Mediaboss Marketing

Democrats including President BidenJoe BidenPoll: Biden approval on coronavirus slips 2 percentage points Overnight Defense: Top US commander in Afghanistan departs | US sends delegation to Haiti after request for troops | Senate Dems propose .3B for Pentagon in Capitol security bill Protests escalate US-Cuba tensions MORE are grappling with what to do about the slowing pace of COVID-19 vaccinations.

The sharpest debate right now is centered on whether private businesses, federal workplaces and educational institutions should require proof of vaccination.

If the White House encouraged such requirements, it would likely nudge some Americans who have not yet gotten vaccinated to do so.

But it would also open the president and his party up to accusations of overreach and nanny-statism on an issue that has become deeply partisan.

In a new poll released Wednesday from The Economist-YouGov, 77 percent of Democrats said they were fully vaccinated, and only 4 percent of Democratic respondents said they would not get vaccinated at all.

But 31 percent of Republicans said they would not get vaccinated and so, crucially, did 22 percent of independents. Those figures suggest there would be a political price to pay for a strong push toward vaccine requirements.

The political dilemma is clear, however. There could be a far steeper penalty over the medium term if the virus makes a comeback something that has become more likely amid the spread of a new delta variant, which is now the dominant strain in the U.S.

The issue is one that can be easily demagogued, too.

A government mandate that all Americans must get vaccinated in all circumstances is not being suggested by anyone in the mainstream. Such a blanket requirement would likely be unlawful and certainly unenforceable.

But public health experts, worried about the sluggish rate of new vaccinations, say there is plenty else the Biden administration and elected officials could do. One option would simply be to issue expressions of support for private employers, medical facilities and school boards that impose vaccine requirements.

There has been none of that from the White House and the timidity is sparking growing frustration.

My wish is that we would see more mandates at the federal or national level but Im a realist and I know were not going to see that, said Kavita Patel, a nonresident fellow at the Brookings Institution who is also a practicing physician. At a minimum, I would love to see words of support. These hospitals that are doing it are brave and should be applauded. They shouldnt feel like they are on an island.

Lawrence Gostin, a professor at Georgetown Law School and a public health expert, was even more vigorous in his criticisms.

The Biden administration has been far too hands-off regarding vaccine requirements, he said. They could do a lot more. Once it is fully licensed, which it will be soon, they could recommend that schools and businesses have vaccinations as a condition to going back into that environment.

We are hearing nothing from the CDC or HHS or the White House, he added, referring to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Department of Health and Human Services.

More ripples were created on the issue when Kathleen SebeliusKathleen SebeliusFauci: 'Horrifying' to hear CPAC crowd cheering anti-vaccination remarks The Memo: Biden and Democrats face dilemma on vaccine mandates Inside Biden's pragmatic approach to coronavirus rules MORE, who served as Health secretary during the Obama administration, told The New York Times that she was in favor of mandates.

Im trying to restrain myself but Ive kind of had it, Sebelius told the Times in a story published Tuesday evening. Were going to tiptoe around mandates. Its like, come on. Im kind of over that.

Sebelius, as a veteran of the wars over the Affordable Care Act (ACA), knows that Democrats have been vulnerable to charges of overreach, whether justified or not.

Conservatives sought to stop the passage of the ACA a decade ago over concerns about death panels and health care rationing. They were unsuccessful, but the legislation was a political liability for Democrats for several years, only winning widespread popularity more recently.

When it comes to vaccine requirements, Republicans and their allies in the media are warning about infringements on personal liberty.

According to a USA Today report in late April, more than 40 states at that point had introduced legislation banning vaccination mandates. One Republican state-level lawmaker, Rep. John Jacob of Indiana, told the newspaper that a mandate would be considered a gross violation of the individual freedom of people in his state.

Conservative media commentators including Tucker CarlsonTucker CarlsonCNN: Tucker Carlson 'furious' at Fox News execs for not defending his NSA spying claims Rand Paul requests probe into allegations NSA spied on Tucker Carlson Trump, DeSantis lead CPAC straw poll MORE of Fox News have stoked skepticism about vaccines.

And governors in several states have signed executive orders banning vaccine mandates, so-called vaccine passports or both.

Included among their ranks are high-profile names who may have presidential ambitions such as Florida Gov. Ron DeSantisRon DeSantisPompeo on 2024: 'I want to continue to have an impact' Five takeaways from the CPAC conference in Dallas Noem hits fellow GOP governors over COVID-19 mandates MORE (R) and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R).

Some Democrats acknowledge that polarization around COVID-19 has become so severe that more assertive rhetoric from Biden on the issue risks a counter-reaction.

Dave Mudcat Saunders, a veteran Democratic strategist based in rural Virginia, told this column that if Joe Biden were to come out and tell people to take the vaccine, it would only make these people around me more likely not to take it.

Saunders argued that there is enormous distrust on the issue, fueled by polarization, media hyperbole and a general cultural shift that has deepened divisions between rural conservatives and what he terms the Metropolitan Opera wing of his own party.

Saunders reflected ruefully that the one thing he believed really could make a difference in his community would be if former President TrumpDonald TrumpOvernight Defense: Top US commander in Afghanistan departs | US sends delegation to Haiti after request for troops | Senate Dems propose .3B for Pentagon in Capitol security bill Fauci and Birx warned Scott Atlas was 'dangerous' Report: RNC chief counsel called 2020 Trump legal efforts 'a joke' MORE were to more forcefully urge people to get vaccinated.

The Biden administration has stuck resolutely to its laissez-faire stance on vaccine requirements, even as the president has continued to urge people to get their shots for their own good and out of a sense of patriotic duty.

Were going to leave it up to them to make these decisions, White House press secretary Jen PsakiJen PsakiOvernight Health Care: FDA adds new warning to J&J COVID-19 vaccine | WHO chief pushes back on Pfizer booster shot | Fauci defends Biden's support for recommending vaccines 'one on one' COVID-19 case count spikes hit almost every state Haiti is 'tinderbox' foreign policy challenge for Biden MORE said Tuesday, referring to the role of schools, universities and private institutions in deciding whether to impose vaccination requirements.

The studied neutrality is just not good enough in the view of health experts like Gostin.

Gostin is scornful of the idea that the president or his party should retreat in the face of charges of nanny-state behavior.

People talk about the nanny state, but this isnt the nanny state, he said. The nanny state is telling you what you must do for your own health and safety. What we are doing here is telling you to get vaccinated yes, for your own health and safety but also because otherwise you pose a risk to others."

Its a classic argument, he added. This is not a question of libertarianism or freedom because nobody has the freedom to harm others. You only have the freedom to harm yourself.

The Memo is a reported column by Niall Stanage.

Read more:
The Memo: Biden and Democrats face dilemma on vaccine mandates | TheHill - The Hill

WASHINGTON As Gov. Greg Abbott tries to raise cash so the state can pick up building former President Donald Trumps border wall, Texas Democrats are trying to keep him from tapping into more than $15 billion in COVID relief funding the federal government is sending to Texas.

Every Texas Democrat in Congress signed a letter on Monday urging Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen to take steps to block Abbott from using COVID relief funding on border barriers, asking her to issue a formal rule making clear that recovery funding cannot be used for a border wall, fence, or similar installation. They also say the Treasury needs to make rules ensuring the money cant be used to replenish state funding spent on a border barrier.

Its the latest in an ongoing battle over record numbers of migrants crossing the border and encountering border patrol a fight in which Abbott seeks to lead the GOP on a national level as he pushes to have the state of Texas finish the border wall and begin arresting migrants. Abbott also moved to revoke state licenses from shelters housing migrant children as he declared an emergency in counties along the border earlier this month.

APPROVAL GAP: Texans agree with Gov. Abbott over Biden on border response, poll finds

The governor who will tour parts of the border with Trump this week on Monday tweeted out a video of a tractor clearing brush, declaring that building the border barrier has begun.

But Democrats point out that Abbott has so far identified just a fraction of what it would cost to fill the gaps of the border barrier, and they fear he plans to use federal money to reimburse state funding hes already started to pull for the project.

With no Republican support, we approved $350 billion in the American Rescue Plan for eligible state, local, territorial, and tribal governments to assist local leaders, who confronted pandemic challenges, and to assist with economic and job recovery, the 13 Texas Democrats in Congress wrote in a letter to Yellen. We are concerned by the prospect of Texas Governor Greg Abbotts potential misuse of these funds to continue the misguided plans of President Trump to extend a wall along the border between Texas and Mexico.

A spokeswoman for Abbott said he still plans to call a special legislative session in the fall for lawmakers to decide how to dole out the $15.8 billion in COVID relief Texas is set to receive so the entire Legislature can participate in the allocation process in a way that best serves all Texans.

The governor will work with the Legislature during that special session to determine the most effective use of those federal funds to address the needs of Texans, Renae Eze said.

Abbott has directed that $250 million be taken from the Texas Department of Criminal Justice as a down payment for the wall and his office reported raising $450,000 in private donations as Abbott has stressed crowdsourcing will be key to funding the effort. Abbott said the $250 million will go toward hiring a project manager, who will eventually provide a full cost and timeline for the project.

The former administration devoted about $2.8 billion to build or replace barriers along portions of the border in Texas, completing just 55 miles of new wall, according to the Department of Homeland Security. Trump officials had planned to add some 280 miles to the wall in the state. Biden stopped construction on the wall and the White House said earlier this month that some portions of the wall cost the Trump administration $46 million per mile.

[Abbott] has failed to raise enough money to construct more than a few yards, U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett, a San Antonio Democrat, said in a statement. With so many needs in Texas, spending for a useless wall is truly outrageous. With Abbott having already wasted millions on his pseudo-border security effort, we are determined to restrain him from robbing the recovery funds to misuse for this boondoggle.

It isn't the first time congressional Democrats have asked the federal government to keep a close eye on Texas' stimulus spending decisions.

During the first round of COVID funding last year, Congress allocated $1.3 billion to support public education in Texas, but officials cut state commitments by the same amount and moved the money into the general fund.

Congress later passed another two rounds of stimulus funding that included billions more in public school money. Democrats wrote a similar letter to federal leaders in April, asking that they ensure Texas only use the cash to supplement existing funding commitments, rather than replace them.

IN-DEPTH: White House to Congress: Leave border wall funding to Texas, at up to $46M a mile

The letter comes as recent public polling in Texas shows that Abbott, running for reelection next year, has earned the approval of substantially more Texans than Biden has on the issue.

Forty six percent of Texans approve of Abbotts handling of immigration and the border, according to the survey from the University of Texas and the Texas Tribune, while just 37 percent disapprove. Just 27 percent of Texans approve of Bidens handling of the issue, meanwhile, and 57 percent disapprove.

The online poll of 1,200 residents found Texans are deeply divided on the issue along party lines as well as racial and ethnic groups. Notably, Abbott has a slight edge on the subject among Hispanic Texans, who both parties are trying to woo. Thirty nine percent approve of his handling of the border, compared to 34 percent who side with Biden.

Biden, meanwhile, has said he is working to build a more humane immigration system as his administration deals with a surge in encounters with migrants that began under the Trump administration and reached record levels this spring. The White House has focused its efforts on standing up shelters to house a record number of unaccompanied children arriving at the southern border, an effort that could soon be complicated by Abbotts move to revoke state licenses from shelters housing many of them.

Abbott, who has not ruled out a run for president, has remained laser-focused on the border as he heads into a more immediate gubernatorial primary field in which at least one challenger, former state Sen. Don Huffines, was already campaigning on a border wall.

Abbott has Trumps endorsement, but Huffines has continued to hammer him over the border, saying in a statement last week that Abbott stole his wall idea and calling his plan unacceptable and impractical.

Abbotts plan also includes directing state troopers to begin arresting migrants, a move that immigration experts say is legally dubious after the Supreme Court stopped Arizona from a similar effort in 2012, ruling that only the federal government can enforce immigration law.

Cayla Harris contributed reporting from Austin.

ben.wermund@chron.com

Read the original:
Democrats try to block Gov. Abbott from using COVID recovery funds on border wall - Houston Chronicle

Jim Hartman Courtesy Photo

Judge Amy Barrett will overturn the Affordable Care Act. So declared Vice President Kamala Harris last fall.More from Harris then:President Trump made it clear that he had a litmus test for Supreme Court justices destroy the Affordable Care Acts protection for people with preexisting conditions and overturn our right to make our own health care decisions.... Republicans are desperate to get Judge Barrett confirmed and millions of Americans will suffer for their power play.Joe Bidens official statement on the Supreme Court nomination of Barrett last year mentioned her name once . It mentioned Roe vs. Wade once. It had eight sentences alluding to the pending case on the Affordable Care Act claiming Americans would lose their health insurance.There were other similar false demagogic messages, including from Sen. Chuck Schumer that Barrett clearly said shed strike down the Affordable Care Act.Nancy Pelosi charged that Barretts nomination threatens destruction of life-saving protections for 135 million Americans with pre-existing conditions together with every other benefit and protection of the ACA.Progressive zealot , Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, opined: Confirming Amy Coney Barrett will be the end of the Affordable Care Act.All wrong totally wrong. Will all the Democratic Party luminaries who claimed Barretts confirmation would mean the end of ObamaCare now apologize?Democrats actually knew last year that ObamaCare was in no real threat of being overturned.On June 17, Barrett very predictably joined the U. S. Supreme Courts 7-2 majority upholding the law.During Barretts confirmation hearings, Democrats absurdly claimed that placing her on the court was to assure that the ACA would be invalidated. But Barretts record, in addition to her answers to Senate Judiciary Committee questions, made it a near certainty that she would not vote to toss out the statute.Two important lessons should be learned never underestimate Democratic Party politicians cynicism, and, that conservative justices dont decide cases based on their policy preferences.Texas and 17 other states with Republican attorneys general, along with two individual plaintiffs, in California vs. Texas, challenged the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, after Congress zeroed out the penalty for not carrying health insurance in the 2017 tax reform.Plaintiffs dubious argument was that the entire ACA became unconstitutional when Congress zeroed out the individual mandate the mandate having been the basis on which the court in 2012 had earlier upheld the statute. Most judicial experts expected plaintiffs to lose.As a matter of law, the plaintiffs contention that the mandate was not severable from the rest of the ACA, therefore invalidating the entire voluminous statute, was untenable. In addition, plaintiffs did not have standing to raise their claims.In the end , six (Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh and Barrett) joined Justice Breyers opinion in declining even to reach the merits and held instead that plaintiffs lacked standing.Under court precedents, plaintiffs must suffer an injury in fact, The courts seven vote majority found that neither the individuals nor the states could show they would be harmed by the zeroed-out penalty. Justices Alito and Gorsuch dissented.The decision underscored that the court, even with recent additions of more conservative justices, is still able to find broad coalitions supporting middle-ground outcomes in controversial cases.Progressives treat the Supreme Court as just another policy-making body and court justices as politicians. They claimed Barretts confirmation would result is a series of far-right legal victories. But the conservative justices are demonstrating a diversity of legal views that are neither uniform nor radical.Health-care policy needs to be addressed, but that remains a task for Congress. The Roberts Court, with a now stronger conservative majority, intends to defer to Congress.It should never be the Supreme Courts responsibility to re-write health care law.Jim Hartman is an attorney residing in Genoa. Email lawdocman1@aol.com.

Continued here:
Jim Hartman: Democrats' 'Obamascare' proven wrong | Serving Carson City for over 150 years - Nevada Appeal

Democrats are poised to move forward with a probe into the Jan. 6 Capitol attack after Republicans stonewalled an independent commission.

The House is set to vote this week before leaving for a three-week July 4 break on establishing a select committee to investigate the attack.

Jan. 6 was one of the darkest days in our nation's history ... it is imperative that we establish the truth of that day and ensure that an attack of that kind cannot happen and that we root out the causes of it all, Speaker Nancy PelosiNancy PelosiPhotos of the Week: Infrastructure, Britney Spears and Sen. Tillis's dog Headaches mount for Biden in spending fight Wallace has contentious interview with GOP lawmaker: Aren't you the ones defunding the police? MORE (D-Calif.)told reporters late last week.

The decision comes after the Senate, which has started a two-week recess, failed to break a 60-vote legislative filibuster on legislation to establish an evenly divided commission of outside experts. Six Republicans voted for the bill establishing the commission and a seventh, Sen. Pat ToomeyPatrick (Pat) Joseph ToomeyBlack women look to build upon gains in coming elections Watch live: GOP senators present new infrastructure proposal Sasse rebuked by Nebraska Republican Party over impeachment vote MORE (Pa.), said he would have voted for it but missed the vote.

House Democrats have been chewing over multiple options for how to probe the attack, where a mob of former President TrumpDonald TrumpTrump calls Barr 'a disappointment in every sense of the word' Last foreign scientist to work at Wuhan lab: 'What people are saying is just not how it is' NY prosecutors give Trump Org lawyers Monday deadline: report MOREs supporters breached the Capitol as lawmakers and then-Vice President Pence were counting the Electoral College vote.

Some Democrats had pushed for the House Homeland Security Committee, an already established panel, to take the lead on an investigation given that Chairman Bennie ThompsonBennie Gordon ThompsonDemocrats to create select committee to probe Jan. 6 attack DHS considering asylum for migrants whose cases were terminated under Trump Democratic clamor grows for select committee on Jan. 6 attack MORE (D-Miss.) and Rep. John KatkoJohn Michael KatkoJan. 6 probe poised to spill into 2022, with no complaints from Democrats Democrats to create select committee to probe Jan. 6 attack Bipartisan lawmakers highlight COVID-19 impact on mental health, addiction MORE (N.Y.), a moderate Republican, negotiated the deal on the legislation for the independent commission.

But a select committee would empower Democratic leaders to dictate the ground rules of the investigation, including the scope, the numerical composition of members, the parameters surrounding the panel's subpoena powers and the timeline for ending the probe.

Sources told The Hill last week that Pelosi was mulling tapping Thompson to lead the select committee.

Infrastructure

President BidenJoe BidenTrump calls Barr 'a disappointment in every sense of the word' Last foreign scientist to work at Wuhan lab: 'What people are saying is just not how it is' Toyota defends donations to lawmakers who objected to certifying election MORE is working to save a bipartisan infrastructure deal after he caused a GOP firestorm by suggesting late last week, just hours after the agreement was announced, that he wouldnt sign it unless it was accompanied by a larger, multitrillion-dollar Democratic-only bill.

Biden tried to clean up his previous statement over the weekend, saying that it was not his intent to suggest he would veto the bipartisan agreement.

But Biden also tried to balance his competing pressure points, arguing that Republicans shouldn't oppose the bipartisan deal just because Democrats, as theyve been telegraphing for weeks, are going to try to pass a second larger bill under reconciliation that allows them to bypass the 60-vote legislative filibuster. He also argued that progressives shouldnt vote against the bipartisan deal just because it doesnt go as far as they want.

I will ask Leader [Charles] Schumer to schedule both the infrastructure plan and the reconciliation bill for action in the Senate. I expect both to go to the House, where I will work with Speaker Pelosi on the path forward after Senate action. Ultimately, I am confident that Congress will get both to my desk, so I can sign each bill promptly, Biden said.

Bidens remarks appeared to appease Republicans in the core negotiating group, who remained supportive of the agreement during appearances on the Sunday shows.

Sen. Rob PortmanRobert (Rob) Jones PortmanHeadaches mount for Biden in spending fight Biden adviser on president signing bill: 'I don't think it's a yes-or-no question' Barasso says Biden must do more to reassure GOP MORE (R-Ohio) said he was blindsided by Bidens remarks, but added that he was very glad to see the president clarify his remarks because it was inconsistent with everything that we had been told all along the way. We were all blindsided by the comments the previous day.

I'm glad they've now been de-linked and it's very clear that we can move forward with a bipartisan bill that's broadly popular, Portman told ABCs This Week.

Sen. Mitt RomneyWillard (Mitt) Mitt RomneyPhotos of the Week: Infrastructure, Britney Spears and Sen. Tillis's dog Biden adviser on president signing bill: 'I don't think it's a yes-or-no question' Barasso says Biden must do more to reassure GOP MORE (R-Utah) said he trusted Biden before signaling that he accepted the presidents clarification.

I do trust the president and, he made very clear in the much larger statement that came out over the weekend, the carefully crafted and thought through piece by piece, as that if the infrastructure bill reaches his desk, and it comes alone, he will sign it, Romney said during an interview with CNNs State of the Union.

But it remains to be seen if Bidens remarks are enough to quell the larger GOP furor, after Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnellAddison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellTrump calls Barr 'a disappointment in every sense of the word' Headaches mount for Biden in spending fight Biden adviser on president signing bill: 'I don't think it's a yes-or-no question' MORE (R-Ky.) panned Bidens rhetoric and two Republicans in the larger gang of 21 Sens. Lindsey GrahamLindsey Olin GrahamGreen groups shift energy to reconciliation package Headaches mount for Biden in spending fight Barasso says Biden must do more to reassure GOP MORE (S.C.) and Jerry MoranGerald (Jerry) MoranBipartisan senators ask CDC, TSA when they will update mask guidance for travelers Headaches mount for Biden in spending fight Senate Republicans urge CDC to lift public transportation mask mandate MORE (Kan.) threatened to pull their support.

Biden will have to balance any overture to Republicans with the challenge of also keeping progressives on board amid worry from the left that the two-track system could cause centrists to boot priorities like expanding Medicare and climate change.

Let me be clear: There will not be a bipartisan infrastructure deal without a reconciliation bill that substantially improves the lives of working families and combats the existential threat of climate change. No reconciliation bill, no deal. We need transformative change NOW, Sen. Bernie SandersBernie SandersPolitical campaigns worry they're next for ransomware hits Headaches mount for Biden in spending fight How Biden can reframe and reclaim patriotism, faith, freedom, and equality MORE (I-Vt.) tweeted on Sunday.

Amid the wrangling over Bidens plan, the House will vote this week on a $547 billion surface transportation reauthorization bill to invest in roads, bridges, transit and rail.

Confederate statues

The House will vote on legislation to remove statues of people who served the Confederacy or otherwise worked to uphold slavery that are currently displayed in the Capitol.

Among the provisions in the bill is language that would replace a bust of former Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney, who authored the 1857 Dred Scott ruling that Black people did not have the rights of citizens and couldn't sue in federal courts, with one of Thurgood Marshall, the first Black Supreme Court justice.

In addition to statues of figures related to the Confederacy, the bill would also require the removal of the statues of Charles Brantley, a former North Carolina governor who espoused white supremacy; John Caldwell Calhoun, who defended slavery; and James Paul Clarke, a former governor and senator that Arkansas has already announced it will replace.

Iraq War

The House is set to vote to repeal the1991 Iraq War authorization, giving a big boost to a years-long effort to roll back the authorization for the use of military force.

The Houses vote comes as efforts to rein in the executive branchs war authority are ramping up in a shift from Congresss increasingly hands-off approach.The chamber already voted earlierthis month to repeal the 2002 Iraq War authorization.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is expected to advance legislation from Sens. Tim KaineTimothy (Tim) Michael KaineHeadaches mount for Biden in spending fight Infrastructure breakthrough marks victory for political center Democrats hit wall on voting rights push MORE (D-Va.) and Todd YoungTodd Christopher YoungThe Hill's 12:30 Report - Presented by Facebook - Biden helps negotiate bipartisan infrastructure deal Overnight Defense: Joint Chiefs warn against sweeping reform to military justice system | Senate panel plans July briefing on war authorization repeal | National Guard may have 'training issues' if not reimbursed Senate panel plans July briefing on war authorization repeal MORE (R-Ind.) that would repeal both the 2002 and 1991 Iraq War-related authorizations.

Senate Majority Leader Charles SchumerChuck SchumerThe Innovation and Competition Act is progressive policy Infrastructure deal: Major climate win that tees up more in reconciliation bill Democrats seek to calm nervous left MORE (D-N.Y.) announced earlier this month that he supports repealing the authorization and is committed to bringing it up for a vote on the Senate floor this year.

The Iraq War has been over for nearly a decade and authorization passed in 2002 is no longer necessary in 2021. ... It no longer serves a vital purpose in our fight against violent extremists, Schumer said from the Senate floor.

I strongly and fully support repealing the 2002 authorization for the use of military force in Iraq, he said. It is my intention as majority leader to bring this matter to a floor vote this year."

Read the original post:
This week: Democrats move forward with Jan. 6 probe | TheHill - The Hill

WASHINGTON A push by Democrats to enact the most expansive voting rights legislation in generations is set to collapse in the Senate on Tuesday, when Republicans are expected to use a filibuster to block a measure that President Biden and his allies in Congress have called a vital step to protect democracy.

Despite solid Republican opposition, Democrats plan to bring the voting rights fight to a head on the Senate floor, by calling a test vote to try to advance the broad federal elections overhaul, known as the For the People Act. As Republican-led states rush to enact restrictive new voting laws, Democrats have presented the legislation as the partys best chance to undo them, expand ballot access from coast to coast and limit the effect of special interests on the political process.

We can argue what should be done to protect voting rights and safeguard our democracy, but dont you think we should be able to debate the issue? Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the majority leader, said on Monday in a last-ditch appeal to Republicans to let the debate proceed.

But in the hours before the vote, Democrats conceded they were facing defeat at least for now. Even if they succeeded in securing the votes of all 50 senators in the Democratic caucus, party leaders were expected to fall well short of the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster and begin debating the bill.

Instead, they focused on Monday on rallying the party around a more limited alternative proposed by Senator Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, who had been the only Democratic holdout on the voting rights measure. Both the White House and former President Barack Obama said his suggestions would address many of the most urgent issues. President Biden and Mr. Manchin also spoke directly about the need to find a legislative solution, according to an official familiar with their conversation who was not authorized to discuss it publicly.

Leaders hope that, given the support for his proposal, Mr. Manchin will vote with the rest of the Senates Democrats and Democratic-aligned independents to allow the debate to proceed, allowing his party to present a unified front on the bill.

What we are measuring, I think, is, is the Democratic Party united? We werent as of a couple of weeks ago, Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary, said before acknowledging the vote would fail.

Mr. Obama offered a tepid endorsement, saying it would address many of his concerns about elections, but doesnt have everything Id like to see in a voting rights bill.

Regardless, Mr. Schumer appeared to have only one remaining option to try to pass the legislation: eliminating or altering the Senate rule that sets a 60-vote threshold for breaking a legislative filibuster. Progressives have clamored to do so since Democrats won a narrow majority in January, and argued before Tuesdays vote that it would help make their case. Yet a handful of key moderates led by Mr. Manchin insist they will never go along.

One of them, Senator Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, dug in further Monday night on the eve of the vote, warning her party in an op-ed in The Washington Post that it would lose much more than we gain by eliminating the 60-vote threshold.

To those who want to eliminate the legislative filibuster to pass the For the People Act (voting-rights legislation I support and have co-sponsored), I would ask: Would it be good for our country if we did, only to see that legislation rescinded a few years from now and replaced by a nationwide voter-ID law or restrictions on voting by mail in federal elections, over the objections of the minority? Ms. Sinema wrote.

With the path forward so murky, top Democrats began framing Tuesdays vote as a moral victory, and potentially a crucial step in building consensus around eventually blowing up the filibuster.

The outcome, Ms. Psaki said, may change the conversation on the Hill around the filibuster, but she offered no clear next steps.

After former President Donald J. Trump returned in recent months to making false claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him,Republican lawmakers in many states have marched aheadto pass laws making it harder to vote and change how elections are run, frustrating Democrats and even some election officials in their own party.

Mr. Manchin had opposed key planks in the original For the People Act as too intrusive into the rights of states to regulate their own elections. His proposal would eliminate a provision neutering state voter identification laws and strip out a public campaign financing program.

But it preserves other key measures, like an end to partisan gerrymandering of congressional districts and the creation of tough new ethics rules. It would also expand early voting, make Election Day a federal holiday and make it easier to vote by mail.

A Monmouth University Poll released on Monday indicated that Mr. Manchins position may be more in line with public sentiment, particularly his support for some kinds of voter identification requirements.

The poll found, for instance, that seven in 10 Americans supported making early in person voting easier and were in favor of the federal government creating national guidelines for mail-in and early in person voting. But eight in 10 said they generally supported voter identification requirements that the For the People Act would effectively neuter.

Republicans are united in their opposition both to Democrats original bill and to Mr. Manchins changes, describing them as overly prescriptive and geared toward giving their own party an advantage in future elections.

The real driving force behind S. 1 is the desire to rig the rules of American elections permanently permanently in Democrats favor, said Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the minority leader, referring to the legislation by its bill number. Thats why the Senate will give this disastrous proposal no quarter.

Reid J. Epstein and Catie Edmondson contributed reporting.

Excerpt from:
Democrats Unite Behind Voting Rights Bill as It Faces a Senate Roadblock - The New York Times