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

[Greedo punched first]

Per the H.R. 1 megathread, it wasn't an accident:

Why did Bennie Thompson vote no?

https://twitter.com/grace_panetta/status/1367343474933170177

It wouldn't eliminate required districts. It would also allow minority voters to have a say in more districts. Minority voters wouldn't be packed into extremely partisan districts where they would have too little voting power in the state. I don't understand why Thompson would vote for disenfranchisement.

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

Per the H.R. 1 megathread, it wasn't an accident:

Why did Bennie Thompson vote no?

https://twitter.com/grace_panetta/status/1367343474933170177

It wouldn't eliminate required districts. It would also allow minority voters to have a say in more districts. Minority voters wouldn't be packed into extremely partisan districts where they would have too little voting power in the state. I don't understand why Thompson would vote for disenfranchisement.

Afraid of a primary challenge if his district get's redrawn.

[This user has not been convicted of 34 felonies]

Lance Gooden also voted contrary to expectations (expected no, but voted yes), which would really be quite the shocker if he hadn't come out & said that it was indeed a flub:

https://twitter.com/Lancegooden/status/1367311137285541894

His tweet sounds like it was written at gunpoint. "I-I-I-I would n-n-n-NEVER vote for the-the-the-the D-Democrats' radical...uh...uh...uhh...anti-police a-a-a-a-agenda!!! I PROMISE!!!"

[BlueSwan]

I wonder if it would be possible to get republican support for a bill like this if it included mandatory voter ID COMBINED with the automatic issuing of voter ID for every citizen.

Well, I'm sure it wouldn't change much, but might be worth a shot. Would kill the talking point about this bill opening the door to voter fraud.

[Greedo punched first]

Per the H.R. 1 megathread, it wasn't an accident:

Why did Bennie Thompson vote no?

https://twitter.com/grace_panetta/status/1367343474933170177

It wouldn't eliminate required districts. It would also allow minority voters to have a say in more districts. Minority voters wouldn't be packed into extremely partisan districts where they would have too little voting power in the state. I don't understand why Thompson would vote for disenfranchisement.

Afraid of a primary challenge if his district get's redrawn.

Alan Lowenthal is more vulnerable to a primary challenge. Lowenthal is likely to face Nanette Barragan if he chooses to represent Long Beach in CA-44, or he might face Michelle Steel if he runs in the new CA-47. Lowenthal probably retires. White Democrats are overall more vulnerable. Thompson won't need to carpetbag to represent a VRA district. Thompson won't have to face another incumbent Democrat. There's no reason to believe Thompson is vulnerable to a primary challenge.

[Oryxslayer]

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

[Badger]

Lance Gooden also voted contrary to expectations (expected no, but voted yes), which would really be quite the shocker if he hadn't come out & said that it was indeed a flub:

https://twitter.com/Lancegooden/status/1367311137285541894

LOL! So he actually admitted in public he intended to vote no but with such a dummy he hit the wrong lever? LOL LOL!

And how is a voting rights redistricting legislation even remotely anti-cop? I assume this is just Fox News level blather?

[Sestak]

Lance Gooden also voted contrary to expectations (expected no, but voted yes), which would really be quite the shocker if he hadn't come out & said that it was indeed a flub:

https://twitter.com/Lancegooden/status/1367311137285541894

LOL! So he actually admitted in public he intended to vote no but with such a dummy he hit the wrong lever? LOL LOL!

And how is a voting rights redistricting legislation even remotely anti-cop? I assume this is just Fox News level blather?

Gooden vote was on a different bill

[brucejoel99]

Lance Gooden also voted contrary to expectations (expected no, but voted yes), which would really be quite the shocker if he hadn't come out & said that it was indeed a flub:

https://twitter.com/Lancegooden/status/1367311137285541894

LOL! So he actually admitted in public he intended to vote no but with such a dummy he hit the wrong lever? LOL LOL!

And how is a voting rights redistricting legislation even remotely anti-cop? I assume this is just Fox News level blather?

Gooden vote was on a different bill

Ah just caught that, thanks for pointing it out. I thought I'd seen somewhere that this was in regards to H.R. 1, not the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act.

[7,052,770]

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

If M & S buy that, great, but it's awfully silly not to just abolish it if we're going to try something like that.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

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

If M & S buy that, great, but it's awfully silly not to just abolish it if we're going to try something like that.

But Manchin isn't going to abolish the filibuster, so the question is does he support this bill enough to go for an end run. If not, it's simply not going to pass and there's no trick that will change 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.

[7,052,770]

So Republicans are claiming this bill abolishes voter ID laws, but I don't see that in any articles about it. Are they just brazenly lying?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

This bill ought to die in the Senate unless the provision to have independent redistricting commissions gets scrubbed from the bill. If that so happens and the bill does not touch the specifics of district-drawing (with the possible exception of minority districts), I have no problem against its passage.

[7,052,770]

This bill ought to die in the Senate unless the provision to have independent redistricting commissions gets scrubbed from the bill. If that so happens, I have no problem against its passage.

Why? That's probably the most important part of the bill. Gerrymandering is blatant rigging and must be abolished.

[It’s so Joever]

This bill ought to die in the Senate unless the provision to have independent redistricting commissions gets scrubbed from the bill. If that so happens, I have no problem against its passage.

Why?

[Bootes Void]

voter ID problems can be solved if everyone is issued a national ID once they turn 18. thats how you stop the culture wars

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

It is a legitimate use of political power for district-drawing to be undertaken by state legislatures, regardless of whether or not the lines get gerrymandered.

This bill ought to die in the Senate unless the provision to have independent redistricting commissions gets scrubbed from the bill. If that so happens, I have no problem against its passage.

Why? That's probably the most important part of the bill. Gerrymandering is blatant rigging and must be abolished.

If that is THE point of the bill then I have no problem with it being killed by Manchin and Sinema wholesale.

[It’s so Joever]

It is a legitimate use of political power for district-drawing to be undertaken by state legislatures, regardless of whether or not the lines get gerrymandered.

This bill ought to die in the Senate unless the provision to have independent redistricting commissions gets scrubbed from the bill. If that so happens, I have no problem against its passage.

Why? That's probably the most important part of the bill. Gerrymandering is blatant rigging and must be abolished.

If that is THE point of the bill then I have no problem with it being killed by Manchin and Sinema.

What?
I’m so confused, what’s your logic?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

It is a legitimate use of political power for district-drawing to be undertaken by state legislatures, regardless of whether or not the lines get gerrymandered.

This bill ought to die in the Senate unless the provision to have independent redistricting commissions gets scrubbed from the bill. If that so happens, I have no problem against its passage.

Why? That's probably the most important part of the bill. Gerrymandering is blatant rigging and must be abolished.

If that is THE point of the bill then I have no problem with it being killed by Manchin and Sinema.

What?
I’m so confused, what’s your logic?

I've already stated my logic.

[It’s so Joever]

It is a legitimate use of political power for district-drawing to be undertaken by state legislatures, regardless of whether or not the lines get gerrymandered.

This bill ought to die in the Senate unless the provision to have independent redistricting commissions gets scrubbed from the bill. If that so happens, I have no problem against its passage.

Why? That's probably the most important part of the bill. Gerrymandering is blatant rigging and must be abolished.

If that is THE point of the bill then I have no problem with it being killed by Manchin and Sinema.

What?
I’m so confused, what’s your logic?

I've already stated my logic.

So you are against redistricting commissions?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

It is a legitimate use of political power for district-drawing to be undertaken by state legislatures, regardless of whether or not the lines get gerrymandered.

This bill ought to die in the Senate unless the provision to have independent redistricting commissions gets scrubbed from the bill. If that so happens, I have no problem against its passage.

Why? That's probably the most important part of the bill. Gerrymandering is blatant rigging and must be abolished.

If that is THE point of the bill then I have no problem with it being killed by Manchin and Sinema.

What?
I’m so confused, what’s your logic?

I've already stated my logic.

So you are against redistricting commissions?

There are two parts to my position. One, I'm against redistricting commissions being forced upon states that have not mandated them. If a state wants to adopt a redistricting commission, then it's their call, not something that ought to be forced upon them by the federal government.
Two, it is a legitimate use of political power to gerrymander; in regards to line-drawing, it is perfectly legal to draw district lines to disadvantage a political party or incumbent, and to force the abolition of that mindset under the law on all 50 states is an utterly vile thing.

[7,052,770]

It is a legitimate use of political power for district-drawing to be undertaken by state legislatures, regardless of whether or not the lines get gerrymandered.

I think it's an illegitimate use of power, once of the most outrageous abuses of it.

[AndyHogan14]

It is a legitimate use of political power for district-drawing to be undertaken by state legislatures, regardless of whether or not the lines get gerrymandered.

This bill ought to die in the Senate unless the provision to have independent redistricting commissions gets scrubbed from the bill. If that so happens, I have no problem against its passage.

Why? That's probably the most important part of the bill. Gerrymandering is blatant rigging and must be abolished.

If that is THE point of the bill then I have no problem with it being killed by Manchin and Sinema.

What?
I’m so confused, what’s your logic?

I've already stated my logic.

So you are against redistricting commissions?

There are two parts to my position. One, I'm against redistricting commissions being forced upon states that have not mandated them. If a state wants to adopt a redistricting commission, then it's their call, not something that ought to be forced upon them by the federal government.
Two, it is a legitimate use of political power to gerrymander; in regards to line-drawing, it is perfectly legal to draw district lines to disadvantage a political party or incumbent, and to force the abolition of that mindset under the law on all 50 states is an utterly vile thing.

Following this line of thinking, the House of Representatives and Senate are using their legitimate power to curb gerrymandering and establish independent commissions. It is well within the power of Congress to regulate how its members are elected. The people voted for this House and Senate and therefore, HR1 (if passed) is the expression of the national will.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

It is a legitimate use of political power for district-drawing to be undertaken by state legislatures, regardless of whether or not the lines get gerrymandered.

This bill ought to die in the Senate unless the provision to have independent redistricting commissions gets scrubbed from the bill. If that so happens, I have no problem against its passage.

Why? That's probably the most important part of the bill. Gerrymandering is blatant rigging and must be abolished.

If that is THE point of the bill then I have no problem with it being killed by Manchin and Sinema.

What?
I’m so confused, what’s your logic?

I've already stated my logic.

So you are against redistricting commissions?

There are two parts to my position. One, I'm against redistricting commissions being forced upon states that have not mandated them. If a state wants to adopt a redistricting commission, then it's their call, not something that ought to be forced upon them by the federal government.
Two, it is a legitimate use of political power to gerrymander; in regards to line-drawing, it is perfectly legal to draw district lines to disadvantage a political party or incumbent, and to force the abolition of that mindset under the law on all 50 states is an utterly vile thing.

Following this line of thinking, the House of Representatives and Senate are using their legitimate power to curb gerrymandering and establish independent commissions. It is well within the power of Congress to regulate how its members are elected. The people voted for this House and Senate and therefore, HR1 (if passed) is the expression of the national will.

They are using power they legitimately have to work to push through something utterly abhorrent, yes. This is legal yet also extremely wrong-headed, and I hope for this to be repealed in due time in the event it becomes law.