Democratic Overreach: HR 1 Edition

I mentioned in this week's Sunday School Extra Credit post that I agreed with Wyoming's Sen. John Barrasso when he said

You know, we have a 50/50 Senate. That's what the American people sent to Washington with the vice president breaking the tie. You know, George, that ought to be a mandate to move to the middle. So we ought to do things that actually can get broad, bipartisan support... 

He's right: we should focus on what's critical, not on trying to cram through laundry lists of stuff that are, at best, remotely related to the issue at hand. And that's what happened with HR-1, the For the People Act; it's an 800-page behemoth of a bill being sold as a voting rights package. 

Several provisions apply to people who don't even get elected, to people who are already in office - and, let's be clear, to preventing another Donald Trump presidency. The voting rights provisions would be a heavy lift on their own, but with the add-ons, chances are slim to none that this'll pass the Senate without a VP tie-breaker or a filibuster change. 

Folks at the non-partisan Brennan Center for Justice, who support the bill, say the bill "...would make it easier to vote in federal elections, end congressional gerrymandering, overhaul federal campaign finance laws, increase safeguards against foreign interference, strengthen government ethics rules, and more." 

The voting-related provisions have a lot of value - and some overreach, too. (Info below links to the Brennan Center's exhaustive summary.)

Title I — Election Access This title aims to modernize voter registration and take other steps to improve voting access in federal elections. 

Title II — Election Integrity This title would address restoration of the full protections of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and several other pressing voting rights issues, and also seeks to curb partisan gerrymandering of congressional districts. 

Title III — Election Security This title aims to improve the security of U.S. election infrastructure to counter the threat of foreign interference.

Here are several sections of the bill that aren't related to voting rights.

Title IV — Campaign Finance Transparency The provisions in this title aim to increase campaign finance transparency, deter corruption, and prevent foreign money from infiltrating U.S. elections.

Title V — Campaign Finance Empowerment The provisions in this title aim to counter the harmful effects of Citizens United v. FEC and related court decisions by empowering small donors and taking other steps to help working- and middle-class candidates run for office. 

Title VI — Campaign Finance Oversight This title aims to improve the administration and enforcement of campaign finance rules and take other steps to counter corruption. 

Title VII — Ethical Standards This title would, among other things, require new ethical standards for Supreme Court justices and presidential appointees, bolster enforcement of rules governing foreign agents operating in the United States, and strengthen lobbying disclosure rules. 

Title VIII — Ethics Reforms for the President, Vice President, and Federal Officers and Employees This title would create a variety of new ethics requirements for executive branch officials, including the president and vice president, and bolster enforcement of ethics rules in the executive branch. 

Title IX — Congressional Ethics Reform This title addresses legislative branch ethics.

Title X — Presidential and Vice Presidential Tax Transparency This title would require sitting presidents, vice presidents, and major-party candidates for those offices to disclose their tax returns. 

Are the ethics, oversight, and transparency provisions important? Of course they are, from an overarching, lofty goal perspective. Should we be concerned about political appointees, lobbyists, and foreign influence? Of course we should be. 

But do those have the same immediate impact as do admittedly partisan restrictions and limitations on voting? 

Of course they don't. And, with some 250 voting-related bills under consideration around the country, we should be much more focused on the latter. When we get the voting stuff straightened out, let's pick what's next, and go after that.

The Irony Board: Florida Gun Laws

In yesterday's Wondering on Wednesday post, one of the topics of discussion was the Florida legislature sending gun legislation to Republican Governor Rick Scott.

The wonderment came from the speed with which the bipartisan bills were passed after the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas, and how it proved that, yes, something can be done if people are willing. The multi-pronged package included an option for people on school campuses to be armed, and today Representative Randy Fine appeared on NPR's Morning Edition and talked with host Rachel Martin about the changes.

Martin asked him about the provision raising the age to 21 for all gun purchases. Fine, a Republican, had just last week made it known he was not a fan.

Well, I still didn't like the idea, but the bill was a comprehensive $400 million solution And in life, sometimes we have to take the bad with the good, and that's what many of us did in passing this compromise legislation.

That's the right spirit for legislators to have - compromise, take the bad with the good, focus on the big picture. I mean, this could have been a single bill raising the age, or a single bill addressing bump stocks, and so on - but if that was the case, we wouldn't be talking about legislation awaiting the governor's signature, would we?

Now -- what makes this an Irony Board post?

Well, Florida has some training requirements on the books if a person wants to carry a concealed weapon or firearm. For example, completing a Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission hunter education course, or an NRA training course, or a similar course offered by a law enforcement agency, a college, or similar institution. Absent the training, military service or participating in organized shooting competitions will count, as will already having a license to carry a firearm.

And now, with the new gun legislation package, they've defined some requirements for teachers to become 'guardians' and carry firearms on campus. Here's how Fine described it.

If sheriffs choose to participate and school districts choose to participate, teachers will have the option to become guardians if they go through 132 hours of training, psychology tests, weapons training. 

Clearly, we don't want anyone carrying weapons on campus if they're not sufficiently trained, and are not psychologically OK to do so. And it's probably not all that much to ask a teacher who wants this extra level of responsibility to give up over 16 days of their own time to get all of this training so they can protect themselves from a legal or illegal gun owner with a really bad idea in mind.

But by comparison, here's how long it takes to complete each of the courses listed on the NRA's training curriculum:

• First Steps Rifle or First Steps Shotgun Orientation -at least three hours long
• Basic Rifle Shooting Course - at least eight hours long
• Basic Shotgun Shooting Course - at least ten hours long
• Basic Pistol course - no timeframe given
• Basics of Pistol Shooting - which can be completed in one day
• Carry Guard Level 1 Training Course - a three-day 'intensive' course

Isn't it ironic,at least a little, how little training is required to carry a concealed firearm, versus what's going to be required for the guardians?

Oops They Did it Again

As Ronald Reagan, the all-time most favoritest Republican ever in the world of Republicans was known to say a time or to, "there you go again."  And there they go again, those pesky Republicans.

One would be forgiven for having thought that the Rs would have learned something when the mother of Ambassador Chris Stevens hammered them for using the name of her son for their own purposes. Here's an excerpt from my post last year after the conventions.

"My feelings on this were to some degree validated, if that's the right word, when I saw that Ambassador Chris Stevens' mother had some advice for the Republicans, published in the NY Times. 

As Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens's mother, I am writing to object to any mention of his name and death in Benghazi, Libya, by Donald Trump's campaign and the Republican Party.  I know for certain that Chris would not have wanted his name or memory used in that connection. I hope that there will be a permanent stop to this opportunistic and cynical use by the campaign. "

And yet we find ourselves not even a full year later, and the Republicans are again exploiting the death of someone's child for their own purposes.

I don't know who coined 'Kate's Law.' It certainly wasn't us.

Those words, we're told, come from Jim Steinle, whose daughter Kate was killed by a felon-seven-times-over, five-time-deportee while Kate and her father were out walking on the San Francisco waterfront back in July 2015. The man accused of her killing had been released from jail, without notification to federal authorities, by Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi, who had an 'absolutist' interpretation of San Francisco's sanctuary city law.

Then-candidate Donald Trump frequently mentioned Kate on the campaign trail, as part of his harsh stance on sanctuary cities, and in support of his 'they're sending us criminals' rhetoric leading up to the plan to build a wall on our southern border.

The Steinles have every right to be angry, or bitter, or determined, or anything else they want to be, as they pursue whatever recourse is available to them.  Similarly, politicians have every right to try and come up with legislation that helps advance a cause - their own, or one that has the support of the family that suffered the loss.

That last part is critical - pushing an agenda by attaching a name to it, or enacting legislation with a name attached to it, is sensitive under the best of circumstances - but in both of these situations, the 'naming' should only be done with the support of the victim's family.  The Brady Bill comes to mind as an example of where family support and political agenda came together well.

In the case of Chris Stevens, clearly his family does not support the blatant politicization of his name and the exploitation of his death, to advance an agenda that he would not have wanted.

Related legislation passed by the House at the same time as Kate's law was passed included Grant's law, named in honor of Grant Ronnebeck, a store clerk killed by a person released by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) even though he had previously been charged with a felony. His family supports the legislation and it being named to honor their son. Sarah's Law was named for Sarah Root, an Iowa woman, just graduated from college, who was killed by an illegal immigrant drunk driver who was subsequently released on bond and who is now on the ICE ten most wanted list. The Root family actively lobbied for legislation named for their daughter.

In the Steinle's case though, while they support the law Republicans have named after their daughter, they don't support her name being attached to the legislation.

Her family members do not want her name to be in the center of a political controversy. They want room to grieve, and to reflect on and honor her life in their own ways. 

Not only that, but they don't hold the same view of sanctuary cities that Trump and other Republicans hold.

They recognize the value of allowing otherwise law-abiding immigrants to report crimes or go to a hospital without fear of deportation.

It would seem the Republicans learned nothing from Chris Stevens' mother. Perhaps they will now learn something from the Steinles - especially since they got the legislation they wanted.

Jim Steinle made plain that he has no interest in doing further interviews, or otherwise seeing his daughter's name raised by either side in such a charged and often vitriolic debate.

"You just hope it ends someday. I don't know when."

Perhaps now would be a good time?