\n\n“”I believe that the threat to our democracy is so grave that we must find a way to pass these voting rights bills,” Biden said. “Debate them, vote, let the majority prevail. If that majority is blocked, then we have no choice but to change the Senate rules, including getting rid of the filibuster.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Democrats hold the slimmest possible majority in the Senate, which is currently split 50\u201350 with Vice President Kamala Harris serving as a tiebreaker. But Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D\u2013N.Y.) says he’s prepared to bring a pair of election bills to the floor in the coming weeks despite nearly unanimous Republican opposition. The Freedom to Vote Act would limit state-level efforts (led by Republicans) to restrict mail-in voting and absentee balloting, make Election Day a federal holiday, impose new rules for the redistricting process, and require more disclosures from political donors. The second bill, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, would reimplement a portion of the 1965 Voting Rights Act that was invalidated by the U.S. Supreme Court<\/a> in 2013.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On Tuesday, Biden positioned the two bills as a response to Republican efforts (in Georgia<\/a> and elsewhere<\/a>) to tighten election laws, and a necessary rejoinder to former President Donald Trump’s craven efforts (in Georgia<\/a> and elsewhere<\/a>) to influence the results of the 2020 election.<\/p>\n\n\n\n “That’s not America,” he said. “That’s what it looks like when they suppress the right to vote.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n Those Republican efforts to impose new rules on elections do indeed run the risk of corroding democracy, and Trump’s attempts to overturn the last presidential election were grotesque and condemnable. Even so, it’s not clear<\/a> that the Democrats’ proposals make sense. If anything, greater federal control over elections might make it more likely that a future president could exercise undue influence over democratic proceedings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But whether Democrats can pass those bills after<\/em> suspending the filibuster might be a moot point because it doesn’t seem like there are 50 votes in the Senate for abolishing the filibuster in the first place.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n