House Passes Landmark Voting Rights Expansion Bill, H.R. 1

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

Why did Bennie Thompson vote no?

https://twitter.com/grace_panetta/status/1367343474933170177
I believe he represents one of just 2 majority-black large rural districts in America.

Remember when Cleaver pushed to Missouri black caucus to override the veto on Missouri’s GOP gerrymander because he wanted less white Democrats in his district, just in case he retired?

This feels like that.

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

Why won’t this be struck down by the SC I can see an argument that independent redistributing violates the constitutions stipulation that states control their own voting laws and such.

SCOTUS already ruled it doesn’t

Why won’t this be struck down by the SC I can see an argument that independent redistributing violates the constitutions stipulation that states control their own voting laws and such.

The house gets to regulate the manner in which members of the house are elected. If the house gets to say "members must be elected from single member districts" (which they inarguably do), then they can say how thirst districts can be drawn.

To add on to this, Congress has regulated the manner of electing congressmen several times, with such prominent examples as the VRA and the 1929 Apportionment Act. What would be unconstitutional on federalism grounds would be using such a low to demand the same provisions to state legislative districts. So even if this Bill passes, state maps in places like Georgia and Texas will still be ugly. And when it comes to its passage...

https://twitter.com/ElectProject/status/1366598979912429576?s=20

The filibuster isn't a voting rule, in fact the constitution is quite clear that voting is simple majority. It's about ending debate.

So the arguement doesn't work in the strict legalistic sense, which is all the parliamentarian cares about.
Without her, we need Sinema and Manchin, who clearly value there status as special and different from meer congressmen above there jobs as legislatures.

America will die for their vanity.

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

I'm just curious how one gets so attached to gerrymandering that they actually find it an abhorrent infringement of states rights

A legitimate use of power as you are using it, as in currently legal thing? That's just an arguement that no law should be changed ever.

A legitimate use as in morally legitimate? For legislatures to draw their own constituencies? I don't see how anyone can come to that conclusion.

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

I'm just curious how one gets so attached to gerrymandering that they actually find it an abhorrent infringement of states rights

A legitimate use of power as you are using it, as in currently legal thing? That's just an arguement that no law should be changed ever.

A legitimate use as in morally legitimate? For legislatures to draw their own constituencies? I don't see how anyone can come to that conclusion.

I do think it as morally legitimate, yes. I quite enjoy the thought of an all-Democratic Maryland House delegation.

That wouldn't be necessary if they weren't making up for phantom districts in red states. They should do this if HR-1 doesn't pass because unilateral disarmament is stupid, not because it's a desirable state. Nice gotcha attempt though
Why you think states should retain this power other is, still left unanswered.

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

Not sure where to put this but:

https://twitter.com/igorbobic/status/1368565533520629765?s=21

I watched the interview on MtP this morning, and Manchin sounded more willing to use a reconciliation-like process on HR 1 than I expected.  The overall gist of what he was saying was “we need to let everyone have their voice heard before we move to reconciliation”, not “I’m not willing to use reconciliation on this”.

The idea that Manchin is consistently thwarting the progressive agenda because he opposed Tanden is silly.  He didn’t oppose Tanden because she is progressive, he did it because she insulted his daughter.

What is a reconciliation-like process for something that isn't budget related?

With 50 votes, Democrats can make up something new. If Manchin and Sinema can live with a "Schumer Rule" that says voting rights bills aren't subject to the filibuster (but otherwise the filibuster remains in place), they'll do that.

There was a time that budget bills could be filibustered and then that changed. Same for lower court judges and then Supreme Court justices.

Republicans can deny a quorum to prevent a rules change.

They would need someone there to make a quorum call, and a single Republican+all Dems is 51.