Why doesn't Biden do executive orders on voting rights?

[SteveRogers]

to do what exactly?  They’d all be unconstitutional

To do what exactly? To expand voting rights to ALL American citizens who are interested.

Explain how this would be unconstitutional.

Bronz, why would anyone bother to engage with you on this topic when this is the depth and specificity of your #analysis?  No one is going to explain anything to you unless you explain what policies you’re even talking about. Do you even understand why people treat your threads as jokes? Do you have any idea at all?

I'm not stupid, how about that. Listen to what I am saying. I said, why doesn't Biden conduct EOs and end the charade?

You’re saying nothing. What executive orders are you asking about??? To do what?

[Suburbia]

to do what exactly?  They’d all be unconstitutional

To do what exactly? To expand voting rights to ALL American citizens who are interested.

Explain how this would be unconstitutional.

Bronz, why would anyone bother to engage with you on this topic when this is the depth and specificity of your #analysis?  No one is going to explain anything to you unless you explain what policies you’re even talking about. Do you even understand why people treat your threads as jokes? Do you have any idea at all?

I'm not stupid, how about that. Listen to what I am saying. I said, why doesn't Biden conduct EOs and end the charade?

You’re saying nothing. What executive orders are you asking about??? To do what?

An executive order to federalize elections, what the Democrats want. That's what.

[SteveRogers]

to do what exactly?  They’d all be unconstitutional

To do what exactly? To expand voting rights to ALL American citizens who are interested.

Explain how this would be unconstitutional.

Bronz, why would anyone bother to engage with you on this topic when this is the depth and specificity of your #analysis?  No one is going to explain anything to you unless you explain what policies you’re even talking about. Do you even understand why people treat your threads as jokes? Do you have any idea at all?

I'm not stupid, how about that. Listen to what I am saying. I said, why doesn't Biden conduct EOs and end the charade?

You’re saying nothing. What executive orders are you asking about??? To do what?

An executive order to federalize elections, what the Democrats want. That's what.

Then no, he can’t do that by executive order. There, now go make your next pointless thread.

[MATTROSE94]

Joe Biden has no power to implement voting rights EOs and will be impeached if he does so.

[emailking]

Wouldn't federalizing elections require a Constitutional Amendment even? I don't think it could be done through legislation.

[Hammy]

Sure seems like the President can't do much. You'd think that position would have more power.

No, the president shouldn't have more power--Trump's presidency should've made this abundantly clear. The problem is we have a government body--the Senate--that does not in any way reflect the national electoral makeup.

If we're talking about not reflecting the national electoral makeup, the Senate PV in 2020 was actually a 2.3% win for the GOP (a swing of 11% from 2018) while Democrats gained three seats nationally.

17 states have no say in any given election. Until every state has a say in every Senate election, it will never be representative. It's the only body of government where large segments of the population are excluded each election.

[jojoju1998]

Wouldn't federalizing elections require a Constitutional Amendment even? I don't think it could be done through legislation.

Exactly. Which makes this thread pointless.

[Calthrina950]

What would Biden realistically be able to do? Any changes to election laws would need to be made by Congress, and it's clear that is not going to happen. And why are Democrats focusing on voting rights now? With BBB having failed, and with Sinema and Manchin having made it clear that they won't discard the filibuster, why do Democrats pursue this? Moreover, this is not an issue that is going to determine the midterms.

Well by this logic, Democrats should focus on nothing and pursue no policies because nothing can pass the Senate. Obviously Dems want to be able to campaign against senate obstruction in the upcoming midterms and claim to voters that they tried their best to bring these policies to a vote. Now, whether or not voting rights reform is a salient issue for midterm voters is a different question.

It still makes little sense to me that we're seeing this pivot at this juncture. Why immediately follow upon the failure of BBB with a failure regarding voting rights? If anything, this will only upset progressives and possibly reduce turnout among the base.

[Hammy]

What would Biden realistically be able to do? Any changes to election laws would need to be made by Congress, and it's clear that is not going to happen. And why are Democrats focusing on voting rights now? With BBB having failed, and with Sinema and Manchin having made it clear that they won't discard the filibuster, why do Democrats pursue this? Moreover, this is not an issue that is going to determine the midterms.

Well by this logic, Democrats should focus on nothing and pursue no policies because nothing can pass the Senate. Obviously Dems want to be able to campaign against senate obstruction in the upcoming midterms and claim to voters that they tried their best to bring these policies to a vote. Now, whether or not voting rights reform is a salient issue for midterm voters is a different question.

It still makes little sense to me that we're seeing this pivot at this juncture. Why immediately follow upon the failure of BBB with a failure regarding voting rights? If anything, this will only upset progressives and possibly reduce turnout among the base.

"We sat on our hands and did nothing because it wouldn't work anyway" is already how progressives perceive Dems--why do you feel that would have a less dire impact on progressive turnout than trying and failing?

The larger problem is Dems' unwillingness to go on the offensive and place blame where it belongs, not merely that they aren't getting votes for their agenda.

[Calthrina950]

What would Biden realistically be able to do? Any changes to election laws would need to be made by Congress, and it's clear that is not going to happen. And why are Democrats focusing on voting rights now? With BBB having failed, and with Sinema and Manchin having made it clear that they won't discard the filibuster, why do Democrats pursue this? Moreover, this is not an issue that is going to determine the midterms.

Well by this logic, Democrats should focus on nothing and pursue no policies because nothing can pass the Senate. Obviously Dems want to be able to campaign against senate obstruction in the upcoming midterms and claim to voters that they tried their best to bring these policies to a vote. Now, whether or not voting rights reform is a salient issue for midterm voters is a different question.

It still makes little sense to me that we're seeing this pivot at this juncture. Why immediately follow upon the failure of BBB with a failure regarding voting rights? If anything, this will only upset progressives and possibly reduce turnout among the base.

"We sat on our hands and did nothing because it wouldn't work anyway" is already how progressives perceive Dems--why do you feel that would have a less dire impact on progressive turnout than trying and failing?

The larger problem is Dems' unwillingness to go on the offensive and place blame where it belongs, not merely that they aren't getting votes for their agenda.

I'll agree with you that Democrats haven't been aggressive enough, but I still don't understand the Democratic strategy here. Either way, progressives are upset.

[Hammy]

What would Biden realistically be able to do? Any changes to election laws would need to be made by Congress, and it's clear that is not going to happen. And why are Democrats focusing on voting rights now? With BBB having failed, and with Sinema and Manchin having made it clear that they won't discard the filibuster, why do Democrats pursue this? Moreover, this is not an issue that is going to determine the midterms.

Well by this logic, Democrats should focus on nothing and pursue no policies because nothing can pass the Senate. Obviously Dems want to be able to campaign against senate obstruction in the upcoming midterms and claim to voters that they tried their best to bring these policies to a vote. Now, whether or not voting rights reform is a salient issue for midterm voters is a different question.

It still makes little sense to me that we're seeing this pivot at this juncture. Why immediately follow upon the failure of BBB with a failure regarding voting rights? If anything, this will only upset progressives and possibly reduce turnout among the base.

"We sat on our hands and did nothing because it wouldn't work anyway" is already how progressives perceive Dems--why do you feel that would have a less dire impact on progressive turnout than trying and failing?

The larger problem is Dems' unwillingness to go on the offensive and place blame where it belongs, not merely that they aren't getting votes for their agenda.

I'll agree with you that Democrats haven't been aggressive enough, but I still don't understand the Democratic strategy here. Either way, progressives are upset.

It seems like a very strategic move--it's an action that was taken, even if it fails. Individual congressman or Senators running for reelection can point to this and say look, we tried, we did what we could, but Republicans held everything up. It's certainly a better look--especially in an election year--than doing nothing, which would instead give the appearance of a party that has surrendered or doesn't care.

[MarkD]

Wouldn't federalizing elections require a Constitutional Amendment even? I don't think it could be done through legislation.

Exactly. Which makes this thread pointless.

Article I, Section IV of the Constitution: "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing [sic] Senators."

Like it says in Wikipedia, the only time Congress has ever passed any legislation pursuant to this explicitly delegated power is to set the date for holding all federal elections. Except for that one specific thing, Congress has never, in over 230 years, passed any other laws that fall under this enumerated power.

To answer emailking, it MIGHT be deemed - it PLAUSIBLY COULD be deemed - unconstitutional for Congress to "federalize" state elections. But the problem has been that, since Congress has only done one thing before, in 230 years, to control the election process that states use, states have decided to streamline the process of holding elections by putting federal elections and state elections on the same ballot.

States haven't always done so. There's a reason why the 24th Amendment says: "Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax. Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." The reason Congress proposed this amendment with that wording was in order to gain the consent of states that were holding separate elections for state government officials than for federal officials, like Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Jersey, and Virginia. Those five states have long been holding the elections for their state officials in odd-numbered years, and the elections for federal officials in even-numbered years. The other 45 states hold the elections for both state and federal officials at the same time, and candidates for both kinds of offices appear on the same ballot.

So can Congress pass a law that seizes control of the election process in all 45 states that hold elections for both federal and state offices at the same time? I think Congress is empowered - by Article 1, Section 4 - to do that. But it is probably unconstitutional for Congress to control how those other 5 states hold state elections, given that those states conduct those elections separately from federal elections. And it is highly likely to be unconstitutional for Congress to attempt to control local elections - for mayors of NYC, LA, and literally thousands of other offices.

The first thoughts off the top of my head.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Do you guys know what's in the Voting Rights Bill apparently not it's campaign finance reform and ban on Gerrymandering that's why Biden can't do executive orders, he can ban campaign finance reform on executive order just like he can't do executive orders on another CDC momemtorim or Discharge Student Loans SCOTUS already struck some of them down,. HE NEEDS AN AVT OF CONGRESS


The drop box elimination and closing of polls you can MAIL ballot it's overrsted