Could a democratic controlled congress and presidency change voting in the US with laws?

[Sunburn74]

If a single party has all the house, senate, and presidency could they pass laws that basically regulate and standardize voting in the US for Federal elections?

Could they pass a law that for example mandates mail in voting in all 50 states for federal positions for all eligible voters?

Or pass laws that mandate the number of drop boxes or the number of days after an election votes can be counted?

Or mandate the restoration of felon voting rights?

With all the issues we are seeing with voter suppression, what powers exactly does congress have when it comes to control of US voting?

 

[K1052]

Yes but at this point you would have to expand SCOTUS and add states to maintain it.

 

[interchange]

As I understand it, States run their own elections according to the Constitution. There'd be some limits / SCOTUS challenges short of an amendment.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

As I understand it, States run their own elections according to the Constitution. There'd be some limits / SCOTUS challenges short of an amendment.

Yeah and good luck getting the two thirds in both the House and Senate let alone three-fourths of the states to agree to an amendment to abolish the electoral college or something similar.

 

[Greenman]

Yeah and good luck getting the two thirds in both the House and Senate let alone three-fourths of the states to agree to an amendment to abolish the electoral college or something similar.

That would simplify the process, as only a half dozen states would matter.

 

[theeedude]

They can gut the filibuster, pass replacement for the voting rights act, pack the courts to uphold it, with House, 50 votes in Senate and Presidency. If they wanted to.

 

[nickqt]

That would simplify the process, as only a half dozen states would matter.

You think that more than half a dozen states matter with the Electoral College in place now?

Not so good at the math, eh? No surprise there.

Keep on keepin' on.

 

[Sunburn74]

I realize that states get to run their elections. However the congress has passed many laws regulating elections and voter access.

They passed the voting rights act for example, though it was only just recently struck down, but not on the grounds of constitutionality but on more technical grounds.
They've also passed laws that require polling places to be accessible to the disabled.
And there is the national voter registration act which more or less mandated access to voting registration and put regulations regarding state voter rolls maintenance.

Of note the voting rights act wasn't struck down because the SCOTUS thought it was unconstitutional for congress to regulate state elections. They struck it down for a more specific reason.

"On June 25, 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that the coverage formula in Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act — which determines which jurisdictions are covered by Section 5 — is unconstitutional because it is based on an old formula. As a practical matter this means that Section 5 is inoperable until Congress enacts a new coverage formula, which the decision invited Congress to do. " [However congress has yet to move on this]

Shelby County v. Holder

The Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965 to ensure state and local governments do not pass laws or policies that deny American citizens the equal right to vote based on race. On June 25, 2013, the Supreme Court swept away a key provision of this landmark civil rights law in Shelby County v. Holder.

www.brennancenter.org

Section 4 was apparently a formula derived in the 1960s for identifying places that the voting rights act would regulate and section 5 is the protections it confers (requiring DOJ oversight of election law changes). The SCOTUS kept section 5 and congress has yet to more or less re-write section 4 it appears.

This is what Kennedy said at the time about the decision. "“Our country has changed,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. “While any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.”

So clearly there is room for congressional regulation of voting rights and access to me and its mostly a matter of a willing congress ready to say enough is enough.

 

[Commodus]

One thing Congress could easily do to aid voting: declare the federal election day a national holiday. Even if Republicans try to make it difficult for minorities to line up, at least those people wouldn't have to take a day off work to line up early.

 

[Fenixgoon]

One thing Congress could easily do to aid voting: declare the federal election day a national holiday. Even if Republicans try to make it difficult for minorities to line up, at least those people wouldn't have to take a day off work to line up early.

congress could also provide more funding for elections, election security, etc.

 

[eelw]

One thing Congress could easily do to aid voting: declare the federal election day a national holiday. Even if Republicans try to make it difficult for minorities to line up, at least those people wouldn't have to take a day off work to line up early.

But hasn't the pandemic shown people want to vote early? Yes if there wasn't the USPS delays, more mail in. But Trumpity Dumpity really caused the shift. First he brought back people who didn't vote in 2016. Next hopefully even without Bernie Bros, let's hope younger turnout is greater. Then pandemic caused surge in mail in requests. But seeing postal delays, people just avoided the mail completely and dropped off ballots. And finally the record early turnout just to stick it to the orange baby. No matter how many attempts to steal this election , it won't happen.

 

[fskimospy]

That would simplify the process, as only a half dozen states would matter.

It’s weird how people continue to argue this considering now obviously, ludicrously untrue it is.

I would say you should go look at whatever half dozen states you think would matter and then look at the vote totals within them. Add it up and compare to the votes of the rest of the county. Does this change your mind?

Also, as others have mentioned unless you have read no news coverage you would know the current election comes down to a half dozen states so if that’s your objection you must want the current system removed too.

 

[zinfamous]

That would simplify the process, as only a half dozen states would matter.

So, exactly like what happens now with the EC?

Why do you guys never think this shit through?

 

[Greenman]

I did as you asked, and you were right. It would take the top 7 states to control the election process.
My bad.

 

[fskimospy]

I did as you asked, and you were right. It would take the top 7 states to control the election process.
My bad.

Please show your math.

Hint: did you look up the vote totals or just the total population? It may shock you to learn that blue states and red states don’t vote 100% for their respective electoral teams.

 

[Commodus]

But hasn't the pandemic shown people want to vote early? Yes if there wasn't the USPS delays, more mail in. But Trumpity Dumpity really caused the shift. First he brought back people who didn't vote in 2016. Next hopefully even without Bernie Bros, let's hope younger turnout is greater. Then pandemic caused surge in mail in requests. But seeing postal delays, people just avoided the mail completely and dropped off ballots. And finally the record early turnout just to stick it to the orange baby. No matter how many attempts to steal this election , it won't happen.

They do this election, but we really don't want to count on that. It's about ensuring that no party can exploit a lack of free time to disenfranchise voters. It would also elevate the importance of voting and might improve overall turnout as a result.

 

[Aikouka]

The reason why the government can enact law like the Voters Rights Act is because they were essentially extending existing anti-discrimination law to voting. States were given the right to control their own elections, but they still cannot violate or supersede Federal law.

Federal law also can’t contradict itself, which is why you can’t enact a Federal law that tries to govern elections when the aforementioned law already grants that power to the states. If you attempted it, it would be easily struck down in court.

 

[Zorba]

I did as you asked, and you were right. It would take the top 7 states to control the election process.
My bad.

A Dem vote in Oklahoma would be worth the same as a Dem vote in California. Oklahoma is much cheaper to advertise to. This makes votes in Oklahoma just as important and easier to get than California, or Ohio or Florida.

 

[Sunburn74]

The reason why the government can enact law like the Voters Rights Act is because they were essentially extending existing anti-discrimination law to voting. States were given the right to control their own elections, but they still cannot violate or supersede Federal law.

Federal law also can’t contradict itself, which is why you can’t enact a Federal law that tries to govern elections when the aforementioned law already grants that power to the states. If you attempted it, it would be easily struck down in court.

So can congress them clarify and outlaw specific actions it considers to be discriminatory then? For example can they say "having less than 1 ballot box per 100,000 people" is discriminatory on the grounds of age and race and disability status? Or having wait times more than 30 mins is discriminatory and thus illegal?

 

[MrSquished]

I did as you asked, and you were right. It would take the top 7 states to control the election process.
My bad.

The smaller states have a very outsized presence in the Senate. Since the House was capped way back when, larger states also have underrepresentation there. And you have the EC to boot for the presidential election. Pretty soon the majority of SC justices will have been appointed by two presidents who lost the popular vote by millions. All 3 branches of government tilted in some way or another to the few.

It seems you support minority mob rule. Duly noted.

 

[ElFenix]

You'd think the enabling clause of the 15th amendment would be authority enough for congress to do whatever it wants to long as it finds racist intent in whatever it is correcting but John Roberts doesn't agree.

 

[MtnMan]

In the history of our country, 4 presidents took office while their opponent won the popular votes.

Two of these were in the 18th century, two in this century.

In 2000 and 2016 the selfish, greedy, and mostly under-educated have ruled, and done untold damage to our country, and most alarming, our freedoms. Result, two of the longest, most expensive wars that we ended up simply withdrawing from, and the complete cluster fuck that is currently going on. Had enough?

The rural state voters have more power with their vote than the majority of people. The Electoral College, and the Senate provide them with an advantage that endangers our country and our freedoms.

When a voter in Wyoming casts their ballot for president, they are effectively stuffing the ballot box with four ballots as compared to a voter in California.
Worst case: a candidate could win the Electoral College while winning only 22.16% of the popular vote due to this imbalance.

The imbalance in the Senate is even more extreme.

• A senator from California represents almost 20,000,000 people.
• A senator from Wyoming represents only 250,000 people.

Effectively a person in Wyoming has 80 times more say, through their Senator, than a person in California.

 

[sportage]

It should be noted that republicans indeed want a constitutional convention so that they can re-set the rules, or better said to stack the rules to allow legalized voter suppression, and legalized limits on individual rights and individual freedoms, and to better control the citizenry by taking away rights that go contrary to the republican agenda of controlling everything. After all, with republican attempts to enact voter suppression and limit voter rights across the nation it is quite obvious that the freedom to vote is a huge thorn in their side. Republicans would just love to get ahold of the US constitution with an eraser and a Sharpie.

 

[HomerJS]

They can gut the filibuster, pass replacement for the voting rights act, pack the courts to uphold it, with House, 50 votes in Senate and Presidency. If they wanted to.

Dems could pass tax credits for voting.

On the filibuster change the rules to make it real. If it's that important stand up and talk until you collapse.

I think minimum voting standards could pass and let states figure out how to enforce. Example, no voter should have to wait in line >30 minutes. Every state should be required to have paper backups. Voting in all states should be at a minimum, Sat before election day up until that Tuesday. This way almost everyone should be able to fit voting into their work schedule.

 

[UNCjigga]

If Dems control the Executive and both chambers of Congress, you can be damn sure they’ll pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Restoration Act and update the coverage formula, applying the VRA not just to Southern states but to a few Midwestern and Western states as well.