People wait on long lines to vote Oct. 2020. Frank Becerra Jr./The Journal News If Democrats have a blowout victory and take the Presidency, House, and the Senate, they should defer their inclination to improve people's lives as hard as that may be. Instead, Democrats should immediately take steps to try and ensure future electoral success. Despite our almost total concentration on Trump, we must remember he is just one link in a chain that has spanned at least 40 years. Democrats must make structural adjustments to break that chain and make sure that the changes Democrats make will not be stripped away by electoral fortunes or a hostile Supreme Court. Those changes must be made immediately because Democrats cannot be assured of controlling Congress for more than two years. And two years to make legislative changes is a short period.
Barak Obama, understandably, focused on improving the lives of people and not on structural adjustments. Obama, for example, faced a financial disaster (the worst recession in 50 years) that he had to address. He championed the banking industry's bailout that contributed to the economic recovery, although he could not completely repair the home mortgage market. Obama devoted himself to passing healthcare legislation, the Affordable Care Act (ACA), but could not wholly implement the ACA because of electoral changes. Rulings by Supreme Court further undermined the ACA's implementation and now threaten its very existence.
Improving Lives and Ensuring Future Electoral Success
Of course, some initiatives to improve people's lives will overlap with ensuring future electoral success. One initiative Democrats must address is providing COVID-19 relief to avoid a looming health and economic crisis. The twenty-nine million households that need some form of aid is expected to multiply in the coming weeks. This growth will be fueled, in part, by the increase in unemployed state and city employees as local government budgets are depleted.
As a part of that effort, Democrats must also begin to repair the damage that may be done by the Supreme Court's decision on the constitutionality of the ACA. The addition to the Court of ultra-conservative Amy Coney Barrett likely ensures the overthrow of some parts of the ACA. To allow some parts of the ACA to be terminated in the middle of a pandemic would make COVID-19 relief efforts even more difficult. But for now, reversing the Court's decision on the ACA should be the extent of the Democrats' effort to reform the ACA. Making other needed reforms to the ACA should be delayed until the Democrats have made the changes necessary to ensure future electoral success. While providing COVID-19 and health care relief will not directly lead to future electoral success, it is essential to differentiate Democrats from Republicans for voters.
As a part of that effort, Democrats must also begin to repair the damage that may be done by the Supreme Court's decision on the constitutionality of the ACA. The addition to the Court of ultra-conservative Amy Coney Barrett likely ensures the overthrow of some parts of the ACA. To allow some parts of the ACA to be terminated in the middle of a pandemic would make COVID-19 relief efforts even more difficult. But for now, reversing the Court's decision on the ACA should be the extent of the Democrats' effort to reform the ACA. Making other needed reforms to the ACA should be delayed until the Democrats have made the changes necessary to ensure future electoral success. While providing COVID-19 and health care relief will not directly lead to future electoral success, it is essential to differentiate Democrats from Republicans for voters.
Protesters at Supreme Court Harvard Law Review Blog
Democrats must immediately repair the cracks left in the 2020 Census by the Trump Administration's efforts to sabotage an accurate count. A Government Accountability Office official expects a drastic undercount of nonwhites and other gaps and distortions through mismanagement, incompetence, and deliberate efforts to curtail the immigrant count. If Democrats do not address the Census debacle immediately, the undercount may remain uncorrected. Democrats could wind up losing hundreds of thousands of potential voters if the Census remains so inaccurate.
Structural Adjustments
To ensure future electoral success, Democrats must make the following adjustments. First, Democrats must target spending on economic development in rural and rustbelt areas. Republicans have used the economic despair of these areas to foster resentment against Democrats. And resentment against Democrats in these areas can lead to continued Republican victories in the Electoral College. While Democrats promise voters to rejuvenate these areas with renewable energy or a "green new deal," upgrading infrastructure and developing lean manufacturing in the short-term is more believable. Democrats need to let rural and rustbelt voters know they can be relied on to address their needs. Democrats cannot accept Republicans' usual pattern of ignoring deficit spending when a Republican is President and then condemning it under a Democratic President. Besides rebuilding these areas' economic base, spending will be needed nationally for unemployment, state and local government, small business loans, and other coronavirus consequences. Democrats cannot let the political stunt of decrying increases in the debt derail the urgency of addressing these issues.
Second, the Democrats must get statehood for Washington, D.C. residents. If Puerto Rican voters approve a referendum on Puerto Rican statehood, then Democrats should grant it. Granting statehood to Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico would yield four senate seats that Democrats have an excellent chance of winning. These four seats would somewhat offset the population disparity of Senate representation that favors Republicans. For example, Wyoming and North Dakota have fewer than 400,000 people per Senator, while New York has about 10 million people per Senator, and California has about 20 million people per Senator. Sparsely populated states tend to favor Republicans. Statehood for Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico will not fix the population disparity problem, but it is the easiest way to improve it quickly. And it is fair for these many U.S citizens to have Congressional representation, finally.
Second, the Democrats must get statehood for Washington, D.C. residents. If Puerto Rican voters approve a referendum on Puerto Rican statehood, then Democrats should grant it. Granting statehood to Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico would yield four senate seats that Democrats have an excellent chance of winning. These four seats would somewhat offset the population disparity of Senate representation that favors Republicans. For example, Wyoming and North Dakota have fewer than 400,000 people per Senator, while New York has about 10 million people per Senator, and California has about 20 million people per Senator. Sparsely populated states tend to favor Republicans. Statehood for Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico will not fix the population disparity problem, but it is the easiest way to improve it quickly. And it is fair for these many U.S citizens to have Congressional representation, finally.
DC statehood supporters BILL CLARK/GETTY IMAGES
Third, Biden and the Court must fix elections to ensure that Democratic voters can access the polls in Georgia, Texas, Alabama, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, etc. For too long, Democrats have viewed voter access as a favor to done for people of color. Democrats need to realize that voter access is the prerequisite for their future electoral success. Democrats should use the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article 1, Section 4) that gives Congress the explicit right to regulate federal elections. Congress can mandate automatic voter registration, limit voter purges—which have been used to remove eligible voters who have not voted. Congress can also improve voting access if they standardize voter identification requirements and make election day a federal holiday.
Fourth, Democrats must reform the federal judiciary if they expect to enact or have any part of their plan survive. Just as Republicans are now using the federal judiciary to eliminate health care for millions (i.e., the Affordable Care Act), Republicans have become more dependent on using the courts to attain their goals. To help capture the federal judiciary, the Republican Senate refused to confirm President Obama's judicial appointments. After Trump was elected President, Senate Republicans rushed to fill these seats with ultra-conservative judges. Some of them were deemed unqualified by the American Bar Association—reforming the federal judiciary enlarging the federal district and appellate courts' number. And the number of justices on the Supreme Court must be increased. Besides the seat that Senate Republicans did not permit President Obama to fill (Merrick Garland), Republicans also rushed to fill the vacancy created by the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg during the current election. Under usual Senate procedures, Ginsburg's seat would have been filled after the next President had been inaugurated. Further, Republicans prevented the complete examination of Justice Kavanaugh's record to speed his confirmation. Republicans' norm-breaking behavior has packed the Court with ultra-conservative justices.
There is widespread agreement among Democrats that reform includes increasing the number of justices on the Court to balance the inappropriate Republican appointments. Some Democrats believe that two more justices should be appointed, while others think 20 to 29 justices should be appointed. If only two justices are added, the Court will remain conservative and likely block the Democratic agenda. If Democrats added two justices to the Court, some observers would taint those justices for offsetting the votes of two conservative justices. Adding 20 to 29 justices to the Court would allow the Court to become more representative, make each justice less critical to each of the Court's decisions, and make the reform be seen as less designed to thwart the conservative majority. A larger Court might contribute to greater comity in our politics.
In any event, Democrats cannot wait to see how the Supreme Court will rule, or if the Court will block their plans, and whether voters will support changing the Court. To their credit, Senate Democrats elicited answers from Judge Barrett during her abbreviated nomination process that showed she is a movement conservative who is hostile to women's rights, climate change, LGBTQ rights, and gun control. And voters recognize the unfairness of preventing President Obama from having his appointment to the Court considered while rushing Barrett's confirmation during a Presidential election.
Fourth, Democrats must reform the federal judiciary if they expect to enact or have any part of their plan survive. Just as Republicans are now using the federal judiciary to eliminate health care for millions (i.e., the Affordable Care Act), Republicans have become more dependent on using the courts to attain their goals. To help capture the federal judiciary, the Republican Senate refused to confirm President Obama's judicial appointments. After Trump was elected President, Senate Republicans rushed to fill these seats with ultra-conservative judges. Some of them were deemed unqualified by the American Bar Association—reforming the federal judiciary enlarging the federal district and appellate courts' number. And the number of justices on the Supreme Court must be increased. Besides the seat that Senate Republicans did not permit President Obama to fill (Merrick Garland), Republicans also rushed to fill the vacancy created by the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg during the current election. Under usual Senate procedures, Ginsburg's seat would have been filled after the next President had been inaugurated. Further, Republicans prevented the complete examination of Justice Kavanaugh's record to speed his confirmation. Republicans' norm-breaking behavior has packed the Court with ultra-conservative justices.
There is widespread agreement among Democrats that reform includes increasing the number of justices on the Court to balance the inappropriate Republican appointments. Some Democrats believe that two more justices should be appointed, while others think 20 to 29 justices should be appointed. If only two justices are added, the Court will remain conservative and likely block the Democratic agenda. If Democrats added two justices to the Court, some observers would taint those justices for offsetting the votes of two conservative justices. Adding 20 to 29 justices to the Court would allow the Court to become more representative, make each justice less critical to each of the Court's decisions, and make the reform be seen as less designed to thwart the conservative majority. A larger Court might contribute to greater comity in our politics.
In any event, Democrats cannot wait to see how the Supreme Court will rule, or if the Court will block their plans, and whether voters will support changing the Court. To their credit, Senate Democrats elicited answers from Judge Barrett during her abbreviated nomination process that showed she is a movement conservative who is hostile to women's rights, climate change, LGBTQ rights, and gun control. And voters recognize the unfairness of preventing President Obama from having his appointment to the Court considered while rushing Barrett's confirmation during a Presidential election.
Many Initiatives for Ensuring Future Electoral Success Will Have to Be Deferred
Democrats cannot immediately make all the initiatives needed for ensuring future electoral success because they are too numerous and complex. For example, we need to address the danger created by groups of white terrorists are roaming the streets armed with military-style weapons. But the right to bear arms guaranteed by the Constitution makes this a difficult, although not impossible, challenge. Some of our media outlets continuously spew out conspiracy theories and disinformation that delude and undercut our ability to recognize the tactics used against democracy. Above all, we must correct the deceitful lessons about our history and Constitution that justify the legitimacy of rule by select groups. Even the land-owning white men who first ruled this country and wrote the Constitution recognized that the meaning of their words would have to change to accommodate unforeseen future circumstances. We cannot allow ourselves to be duped into believing our nation's accommodation to changes is untrue to our values.
The purpose of these changes would not be payback. Instead, they should rebalance our democratic rule that has been thrown out of alignment by the Republican Party. The Republican Party has become a tool of the billionaire one percent's march toward plutocratic minority rule. By fostering resentment, suppressing votes, and capturing the federal judiciary, the Republican Party has endangered our democracy. To prevent another, smarter Trump from striking the death blow to democracy, we must act to counter these assaults on majority rule. Most importantly, we must ignore claims by anyone that we should moderate how we chose to fight. The attacks we face today are more extreme, disguised, and dangerous than any of the past battles this country has faced.
The purpose of these changes would not be payback. Instead, they should rebalance our democratic rule that has been thrown out of alignment by the Republican Party. The Republican Party has become a tool of the billionaire one percent's march toward plutocratic minority rule. By fostering resentment, suppressing votes, and capturing the federal judiciary, the Republican Party has endangered our democracy. To prevent another, smarter Trump from striking the death blow to democracy, we must act to counter these assaults on majority rule. Most importantly, we must ignore claims by anyone that we should moderate how we chose to fight. The attacks we face today are more extreme, disguised, and dangerous than any of the past battles this country has faced.