Biden’s power to act on voting rights is limited
There is no legal leverage to take executive action
WASHINGTON – As Republicans impose reforms on ballot access in multiple states, President Joe Biden has no easy options for opposing them despite rising pressure from frustrated voting rights activists.
Unlike on other issues such as immigration or environmental protection, the White House has little leverage without congressional action.
“If there were some sort of easily available presidential power on this, others would have done it,” said Nicholas Stephanopoulos, a Harvard Law School professor who researches election law. “There is no significant unilateral authority here.”
Nine months before elections that will determine control of Congress, voting rights advocates are worried there’s not enough time to fend off state laws and policies that they believe make it harder to vote. They view the changes as a subtler form of past ballot restrictions such as literacy tests and poll taxes that were used by southern Democrats to disenfranchise Black voters, now a vital constituency for Democrats.
Biden issued an executive order in March that expanded access to voter registration and election information. The order is designed to make it easier for people in federal custody to register to vote, improve tracking of military ballots and provide better access for Americans with disabilities.
But to do more than that, Biden would have to rely on obscure and conto
troversial constitutional provisions that probably could not take effect in time, Stephanopoulos said.
And the further Biden were to go to push the issue of voting rights, the more he could face criticism for overstepping his authority.
“It’s very hard for a president to weigh in,” said Douglas Brinkley, a presidential historian at Rice University. “Everything is being done at a state-by-state level.”
Although Biden might be able to take some small actions around the edges, Brinkley said, “if he tries something extraordinary, it will be tied up in the courts for years.”
Americans have grown accustomed to seeing presidents act unilaterally when they hit roadblocks in Congress. President Barack Obama resorted to a wave of executive actions branded as “we can’t wait.” He flexed his authority
increase environmental regulations and shield from deportation young immigrants who were brought to the country illegally.
Marc Morial, leader of the National Urban League, was skeptical that executive actions – which can be reversed by a future president as quickly as they were imposed by a predecessor – could be sufficient, anyway.
“An executive order or an executive action is not a replacement or a substitute or even a credible alternative to legislation to protect voting rights and democracy,” Morial said.
Republicans said the proposed changes were not aimed at fairness but at giving Democrats an advantage in elections. And Democrats were unsuccessful at changing Senate rules to allow the slim Democratic majority in the chamber to pass the laws on their own.