Can HR1 pass in the Senate?
Commenter “Bauxite” writes:
Can’t see how they pass HR 1 without nuking the filibuster. There’s no way that 10 Republicans will vote for it. The pressure will be on Manchin and Sinema, though. I’m going to start worrying if there are signs of them cracking.
Ordinarily it’s true that in order to pass HR1 they would have to do away with the filibuster. But I’ve heard chatter that they may try to somehow shove the whole mess into something they call a budget bill and pass it by reconciliation, requiring only a simple majority. Exactly how this could be done I don’t know – clearly, the bill is even less related to the budget than Obamacare was – but I would never underestimate Democrats’ ability to bend the rules in order to consolidate their power, and the Court’s ability to look the other way.
The second method by which the filibuster roadblock could be gotten around might be by executive order. In fact, Biden has already issued an executive order that includes some of the most objectionable parts of HR1. It represents a backup plan, as it were. Whether it would hold up legally I don’t know (in fact, there’s even some doubt as to whether HR1 itself would be upheld by SCOTUS in a challenge). But it might.
Lastly, of course, as Bauxite notes, there’s no reason to trust Joe Manchin or Krysten Sinema to keep their promises about preserving the filibuster. I actually trust Sinema more than I’d trust Manchin. The latter has a history of talking a good line until an important vote actually takes place, and then he virtually always caves. Sinema is a bit more mysterious and unknown to me, and seems to have a somewhat more rebellious spirit.
The determination of the Democrats to accomplish the destruction of American voting integrity is fierce. And voting is nearly the entire ballgame, isn’t it?
“Exactly how this could be done I don’t know – clearly, the bill is even less related to the budget than Obamacare was – but I would never underestimate Democrats’ ability to bend the rules in order to consolidate their power, and the Court’s ability to look the other way.”
The courts would not come into play on that piece of it. Reconciliation is a process related to the rules of the Senate, which are governed solely by the Senate. The constitution is also clear that the legislature has the authority to set rules on federal elections so a constitutional challenge would probably have to be on some very narrow aspect in the legislation.
The more interesting aspect if HR 1 were to pass is how red states react to it. While the federal legislature can set rules on federal elections, the same authority does not extend to state and local elections. Would states rearrange their local elections to be held off-cycle with those for federal office, with different rules? How would Democrats react at the federal level? How long would this last? I mean, all it would take is for a single election where Dems win, for example, control of the political machinery of Texas, to bring the state in line with federal rules, and thereby lock in a Dem political majority in that state for ever more. HR 1 is the whole ball of wax, no doubt about it.
Burton M:
I wasn’t thinking the courts would rule on the reconciliation aspects of HR1, but rather on other aspects of it. Perhaps I didn’t make that clear, though.