Read on Twitter
The @WSJ is out with an editorial today slamming the historic democracy reforms in #HR1 with the same tired arguments they and others have deployed many times before. Let’s take them one by one, shall we? 1/many
First, we have dog whistle arguments about “California-style election rules” —a/k/a rules that make it easier for all eligible voters to cast their ballots, even voters who — gasp — need food stamps.
Virtually all of these changes have already been adopted in many states of varying political hues. Automatic voter registration, one of the most significant, passed the Illinois House unanimously.
Suffice to say, there is no evidence that any of these reforms significantly increase the risk of ineligible people voting, or that higher turnout always favors Dems (2020 turnout smashed records even as the GOP did far better than expected in down ballot races, including in CA)
If you want to learn more about automatic voter registration and some of the other common sense voting reforms in HR1, here is our analysis: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/policy-solutions/case-hr1
Moving on to redistricting, we have the argument that independent nonpartisan commissions are actually some sort of plot to favor Democrats, but again that’s just not true.
The CA commission derided in the editorial drew one of the most responsive congressional maps in the country, as my colleagues have documented, and as we saw with the Republicans winning back 4 of the 7 seats they lost in 2018. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/extreme-gerrymandering-2018-midterm
On the campaign finance provisions requiring more transparency for big campaign donors and spenders, the WSJ repeats the canard that somehow transparency will lead to these donors being persecuted. Again, there is scant evidence to back up this claim.
Donors who face an actual risk of harassment or reprisals are constitutionally entitled to an exemption.
Of course, criticism for one’s political acts is not the same as persecution (nobody would say that the corporations withholding donations from lawmakers who tried to subvert our democracy last week are persecuting them).
As J. Scalia said, transparency “fosters civic courage, w/o which democracy is doomed.” He was among 8 justices who upheld transparency in Citizens United. The entire logic of that ruling permitting vastly more campaign spending was that donors paying for it would be disclosed
Transparency rules, including those for online platforms that HR1 calls for, also help to detect and prevent the efforts of foreign governments to manipulate the U.S. electorate. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/policy-solutions/getting-foreign-funds-out-americas-elections
The idea that HR1 would promote a partisan takeover of the @FEC, our dysfunctional campaign finance regulator, is also spurious. It actually contains far more safeguards to prevent a partisan takeover than exist under current law, as I have explained: https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/429294-fecs-status-quo-is-hazardous-proposed-legislature-would-help-fix-it
Finally, the WSJ attacks DC and Puerto Rico statehood (which HR1 calls for) on the grounds that they might vote Democratic, as if partisan affiliation were a justification for disenfranchising people and denying them control over their own affairs
(Actually, Puerto Rico routinely elects Republicans; DC might too, if Republicans competed for votes there instead of constantly denigrating the city and it’s inhabitants).
Nor is the Constitution an obstacle to DC statehood, as this memo outlines
https://www.aclu.org/archive-docs/aclu-legal-analysis-washington-dc-admission-act
https://www.aclu.org/archive-docs/aclu-legal-analysis-washington-dc-admission-act
So there you have it. None of these are new arguments, and they aren’t getting any better with age. They shouldn’t deter anyone from supporting the critically reforms needed to shore up our democracy. FIN
