June 26, 2021
JOE MANCHIN, the Democratic Senator from West Virginia, is a paradoxical figure. He has torpedoed many of his party’s most cherished plans, from legislating on climate change to abolishing the Senate filibuster. But without this willingness to confuse his Democrats, Mr Manchin could not win in a state where Donald Trump received nearly 70% of the vote in November. The Democrats owe him their unanimous vote in the Senate, which they greatly appreciate.
Listen to this story
Your browser does not support the
Enjoy more audio and podcasts on iOS or Android.
As a result, Mr Manchin’s proposal to reform suffrage is to be taken seriously – all the more so as this week the blockbuster electoral law favored by most of his party, known as HR1, thanks to the filibuster Mr Manchin wants Conservation was marginalized. His compromise consists of three main parts: ending gerrymandering, automatic voter registration, and identification of those who vote in person.
The package is not the major electoral reform that many Democrats advocate as an antidote to the chaos that the losing candidate unleashed in last year’s presidential election. But it avoids HR1’s ill-advised focus on public funding for election campaigns. In the past it would have been hailed as a model of bipartisan wisdom.
Take the gerrymandering first. Most American states transfer the power to draw the lines of congressional districts to elected politicians. This is a call for fraud that politicians usually find difficult to resist. The result is bizarrely misshapen districts that make elections less competitive.
Mr. Manchin wants to end the practice and hand over the demarcation to impartial commissions, as is already the case in seven states. It’s hard to argue with that, but Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell has done so, claiming that the plan “takes redistribution away from state lawmakers and hands it over to computers.” As if the legislature didn’t use computers too.
Mr Manchin has a similarly sensible proposal for voter registration. Political parties and elected officials play too much of a role in overseeing the keeping of electoral lists in the United States. The ideal system would make it easier for voters to register, ensure that the lists of voters in each state are correct, and remove this vital administrative work from the influence of the politicians standing for election.
Mr Manchin suggests a system where voters are automatically registered unless they choose to de-register. Such a system should increase voter turnout, which is what both parties want and which obviously does not prefer one lot to the other.
The last part of Mr. Manchin’s offer is aimed at the right-wing. For at least two decades, Republicans in state legislatures have said it is important that voters provide some form of identification at polling stations. This requirement, too, has often been played with political advantages: gun licenses are okay, student IDs are not. Since November, when the conspiracy theory of stolen elections took hold, that impulse has only grown.
Mr Manchin suggests giving Republican lawmakers most of what they have long asked for by using utility bills as proof of identity. Most Americans of both parties support voter ID laws. Nonetheless, hardliners on both sides reject Mr. Manchin’s idea. On the left, some say it is unnecessary to identify yourself in elections as it is very rare for one person to pose as another when voting. However, America has a public interest in ensuring that elections are not only safe, but also perceived as such. Others on the right say only photo ID should count. This makes sense in a country like France, where there is a national identity card. But Republicans like the Conservative Party in Great Britain are ideologically against identity cards – even though they believe that a document that represents you must be shown in the voting booths.
On this point, as on other points, Mr Manchin’s proposal is precisely the definition of adequacy. Given America’s fragmented politics, however, this is hardly a guarantee of success. Republicans in Congress have named the plan the “Stacey Abrams” bill, after the Georgia politician who supported it. Although they are likely to oppose Mr Manchin’s reform, it deserves your support. ■
This article appeared in the Leaders section of the print edition under the heading “Radically sensible”