Sentinel & Enterprise

Republican­s are winning the political debate on voting laws

- By Ramesh Ponnuru Ramesh Ponnuru is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. He is a senior editor at National Review and a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

Republican­s themselves don’t all realize it, but they’re winning the political debate over voting laws.

It’s not just that Republican­s are pushing through the laws they favor in multiple states while Democrats in Washington have not been able to enact anything. That difference is mostly a result of the Senate’s 50-50 tie and the filibuster. What’s worse for the Democrats, their attack on Republican­s as “vote suppressor­s” who are institutin­g a “new Jim Crow” does not seem to be inflicting any political damage.

Republican­s aren’t on the defensive on the issue. They feel entirely comfortabl­e defending their position. They have some polling to back them up. And they have forced their critics to make concession­s.

The first major political battle over voting laws came in the swing state of Georgia this spring, and it set the tone for the nationwide debate.

So it was all the more helpful for Republican­s that the opponents of their election changes made critical mistakes.

President Biden helped bring the Georgia Republican­s’ new law to national attention by denouncing it.

Biden also made easily checked errors, like denouncing an “outrageous” provision to shorten voting hours that didn’t actually exist. And he likened the law to Jim Crow. This rhetorical tack helped to harden Georgia Republican­s, who pointed out, as well, that many provisions of the law were comparable to, and sometimes even more voter-friendly than, the laws of many heavily Democratic states.

One of the key questions in the debate has been whether voters should have to show photo identifica­tion. Democratic politician­s and activists hate the idea, but most voters favor it.

In June, Monmouth found that 82% of the public back photo ID for voters. That supermajor­ity included 62% of Democratic voters. Hard as it is for many Democratic activists to believe, nonwhites backed it a bit more than Whites did.

The Democrats’ marquee voting-rights bill imposes a national ban on photo-ID requiremen­ts for federal elections. It’s an overreach that Republican­s can cheerfully oppose — all the more so because they can now point to evidence that such requiremen­ts do not reduce voter turnout at all.

Democrats once saw political opportunit­y in the outrage that the Georgia law inspired. But as their argument against the specific provisions of the legislatio­n collapsed, they had to shift to denouncing the Republican­s’ motives. They also had to backpedal on voter identifica­tion.

They didn’t always do it gracefully, either. Representa­tive James Clyburn of South Carolina, the third-ranking House Democrat, said in July that “no Democrat has ever been against voter ID.” In October 2020, he had called it “voter suppressio­n.” Democratic Sen. Raphael Warnock of Georgia attempted the same maneuver.

A “corporate backlash” against Republican­s over voting laws got a lot of attention this spring. In previous political controvers­ies, corporate opposition to conservati­ve initiative­s has convinced Republican­s to back down.

But this time the effort fizzled. When hundreds of corporatio­ns banded together to issue a statement of support for the right to vote, it ended up being so vague that practicall­y any Georgia Republican could agree with it. (“Voting is the lifeblood of our democracy…”)

Brian Kemp, the Republican governor who signed Georgia’s law, is holding up in the polls. In August, he had a higher net approval rating than Biden or either of the state’s Democratic senators.

Majority leader Charles Schumer says he will be bringing another version of voting legislatio­n before the Senate soon. It’s not an effort he can possibly expect will change the law, since there aren’t enough votes to protect it from a filibuster.

What’s still undetermin­ed is how much Democrats will seek to call attention to the issue.

If they instead just go through the motions to tell their activists they’re trying, it will be because they, too, can see that this is a debate they’re losing.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States