Elections

Commentary & Community

Warren Lays Out Gay & Transgender Rights Plan

This week the Supreme Court heard arguments over whether federal law bars discrimination against homosexual and transgender Americans. Today, Sen. Elizabeth Warren outlined a plan focusing on gay, lesbian, and transgender rights.

 

Under Sen. Warren's plan, the federal government would expand its efforts on behalf of gay and transgender individuals in these ways:

  • Pass a federal law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity
  • Bar religious freedom laws from being used as a legal defense for individuals or businesses to refuse services to those who are gay or transgender
  • Prohibit the Transportation Security Administration from singling out transgender individuals
  • Require that federal contractors do not discriminate against gay or transgender workers
  • Direct the federal government to seek out anti-gay and transgender discrimination by business owners and employers
  • Enact a federal law that prohibits conversion therapy
  • Mandate that school districts adopt anti-bulling policies that include a focus on gay and transgender bullying
  • Provide federal funding for police departments to identify implicit anti-gay bias
  • End the requirement that federal prisons assign prisoners based on their birth sex

 

In her statement outlining the plan, Sen. Warren takes direct aim at President Trump. Many of the items in her proposal are direct responses to what she says are Trump Administration rollbacks of protections for gay, lesbian, and transgender Americans.

 

Do you support a federal law banning gay conversion therapy? Should the federal government seek out anti-gay and anti-transgender discrimination by business owners and employers instead of relying on reports of such discrimination?

Sanders Wants Strict Limit on Political Donations

It’s no secret that Sen. Bernie Sanders is not a fan of corporations. Now he’s targeting what he calls “corporate money” in politics in his quest for the Democratic presidential nomination.

 

Today Sen. Sanders announced a plan to, in his words, “get corporate money out of politics.” Among other things, his proposal would:

  • Ban corporations from donating to presidential inauguration events and cap individual donations to these events at $500.
  • Push for a constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United Supreme Court decision and enable Congress to pass legislation mandating that advocacy organizations report their donors to the government.
  • Create the Federal Elections Agency, which would be empowered to levy criminal fines for campaign finance violations and be staffed by members that serve 6-year terms.
  • Mandate government financing for federal elections.
  • Create government-funded vouchers that would be provided to individuals in order to make campaign donations.
  • Prohibit ads during presidential primary debates.
  • Ban former members of Congress and administration officials from ever lobbying.

 

Sen. Sanders would also prohibit the Democratic National Convention from receiving corporate donations.

 

According to Sen. Sanders, corporations have too much influence over politicians, so his plan would curtail that influence. He says it is necessary to reduce the power of corporations to write laws that benefit themselves and not the people. Opponents counter that his plan would be a massive government expansion over individuals who want to have their voices heard in the political process. They argue that his plan would put more government control over politics, something that will only help incumbents.

 

Other candidates for the Democratic nomination have suggested similar ideas for campaign finance reform, but none have been as comprehensive or as restrictive as the plan outlined by Sen. Sanders.

 

Do you think that the Constitution should be amended to overturn Citizens United? Should there be government-funded vouchers given to individuals so they can make campaign donations?

 

Judge Blocks Law Mandating Release of Candidates’ Tax Returns

A federal judge has put a stop, at least for now, to California’s attempt to force President Trump and other candidates for office in that state to release their tax returns.

 

A district judge in the state has issued an injunction to stop the law from taking effect until its legal merits can be decided. He said that the law is likely unconstitutional and that allowing it to proceed would harm candidates in the 2020 election.

 

Earlier this year California passed a law mandating that candidates seeking a spot on the state’s ballot must disclose their tax returns for the past 5 years. This came in response to the refusal of then-candidate Donald Trump to release his tax returns. Such a disclosure is not mandated by law, but has been customary for decades.

 

California officials argue that the law is necessary so voters can see if candidates have conflicts of interest that may impair their judgment in office. They say that candidates should be willing to subject their financial details to public scrutiny. Lawyers challenging the law contend that it is unconstitutional. They note that the Constitution sets a few requirements for president and that states cannot add to them.

 

The federal judge seems to agree with the latter argument. However, his action was not a final determination of the law’s constitutionality; instead, the court case against the law will continue but the law can only go into effect if it is ultimately found to be constitutional.

 

Do you think that states should be able to force candidates to release their tax returns?

Sanders Unveils His “Wealth Tax”

Senator Bernie Sanders has few good things to say about Americans who earn high incomes. In his run for the Democratic nomination, he has made targeting the wealthy a centerpiece of his campaign. Now he has a tax plan that takes aggressive aim at this group.

 

Today Sen. Sanders released a plan that would impose a wealth tax on higher-income households. This is how the new tax surcharge would escalate:

  • 1% tax on married couple wealth above $32 million and single individual wealth above $16 million
  • 2% tax on married couple wealth above $50 million and single individual wealth above $25 million
  • 3% tax on married couple wealth above $250 million and single individual wealth above $125 million
  • 4% tax on married couple wealth above $500 million and single individual wealth above $250 million
  • 5% tax on married couple wealth above $1 billion and single individual wealth above $500 million
  • 6% tax on married couple wealth above $2.5 billion and single individual wealth above $1.25 billion
  • 7% tax on married couple wealth above $5 billion and single individual wealth above $2.5 billion
  • 8% tax on married couple wealth above $10 billion and single individual wealth above $5 billion

 

According to the Sanders campaign, this tax plan would cut the wealth of American billionaires in half. The campaign also says it would produce $4.35 trillion over 10 years. That new revenue would help pay for a variety of costly plans that Sanders has outlined on the campaign trail, such as student loan forgiveness, Medicare-for-all, and universal child care.

 

Proponents of the Sanders plan justify it as a way to equalize what they say is an extreme gap between wealthy Americans and everyone else. They argue that the government has a role to take some of this wealth and use it for social programs that benefit the public. Opponents counter that this plan would discourage individuals from investing and working, leading to fewer jobs created and lower economic growth. They also note that wealthy Americans can take steps to avoid the tax, so it will likely produce far less income than the Sanders campaign predicts.

 

Among the individuals running for the Democratic nomination, Elizabeth Warren has also proposed a wealth tax. The Sanders plan is more aggressive than the tax program outlined by Warren.

 

Do you support a special tax on individuals who earn more than $16 million?

Warren Unveils “Anti-Corruption” Plan

Today Sen. Elizabeth Warren outlined a proposal that she says is necessary to fight corruption in the federal government.

 

Her plan calls for a variety of reforms to federal laws, including:

  • Mandating that the president and vice president place their assets in a blind trust to be sold.
  • Disclosing automatically the tax returns of candidates for federal office, including the president and vice president.
  • Requiring senior government officials to divest from assets that could pose a conflict-of-interest.
  • Banning members of Congress from trading in individual stocks while in office.
  • Prohibiting members of congress and senior congressional staff from serving on corporate boards.
  • Banning lobbyists from serving in government within two years of ending their lobbying career.
  • Prohibiting members of Congress and some federal officials from ever taking a job as a lobbyist after their time in the government is over.
  • Mandating the disclosure of financial information for federal judges and imposing a code of conduct on these judges.
  • Extending lobbying restrictions to anyone who is “paid to influence lawmakers.”
  • Banning lobbyists from representing foreign entities.
  • Prohibiting lobbyists from donating to political candidates or fundraise for them.
  • Banning forced arbitration clauses and mandatory class action waivers.

 

According to Sen. Warren, President Trump’s Administration has shown the weakness of federal anti-corruption laws. Many of her proposals are aimed explicitly at practices that she says are weakening our government under President Trump. Other proposals are older ideas that liberals have long pushed for, such as the ending of forced arbitration clauses.

 

Critics of her plan note that many of her ideas, such as prohibiting lobbyists from contributing to candidates, would likely run afoul of the Constitution. They also point to these plans as being a vast expansion of federal power over political speech and activity.


Sen. Warren has sponsored similar legislation during her time in the Senate. This plan is an updated version that is part of her platform as she runs for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination.

 

Do you think that the federal government should prohibit lobbyist from contributing to candidates? Should the IRS automatically release the tax returns of anyone running for federal office, from presidential candidates to members of Congress?

 

 

Sanford Targets Federal Debt in Run against Trump

Mark Sanford wants to wrest the Republican presidential nomination from Donald Trump. He thinks that focusing on rising federal spending and debt is the way to do this.

 

Sanford announced his candidacy on Fox News Sunday over the weekend. On Twitter, he wrote that he was running for president because of his concern over rising national spending and debt accumulation:

 

We have a storm coming that we are neither talking about nor preparing for given that we, as a country, are more financially vulnerable than we have ever been since our Nation’s start and the Civil War. We are on a collision course with financial reality. We need to act now.

 

As discussed in a VoteSpotter Deep Dive, federal spending, the deficit, and debt are all rising. Yearly deficits are likely to reach over $1 trillion per year for the next decade. Phil Swagel, head of the Congressional Budget Office, recently wrote:

 

The nation’s fiscal outlook is challenging. Federal debt, which is already high by historical standards, is on an unsustainable course, projected to rise even higher after 2029 because of the aging of the population, growth in per capita spending on health care, and rising interest costs.

 

According to Sanford, President Trump bears a large responsibility for what he sees as a looming fiscal crisis. He noted that the president embraces debt and has presided over a large expansion of federal spending.

 

A former South Carolina governor and member of Congress, Sanford lost his seat to a Trump-backed primary challenger last year. He had been a critic of the president during his time in Congress, focusing mainly on what he saw as unsustainable federal spending.

 

Do you think that rising federal spending and debt are problems?

Kamala Harris Backs Nationwide Plastic Straw Ban

Want a plastic straw with your drink in a restaurant? Sen. Kamala Harris doesn’t think that is a good idea.

 

During a CNN debate on climate change, Sen. Harris said that she supports a national ban on plastic straws. She did, however, acknowledge that paper straws do not work very well. Her campaign has said that she wants to see more innovation in straw production to make the elimination of plastic straws feasible. The debate was being held for the candidates vying for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination.

 

California has a statewide ban on restaurants offering a plastic straw to a customer unless the customer requests one. A variety of cities have also enacted similar straw bans. Florida legislators passed a law that would prevent local governments from banning plastic straws, but Gov. Ron DeSantis vetoed it.

 

Plastic straws have come under attack from critics who allege they contribute to pollution, especially in the ocean. These backers of straw bans contend that ocean wildlife are harmed by these straws. Opponents of a straw ban counter that plastic pollution in the ocean overwhelmingly comes from places other than the U.S. They say that banning plastic straws will do very little, if anything, to address pollution concerns and will only inconvenience American consumers.

 

Do you support banning plastic straws?

Kamala Harris Backs Nationwide Plastic Straw Ban

Want a plastic straw with your drink in a restaurant? Sen. Kamala Harris doesn’t think that is a good idea.

 

During a CNN debate on climate change, Sen. Harris said that she supports a national ban on plastic straws. She did, however, acknowledge that paper straws do not work very well. Her campaign has said that she wants to see more innovation in straw production to make the elimination of plastic straws feasible. The debate was being held for the candidates vying for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination.

 

California has a statewide ban on restaurants offering a plastic straw to a customer unless the customer requests one. A variety of cities have also enacted similar straw bans. Florida legislators passed a law that would prevent local governments from banning plastic straws, but Gov. Ron DeSantis vetoed it.

 

Plastic straws have come under attack from critics who allege they contribute to pollution, especially in the ocean. These backers of straw bans contend that ocean wildlife are harmed by these straws. Opponents of a straw ban counter that plastic pollution in the ocean overwhelmingly comes from places other than the U.S. They say that banning plastic straws will do very little, if anything, to address pollution concerns and will only inconvenience American consumers.

 

Do you support banning plastic straws?

O’Rourke Proposes Mandatory Gun Buyback

 

In the wake of recent mass shootings, Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke thinks he has the answer – the government mandating that gun owners relinquish certain guns in return for a payment.

 

O’Rourke, a former member of Congress from Texas, proposed this buyback plan after two mass shootings in that state. He said that “weapons of war” should not be on the street, and that the owners of what he calls “assault weapons” should have to turn them over to the government. In return, the government will compensate gun owners.

 

Various cities have operated gun buyback programs for decades. However, these are voluntary operations, with individuals bringing in guns to receive cash or gift cards. There has never been a mandatory gun buyback program in the United States.

 

O’Rourke says that this is the only way to remove these guns from public use. He argues that this will reduce mass shootings. Critics counter that only law-abiding gun owners will comply, which would not affect crime. They also note that this plan would face legal challenges for violating the Second Amendment.

 

Various Democratic candidates have proposed stricter gun control laws as they jockey for the 2020 presidential nomination. High-profile events where a gunman has killed numerous people with a semi-automatic firearm has galvanized activists who are pushing for stricter limits on gun ownership. The House of Representatives has passed bills that would impose background checks on private gun sales, but the Senate has yet to act on this legislation.

 

Do you think that the government should force gun owners to give up “assault weapons” in return for compensation?

Court Rules Electoral College Members aren’t Bound by Popular Vote

States that mandate their Electoral College members vote in line with the popular vote may find that these laws are void. A recent federal court ruling said that electors are free to vote their conscience, regardless of state law.

 

Most states bind electors to vote for the candidate who won the popular vote in that state. During the 2016 election, the Colorado Secretary of State removed an elector who refused to cast a ballot for Hillary Clinton, the winner of that state's popular vote. That elector sued, and the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled in favor of the elector.

 

Within the past two decades, two presidential elections have gone to the candidate who won the electoral vote and not the popular vote – George W. Bush in 2000 and Donald Trump in 2016. During the presidential election, voters are not directly voting for candidates, but are instead voting for slates of electors who will then meet and select the president. Most of the time these electors are party regulars who can be counted to vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged. But in 2016, there were multiple electors who voted for candidates other than Clinton or Trump.

 

With these developments, the Electoral College has come under increasing criticism. Some states have passed bills that would create a compact wherein they would award their electoral votes to whomever won the national popular vote, regardless of who won their individual state’s popular vote. Some politicians are also advocating banning the Electoral College and relying exclusively on the popular vote.

 

The question of what power states possess to bind electors will likely be decided by the Supreme Court.

 

Do you think that states should be able to require that electors vote in line with that state’s popular vote? Do you think the Electoral College should be abolished?

Sanders Focusing on Criminal Justice Reform

Ideas to reform the criminal justice system have been embraced by both Democratic and Republican politicians. Now Sen. Bernie Sanders, the self-described socialist running for the Democratic presidential nomination, is announcing a crime plan that pushes the limits of the bipartisan consensus for reform.

 

Here are some of the proposals that Sen. Sanders is championing:

  • Legalizing marijuana
  • Expunging records for those convicted of marijuana-related offenses
  • Prohibiting private prisons
  • Ending cash bail
  • Re-instating parole
  • Expanding youth diversion programs and alternatives to incarceration
  • Ending civil asset forfeiture
  • Legalizing safe injection sites for drug users

 

In addition, Sanders wants to create a “prisoner’s bill of rights” and require a federal investigation every time a prisoner dies in police custody.

 

These ideas would re-shape the federal prison system in ways that Sen. Sanders hopes would cut the prison population in half and address what he sees as institutional racism in the system. The proposal would only affect the federal prison system, however. States would still operate their own systems for non-federal crimes.

 

Sen. Sanders’s criminal justice proposal differentiates him from some of his rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination. Sen. Kamala Harris, a former prosecutor and California Attorney General, has come under attack for her tactics in those offices. Former Vice President Joe Biden has also faced criticism for his votes on criminal justice issues during his time as senator.

 

Do you think that marijuana should be legalized? Should cash bail be banned? Is it a good idea for the federal government to re-instate parole?

Sanders Backs Pot Legalization via Executive Order

Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has long backed legalizing marijuana. Now, during his second campaign for the presidency, he is saying that he could get this done through executive order.

 

Running for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. Sanders facing a crowded field of rivals. Many of these contenders support legalizing or decriminalizing marijuana, but Sen. Sanders is the only one saying this does not need to occur through legislation. Instead, in a recent interview he said that he thinks the president has power to do this unilaterally.


Currently marijuana is on the list of federal controlled drugs. It is classified the same as heroin and other hard drugs, a situation that Sen. Sanders says is absurd. He is proposing that the president could act to take the drug off this list and remove federal penalties for possession and use. State laws regarding marijuana would be unaffected by such a move, however.

 

Other candidates running for the Democratic nomination also support reclassifying marijuana on the federal controlled substances list. Some have also introduced legislation that would relax federal prohibitions in states that have laws allowing recreational or medicinal use of marijuana. President Trump has also signaled support for a legal approach that allows states more leeway on marijuana policy, but he has not championed legislation to accomplish this.

 

Do you think that the federal government should end its blanket prohibition of marijuana use and possession? Should the president change federal marijuana policy by executive order?

Biden Wants Buyback, Ban of Assault Weapons

Former Vice President Joe Biden has unveiled his proposal to deal with mass shootings. He said that he wants to reinstitute the federal ban on assault weapons and couple that with a buyback program for these guns.

 

Biden announced his proposals in the wake of three recent mass shootings. He joins his rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination in pursuing stricter controls on who can own guns and what types of guns can be sold.

 

Assault weapons are semi-automatic firearms that have cosmetic features resembling military rifles. They have been used by many of the individuals who have committed mass shootings in recent years. From 1994-2004, there was a federal ban on their sale, though not the possession of them. This ban expired and Congress did not move to reauthorize it.

 

Under Biden’s plan, that ban would once again be put in place. In addition, the federal government would buy assault weapons that are currently legal to own. He did not commit to confiscating these guns, but that is what some activists are pushing to do.

 

Biden justified his plan on the grounds that it would improve public safety. He noted that the government already restricts some types of weapons from the public, so it could do so with these weapons that he considers especially dangerous. Critics of targeting assault rifles point out that they differ only cosmetically from other firearms. They also note that studies have shown that the previous assault weapons ban had little to no effect on crime.

 

Any such ban and buyback program would not only need the president’s signature, but also must pass Congress.

 

Do you think that assault weapons should be banned? Should the federal government institute a buyback program for these types of guns?

Biden Opposes Decriminalizing Unauthorized Border Crossings

Immigration has already been a big issue during the 2020 presidential race, and it will continue to feature prominently in the campaign. Former Vice President Joe Biden is seeking to distinguish himself from the field of Democratic candidates by coming out in opposition to decriminalizing unauthorized border crossing.

 

Biden made his stance on this issue known during last night’s CNN Democratic debate. He said that he opposed changing the law that makes it a misdemeanor to cross the U.S. border without authorization. He was responding to the stance of some Democratic candidates who had said that having such a law on the books has led to family separation at the U.S.-Mexican border.

 

Other Democrats on the stage attacked Biden’s immigration stance, saying that he shares blame for the Obama Administration’s large number of deportations. Biden said that he does not support returning to the deportation policy of those years.

 

With President Trump’s actions to restrict immigration and impose more border control, the Democratic candidates running for president are seeking to outline how they would differ from the president on these issues. Biden is staking out a less liberal plan than some in the party, although his ideas are far more liberal than those of President Trump.

 

Do you think that it should be a crime to cross the border without authorization? Or should it be a civil citation that does not require detention?

California Mandates Release of Presidential Candidate Tax Returns

When he ran for president, Donald Trump broke with decades of tradition when he refused to release his tax returns. Under a new California law, he will be unable to appear on the 2020 primary election ballot in that state unless he does so.

 

Governor Gavin Newsom signed a bill yesterday that requires anyone whose name appears on the California primary ballot to submit five years of tax returns to the state. Those returns will then be posted online. The state’s previous governor, Jerry Brown, vetoed a similar bill when he was in office.

 

New York’s law to require that presidential candidates disclose their tax returns to the state legislature is tied up in court. No other state has such a requirement. When he vetoed the previous California bill, then-Gov. Brown said that he was concerned about its constitutionality. Many observers think mandating the disclosure of presidential tax returns places an additional requirement for president, which the Constitution does not allow.

 

From Richard Nixon onward, presidential candidates have released their tax returns to the public. Supporters of this practice say that it gives voters information to see if there are any conflicts of interest. President Trump was the first candidate not to do this in recent times, citing a variety of concerns.

 

Candidates wishing to compete in California’s primary election have until November to submit their tax returns. There will likely be a legal challenge to the law, however, which will almost certainly mean that it will not be in effect for next year’s election.

 

Should states mandate that presidential candidates release their tax returns? Or does this requirement violate the Constitution?

Biden Backs Government Health Care Buy-In Plan

Health care is likely to be a big issue during the 2020 presidential campaign. Former Vice President Joe Biden today waded into this debate, unveiling his plan to reshape America’s health care sector. But his ideas are drawing a sharp distinction between him and more liberal members of his party.

 

Under Biden’s plan, the federal government would operate a health care program where any American could buy into. This resurrects the “public option” program that was initially part of the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare. President Obama pushed for this type of government buy-in, but members of Congress thought that it was too problematic. It did not make it into the final version of Obamacare.

 

This public option stands in stark contrast to an idea that is increasingly popular with progressive Democratic politicians: a single-payer system, where private insurance is outlawed and the government runs the health care sector. Sen. Bernie Sanders has championed this most actively, but this idea has also gained ground with other candidates for president.

 

Biden points out that single-payer, also called Medicare for All, involves ending Obamacare. Biden said he is proud of that law and wants to build on it, not repeal it. He also notes that many people like their private insurance, so outlawing that would be a major disruption for millions of Americans.

 

Under the Biden plan, there would also be expanded subsidies for insurance purchases as well as allowing more people to access Medicaid. Biden also wants to provide more funding to Planned Parenthood. He would pay for these ideas with a new tax on investment income earned by taxpayers with higher incomes.

 

Whether it is a public option or single-payer, any such system must be approved by Congress. If Republicans maintain control of either chamber after the 2020 election, either idea seems unlikely. In fact, it is unclear how much support either idea has among Democratic members of Congress.

 

Do you support a government health care program that allows people to buy into it but still allows private insurance? Should there be a single-payer system where there is no private insurance? Or should there be some other health care reform?

High Court Rules Partisan Gerrymandering is Political, not Legal, Issue

The Supreme Court refused to wade into the fight over partisan gerrymandering. By a 5-4 decision, the high court held that drawing congressional district lines to gain a political advantage is something that should be solved the political process, not court cases.

 

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority, rejecting pleas to intervene in cases where politicians had drawn congressional district lines to maximize seats for their party’s candidates. In his decision, Chief Justice Roberts wrote:

 

We conclude that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts. Federal judges have no license to reallocate political power between the two major political parties, with no plausible grant of authority in the Constitution, and no legal standards to limit and direct their decisions.

 

The justices were deliberating on cases involving gerrymandering in both Maryland and North Carolina. In each state, legislators had devised congressional districts that were drawn in ways that gave maximum advantage to candidates from one party and made it difficult for candidates of the other party to win. Voters in each state sued, saying that this type of partisan gerrymandering deprived them of their right to fair representation.

 

A majority of justices did not necessarily disagree that these maps were unfair. Instead, they held that the solution to this problem is through the elections, not going to court. The four dissenting justices disagreed, saying that there was indeed a constitutional violation in these cases. They argued that such gerrymandering threatens free and fair elections.

 

In most states, elected officials (usually legislators) draw the lines of congressional and legislative districts. However, some states have empowered independent commissions to devise these lines, which supporters claim lessens partisan meddling in the process.

 

Do you think that partisan gerrymandering should be unconstitutional? Should legislators or independent commissions draw congressional and legislative district lines?

Most Democrats Embrace Iran Deal During Debate

The large field of Democratic candidates held their first debate last night, with a variety of issues being discussed. One thing where nearly all candidates agreed was reviving the nuclear deal with Iran. Everyone on stage except Sen. Cory Booker raised his or her hand when asked if they supported the deal.

 

In 2015, President Barack Obama entered the U.S. into a multinational agreement that was aimed at keeping Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Many on the right criticized him for this, saying that it would ultimately lead to a nuclear-armed Iran. President Trump withdrew the U.S. from this deal, saying it was “disastrous.”

 

The question about the U.S. once again joining this agreement came during a period of increased tensions with Iran. That nation shot down a U.S. drone last week. President Trump considered retaliating with a military strike, but ultimately did not do so. He imposed sanctions, instead. The president has verbally sparred with the Iranian leadership during the course of his term, at times threatening war with the nation. He recently ordered more military personnel to the Middle East.

 

Senator Cory Booker broke with his fellow Democratic candidates in supporting the Iran deal. He backed it in 2015, but now says that conditions have changed. He said he supported some kind of agreement with Iran, but it would differ from the one agreed to by President Obama.

 

Do you think the U.S. should re-enter the multinational nuclear deal with Iran? Should the U.S. take military action against Iran?

Warren Unveils Federal Voting Mandates

With 50 states comes 50 different procedures for voting. Sen. Elizabeth Warren wants to see this end – at least for federal elections. This week she unveiled a proposal that would mandate a number of procedures that states must follow for federal races. She’s hoping this will appeal to the progressive wing of the Democratic Party that has been vocal about voting rights.

 

Sen. Warren’s plan has a number of new mandates on states, including:

  • Automatic voter registration (with individuals being able to opt out)
  • Same-day voter registration
  • Prohibiting the removal of people from the voting rolls unless states have objective evidence of a reason to remove them
  • Fifteen days of early voting
  • Voting by mail
  • A uniform federal ballot

 

The proposal would also prohibit gerrymandering for political reasons, requiring states to use independent commissions to draw congressional district lines. Election Day would be a federal holiday.

 

These requirements would only be mandatory for federal elections. However, since many races for state and local office also occur at the same time as federal elections, it is likely that states would use the same procedures for these non-federal races. In effect, Sen. Warren’s proposal would impose uniform federal rules for elections nationwide.

 

Supporters of these ideas argue that they are necessary to prevent states from enacting voting rules that reduce turnout for minority voters or voters from certain political parties. They say that the U.S. should not have a patchwork of rules for voting. Opponents counter that this is another federal power grab from states that have always had the power to set election rules to meet local concerns.

 

Sen. Warren’s proposal is unlikely to see any legislative action in the Republican-controlled Senate. However, she will use it as part of her campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020.

 

Do you think that the federal government should mandate uniform federal rules for elections? Should states implement automatic voter registration and same-day registration?

Gillibrand Touts “Democracy Dollars”

Senator Kirstin Gillibrand wants to be president. The junior senator from New York is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, hoping that ideas like “Democracy Dollars” will propel her to the front of the pack.

 

Sen. Gillibrand has proposed that the federal government give ever voter $600 to donate to federal candidates. Under her plan, this money could be given in $200 increments to candidates for president, the House of Representatives, or the Senate.

 

According to Sen. Gillibrand, this will help remove the influence of the wealthy and corporations on the political process. To pay for this plan, Sen. Gillibrand has proposed increasing taxes on CEOs who earn high salaries.

 

While Sen. Gillibrand argues that this plan would help reduce what she calls the corrupting influence on elections, opponents counter that it will not do much. They point to a similar program in Seattle that does not have large public participation nor does it seem to have much of an impact on election results.


Do you think that the federal government should provide voters with money to contribute to candidates?

Copyright © 2018 Votespotter Inc. All rights reserved.