Nate Cohn

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

The Biden admin take, as described in this article, is more-or-less that suppression is not a fundamental threat to democracy in its current form. Whether you agree or not, there's a lot of evidence to support that view and many fervent HR1 supporters will concede as much — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

In general, there are three basic kinds of 'threats' to democracy in the public discussion: --suppression --subversion --structural bias (the EC, gerrymandering, Senate, courtpacking, filibuster, etc) — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

A twist that I'd add to this article: a fairly sizable proportion of the people who want urgent action on HR1 want it for its provisions on gerrymandering, but the push for HR1 (and most of the law, to be fair) is about suppression/voting rights https://t.co/FlXn0xydAo — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

@mattyglesias otoh, is there any doubt that attacking the infrastructure bill from the left is good for everyone involved, including republicans? — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

He got the AP to call it too, I’m sure — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

@davidshor I mean I can think of all kinds of arguments for refirm that aren’t the one in the article — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

RT @jbview: My position is stronger than Nate's; I think it's unlikely that electoral rules biases have much to do at all with GOP dysfunct… — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

And when I say 'I don't think that's clear" that's exactly what I mean. It's a defensible but highly debatable proposition. But the case is never more than an assertion. This thread from May raises a few of the issues I'd like to see addressed https://t.co/92kWHIG4V1 — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

I often see the assertion that the GOP will 'moderate' or 'de-radicalize,' as this article puts it, if it was subjected to majoritarian electoral competition. I don't think that's clear at all. https://t.co/SUQlrle7du — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

RT @mviser: NEW: White House officials have helped craft an agreement to try and avoid ethical issues as Hunter Biden tries to sell his art… — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

RT @ArielRWhite: Just posted a draft of a project @MayyaKomis and I have been working on for a while now: it's about what happened after th… — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

@LPDonovan @HotlineJosh AK was about as close as OH after all — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

@SeznegMT it's not, it's a huge burden on voters who don't pay as much attention to politics as someone who tweets at me — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

That's a very credible argument, backed by most of the social science research. But it will be a pivot for voting rights activists, since they've mainly been thinking about expanding convenience voting options, as an end in itself, over the last few decades — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

Put it all together, and the key for making the '1982 standard' work for progressives is to remember that it's about burdens, not vote methods--and that more vote methods is not the same as fewer burdens — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

Academics and researchers will need to do work to make this kind of case. Many of these sort of burdens aren't included at all in the 'cost of voting index,' though it clearly should be, because of the voting community bias toward measuring access by voting method options — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

I don't know which way the court would resolve it. I'd guess voting rights activists will want the former, since they love the convenience voting options. I'd guess the court will take the latter. But in theory, the 1982 standard could be argued to force the law either way — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

Voting rights activists can argue *either* that the convenience voting options need to be protected in states where in-person voting is more burdensome than the 1982 standard *or* that the in-person voting options must be improved. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

In any case, a consequence is that some multimethod states actually have fairly long lines and less accessible precincts, an unusual burden that disproportionately hits nonwhite communities. Rolling back the convenience voting options doesn't leave them with a 1982 burden — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

At the same time, many states have *scaled back* their in-person voting options as a result of new convenience voting options. States like AZ/GA/NC/FL, with multimethod voting, offer far fewer precincts/person than, say, PA in '16 — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

This is not the way that most folks think about convenience voting, which seems to just greatly expands their options for voting, which is true! But there's a reason it doesn't really increase turnout or change the the electorate: it's not really so convenient to irregular voters — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

The new convenience voting options often create new burdens. It's usually not in your neighborhood; dropboxes and early voting stations are often scarce. Voters must also think about an election well in advance and decide early. These are truly new burdens — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

In 1982, the 'usual burden' for white northern voters was pretty low: you could wake up on election day and vote pretty easily, basically in your neighborhood. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

But the 1982 standard offers a defense for voting rights activists here. No, it doesn't protect new *methods.* But it does protect a certain level of voting access that ensures that the *burden* isn't greater than 1982 — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

In the worst case--which is a possibility--the court could simply use the availability of multiple options to whittle away at all of them, leaving voters with multiple mediocre voting options — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

Take the Arizona third-party collection rule. The plaintiffs said it burdened Native Americans, who don't have equal access to mail service. So what's the voting rights violation: the lack of accessible voting options or the ban on third-party ballot collection? — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

In these cases, it's very hard to figure out how to the 'totality of circumstances' analysis. It's both hard to figure out what's protected and it's hard to figure out what the real legal violation is. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

That's obvious enough, but most of the time this analysis isn't so clear. There are multiple systems of voting. In some cases, there's no primary system of voting--like in Georgia at this point. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

A hypothetical TX law creating just one vote center per county in TX could be the end of free and fair elections; But that's the norm in WA, a vote-by-mail state. Conversely, restricting mail voting in TX doesn't really do much; ending it WA leaves them with nothing. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

To step back for a second, consider the extent that the court is kind of right about one thing: there's no doubt that the 'whole system' affects the burden imposed by a restriction. — PolitiTweet.org