Skip to main content

Congress Deadlock and McConnell

Congress found itself once again in gridlock this summer. A number of election security bills were passed by the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives only to die before reaching the floor of the Senate. The Constitution was specifically designed to prevent fast change according to the whims of the majority, with the Senate acting as the ‘cooling saucer’ to counteract the hot-headed House of Representatives. The separation of powers and numerous checks and balances outlined in the Constitution by the framers do command institutional paralysis.[1]However, the system is now proving inefficient. The paralysis of the Senate has affected the entire US government for years causing gridlock and a lack of political progress.

Despite numerous testimonies from current and former government officials claiming that Russian interference was prevalent in the 2016 elections, comprehensive election security bills have failed in the Senate. For example, FBI Director Christopher Wray testified that foreign targeting of election infrastructure to ‘obtain personal information, disrupt elections and undermine voter confidence’ is also expected in next year’s election.[2]

Still, Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell has blocked comprehensive election security bills from receiving any vote in the Senate. The bills included the Deter Act, The Voting System Cybersecurity Act and the Honest Ads Act. One of the bills would require voting machines to produce a paper back-up ballot to protect against foreign interference in election results.[3]McConnell blocked the advancement of the legislation only hours after former special counsel Robert Mueller also voiced his belief that the Russians are actively attempting to interfere in the 2020 election.

The actions by McConnell has led to him being dubbed ‘Moscow Mitch’ by Democrats. 
One of the strongest critiques has come from Hillary Clinton who spoke out against the Senate Majority Leader. Clinton accused McConnell and the President of ‘abdicating their responsibility’ and threatening the democratic integrity of the United States political system.[4]
Critics argue that McConnell’s blocking of the legislation more serves the purpose of preventing the Russian hacking claims from gaining legitimacy. If Congress were to pass legislation to protect against foreign interference, the Russians’ alleged involvement in President Trump’s election victory would again gain attention. More crucially legislation could imply validity to the claims. McConnell has denounced critics claiming that further federal interference in election standards would infringe upon state rights. He additionally claimed that the bills were too partisan, insisting that the administration has already acted to secure national elections. 

So, for a number of reasons, Mitch McConnell is acting as a ‘one-man roadblock’ to the numerous election security bills. By blocking a vote in the Senate, the legislation is not passing through the proper process as outlined in the Constitution. McConnell’s blockage of the election security bills demonstrates how a tiny minority can hold significant and hugely disproportional influence in Congress. 

This is already entrenched in the make-up of the Senate chamber, where citizens of smaller states have disproportional influence over federal legislation. The founding father’s decision to preserve state power in the Senate chamber already raises a number of democratic questions from critiques.[5]The hugely disproportional influence of smaller states is not fully democratic. It seems unlikely that the founding fathers intended one individual to have such power in either of the chambers.  that they can prevent a vote from even taking place on legislation already passed by the other chamber. Party floor leadership evolved out of necessity in the Senate, but is arguably being abused to alter legislation single-handedly by McConnell. In this case of election security bills, Mitch McConnell is using powers not specified in the Constitution in his role of majority leader of the Senate. 

Some, such as Mark Levin, argue that the Constitution has been violated in a number of ways and has been diverted from the founder’s original intentions.[6]The rules of the Senate are arguably causing most of deadlock in Congress. Famously, the filibuster has killed many bills and means that sixty votes are often required. This has allowed even comprehensive, sensible bills from being stuck in gridlock in Congress, and prevents the Senate from performing its function. The chamber rules are causing paralysis in Congress and increasingly preventing the full democratic process from playing out. Whilst the constitution was designed to protect the minority faction, Congress seems to be controlled by the tyranny of the minority.[7]This increasingly seems to be negatively affecting the common good, as common-sense legislation is killed without sufficient debate. Continued paralysis will continue to call into question Congress’ effectiveness and a change to the rules of the chambers may become more likely. 

[1]Jeffery Toobin, ‘Our Broken Constitution’, The New Yorker, online at: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/12/09/our-broken-constitution, (Dec 2013)
[2]Chris Gagin, ‘Mitch McConnell must get the Senate to secure our elections’, The Hill, online at: https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/460273-mitch-mcconnell-must-get-the-senate-to-secure-our-elections  (Sept 2019)
[3]Kathryn Watson, ‘Mitch McConnell blocks election security legislation’, CBS News, online at: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mitch-mcconnell-blocks-election-security-bill/, (July 2019)
[4]John Wagner,‘Hillary Clinton accuses Trump, McConnell of ‘abdicating their responsibility’ on election security’,The Washington Post, online at: https://www.washingtonpost.com, (Sept 2019)
[5]Jeffery Toobin, ‘Our Broken Constitution’, The New Yorker, online at: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/12/09/our-broken-constitution , (Dec 2013)
[6]Ibid

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Proposition DD: Let the Bets Flow

On November 5 th , 2019, one of the two measures placed on the ballot in Colorado was Proposition DD, giving the electorate a referendum on the legality of sports betting within the state; it also would impose a tax upon the net revenue of those establishments accepting such bets, the majority of which would provide funding for the Colorado Water Plan and the remainder of which would be used to regulate sports betting and provide services for gambling addiction. Since 1992, gambling on the outcome of most sporting events had been outlawed nationally under the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, or PASPA, though with the Supreme Court’s decision in Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association , this Act was deemed unconstitutional, and state legislatures became free to legislate regarding sports betting and its legality. Proposition DD was put to a public ballot under the provisions of the TABOR amendment to the Colorado Constitution, a ‘Taxpayer Bill of Rights’ ...
2 comments
Read more

The Proponents of Proposition DD

Proposition DD and its proponents One of the most significant and noteworthy results of the recent elections in Colorado was the passing of Proposition DD. A legislative proposition is a proposal placed on the ballot by the state legislature itself. The legislature in Denver referred the measure with House Bill 1327 during the spring season, with easy bipartisan support. [1] The proposition however did not receive such widespread support from the public, only narrowly passing, and being too close to call on election night. This is illustrated below. [2] The passage of Proposition DD legalised gambling on sports events, beginning in six months’ time; making Colorado the nineteenth state to legalise sports betting. Colorado’s seventeen casino operators will be eligible to apply for licenses for both physical and online sportsbooks, with the Colorado Division of Gaming being tasked to regulate the market. [3] ‘Yes on Proposition DD’ raised about $2.83 million for ca...
Post a Comment
Read more

Immigration Visas and Polarization

Megan King  The story I decided to investigate in National News is , “ Federal Judges Block Trump Policy Targeting Legal Immigrants on Public Benefits ” by Claire Hansen demonstrates how difficult the policymaking procedure can be. In regard to the separations of powers, this ideology does give each branch equal representation, which in this case was to block a new policy. In this situation, three judges filed lawsuits because the new policy the Government was going to implement that visas could be denied if they think that immigrants who are going to use public benefits. It is known as the “public charge” policy which is basically, “any individual who is deemed likely to accept a benefit is considered a public charger” which was just another attempt from the Trump Administration desiring to stop immigration (Hansen). There has already been policies in place that set up circumstances that Immigration Courts and the Government have set up to deny immigration residence just in...
2 comments
Read more