When it Comes to Leading on Infrastructure Biden should be Like Ike

The Path Toward Commonsense Election Reform

by MATTHEW WEIL

Every game has rules that provide guardrails to keep a contest fair and to allow the better competitor to win. Rules should evolve when the conditions call for it. Baseball, for example, seems in constant rules flux during the offseason and now even during play. For a game to maintain integrity, though, the changes must not intentionally disadvantage one side or bias the referees. Election reform is no different.

There is no doubt that the 2020 election saw numerous rules changes, including deep into the election season. While a number of these changes continue to be controversial, these new laws, directives, and rulings were by and large meant to address the unique circumstances of a global pandemic that made large in-person gatherings inadvisable.

The changes in 2020, mostly to increase access to remote voting options like mail-in ballots or to provide drop boxes for ballots as opposed to sending them through an overburdened United States Postal Service, were not invented in the moment. The clear trend in election administration over the past two decades has been toward more voting by mail, which increased from 17.4% of ballots cast in 2008 to 25.3% of ballots cast in 2018. The sweeping changes made in 2020 continued this expansion, with 46% of ballots being cast by mail in the November election. States had been experimenting with alternative return options for several cycles. The 2020 options were broadly available and did not advantage one party at the expense of another.

The late alterations to the voting process were unfamiliar to many voters, which contributed to misinformation and disinformation. When you don’t win on the merits, you move to work the umpires. Throughout the post-election period and continuing into today with the rulesfree “audit” in Arizona, candidates and campaigns attacked the election officials who count and certify the vote.

It is no surprise then that legislators at the state and federal level move to fix a perceived problem, especially when their

constituents demand it. Recent polling has shown that 55% of Republican voters still do not believe that the election was legitimately decided. While hundreds of bills have been filed in state legislatures to address almost every aspect of the voting process, a few themes have emerged. First, legislators are doubling down on election security measures. They have proposed and enacted laws to require additional identification to request and return mail-in ballots, which have become Exhibit A for anyone looking to undermine the results of the 2020 election. Whether the changes will yield a more secure process is debatable. Second, proposed legislation clearly favors in-person options for voting, but even more heavily on Election Day. In several states, proposed legislation included curtailing some of the availability of early voting. This change can be justified in some instances where states have already provided a significant window for this convenience option. However, some of the proposals specifically targeted the Sunday before Election Day, which has become almost an informal holiday or custom for many Black voters. Third, legislators are making it Matthew Weil easier to work the umpire. Legislators are criminalizing simple errors that occur during election administration

The late alterations to with huge fines for election officials, the voting process were who are already underpaid relative unfamiliar to many to similarly situated government employees. Even worse, changes to voters, which contributed who has final authority to remove to misinformation and local election officials from office and who will certify results threaten disinformation. to make election officials beholden to legislators, many of whom will be on the ballots in question. One doesn’t have to work the umpire when the umpire reports directly to them. There has been legislation enacted this year that expands access, improves security, and has bipartisan support even if most of the focus has been on the high-profile partisan fights. In Kentucky, the Republican legislature and secretary of state

worked with the Democratic governor to ensure a short window of in-person early voting, streamlined the mail voting process, added a signature curing provision, and made it easier to keep voter rolls accurate when there is clear evidence that a voter no longer lives within a jurisdiction. The bills were passed through the state House and Senate nearly unanimously.

On a parallel track, Congress moved massive democracy bills—H.R. 1 in the House of Representatives and S. 1 in the Senate—meant to drastically expand voting opportunities to all voters. On voting issues, Congress does have the authority to make changes to how Americans vote during a federal election, irrespective of the cries of federalism and states’ rights. That Congress has largely chosen to abdicate its role in elections over much of the past 200 years is why the pushback has been amplified this year.

H.R. 1 and S. 1 touched almost all aspects of voting. There are many good provisions that have proven their efficacy in red and blue states, such as automatic voter registration, ballot envelope curing and drop boxes; there are also provisions that neuter voter identification rules in states and make keeping accurate voter rolls more difficult.

There is a better way forward on federal election reform. Congress could adopt basic criteria for the availability of voter registration, access to and security of mail-in ballots and early voting, and rules for when counting can begin and timelines for completion, among other standards. For states that meet these new standards of voting, significant federal financial resources would be made available to reimburse states for administering the rules of the game. The federal government’s free ride Elections will never be viewed as on the states when it comes to fair if the winning side is victorious elections needs to end, but the compromise requires states because they were better positioned to provide this achievable to write the rules to their advantage. baseline level of access and integrity. It won’t be easy. Both parties have every reason not to agree to commonsense reforms that improve the voting experience. Only fighting over the rules of the game and attacking the umpires without sound intentions is good politics - but it’s bad for democracy. Elections will never be viewed as fair if the winning side is victorious because they were better positioned to write the rules to their advantage. RF Matthew Weil is the director of the Elections Project at the Bipartisan Policy Center.

Better Health, Brighter Future

There is more that we can do to help improve people’s lives. Driven by passion to realize this goal, Takeda has been providing society with innovative medicines since our founding in 1781. Today, we tackle diverse healthcare issues around the world, from prevention to life-long support and our ambition remains the same: to find new solutions that make a positive di erence, and deliver better medicines that help as many people as we can, as soon as we can. With our breadth of expertise and our collective wisdom and experience, Takeda will always be committed to improving the future of healthcare.

Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc.

www.takeda.us

When it Comes to Leading on Infrastructure, Biden should be Like Ike

by LEE LACY

At a time when President Joe Biden is trying to cobble together a coalition of Republicans and Democrats to support a plan to invest in America’s aging infrastructure, it is worth noting how one of his predecessors did just that more than six decades earlier.

President Dwight D. Eisenhower was the driving force behind what would become not only the largest public works project ever constructed in the United States, but a project that would ultimately bear his name — The Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways (EIHS).

In the two decades preceding the EIHS, there was no consensus about how to fund — much less construct — a national highway system. The lack of consensus was in part the result of the federal government’s failure to present a plan that was agreeable to both the private and public sectors. Beyond that, state governments also wanted primary control of roadbuilding and maintenance.

To help break the deadlock, Eisenhower created a blue-ribbon committee comprised of leaders representing both private industry and organized labor. Formally called the President’s Advisory Committee on a National Highway Program, the panel was led by retired General Lucius D. Clay. The son of a Georgia Senator and West Point-trained engineer, Clay was a renowned troubleshooter and respected figure on Capitol Hill because of his efforts heading up New Deal public works projects and defense projects at the start of World War II.

Over a period of a few months in 1954, the Clay Committee, as it became informally known, concluded America’s system of roadways and bridges was outdated, obsolete, and unable to keep up with expected societal and economic growth and developed a plan to invest in and modernize the nation’s infrastructure. President Eisenhower formally presented the Clay Committee’s report to Congress in February of 1955. The report included a letter from the President himself, which stated in part: “Our unity as a nation is sustained by free communication of thought and by easy transportation of people and goods. The ceaseless flow of information throughout the Republic is matched by individual and commercial movement over a vast system of interconnected highways crisscrossing the country and joining at our national borders with friendly neighbors to the north and south. “Together, the united forces of our communication and transportation systems are dynamic elements in the very name we bear — United States. Without them, we would be a mere alliance of many separate parts.” Despite public support, the plan was met with criticism from both political parties, mostly having to do with financing. Clay remained steadfast and shifted emphasis to the importance of a standardized highway system to national security. While the plan was ultimately defeated, it did lay the groundwork for what was to come. In his State of the Union Address the following January, President Eisenhower renewed his push for an interstate

Eisenhower was the highway system. Both houses of Congress were controlled by driving force behind the Democrats, but Ike’s dream what would become remained popular throughout the country, and his administration the largest public works redoubled their efforts to win project ever constructed bipartisan support on Capitol in the United States. Hill. Once again, the biggest obstacle was financing the project. The debate over whether to issue bonds or raise taxes remained especially contentious. Ultimately, a special trust fund was created to fund surface transportation with a fuel tax. With the financing mechanism worked out, the Senate passed the final version of the bill by an overwhelming vote of 89-1 and the House quickly followed suit, approving the bill by a voice vote on the same day. Eisenhower signed the measure into law three days later.