an accessible art museum. Or get care in a hospital. Or go to school. Find any way at all to squeeze the money out of them – indeed, this is the very principle of taxation.How lovely to see in the photography of a celebrity gala event that it’s a principle shared by AOC, whose dress was not actually a performance of faux activism but a press release in the form of wearable art summarising the activism she has made meaningful where it matters. The seismic leftward shift she’s effected on Democratic party politics and the political discourse beyond it has provided Joe Biden the vanguard for leftist policy ambition unthinkable to decades of party predecessors. It was the new US president – not AOC – who published on social media on Tuesday: “A teacher shouldn’t pay more in taxes than an oil company. We’re going to cut taxes for the middle class by ensuring the wealthy and large corporations pay their share.”The Met Gala 2021: eight key moments from fashion’s big nightRead moreI adore AOC. Not merely for her meticulous congressional preparation and policy work, her skilled questioning, or her Jacinda Ardern-like ability to calculate the most impactful ratio of ideological purity to ruthless pragmatism – remember, AOC did not waste her radical progressivism on a doomed minor-party project, but brought it with her to the centre of real power. I also adore her because she pre-empted criticism of her Met Gala appearance with a quote from Marshall McLuhan, the brilliant Canadian media theorist who predicted the internet back in the 1960s. Those awed by AOC’s adept use of social and other media to brand, communicate and radicalise others may wish to consider that she may have absorbed something of use from the man who pointed out “sheer visual quantity evokes the magical resonance of the tribal hoard”.In this way, she imparts in her person a specific instruction to urban young women desperate to be noticed, and yet overwhelmed by inaccessible standards of celebrity glamour, surgical beauty and unaffordable livery on show at the Met Gala. It’s “before you order the dress, do the reading”.There’s always one surefire way to get noticed at parties and it isn’t rocking up in a dress made from sequinned pantyhose, or aping the style of one of those 1970s dolls with big skirts that used to decorously cover the toilet paper. It’s to arrive AOC-style – in the blood-spattered garments of fighting class war.TopicsAlexandria Ocasio-CortezOpinionMet Gala 2021US politicsDemocratscommentReuse this content More
