Last week, I mentioned that those who can should vote absentee, something that even SBE Secretary Nancy Rodrigues encourages. As the election looms in a little over a week, we are getting reports of early voting from across the country. Unfortunately, Virginia, a battleground state for the first time in a number of years, isn’t one of them. In Monday’s paper, The Virginian Pilot weighed in on the side of allowing early voting.
Could there be a better reason for allowing early voting in Virginia other than its potential to improve historically mediocre turnout rates?
How about this: More-flexible voting rules could reduce long lines and save the state money when turnout is really, really high – like what’s expected next week.
On the other hand, Washington Post writer Marc Fisher argued against early voting.
Voting is a proud expression of who we are and of our belief in our system and our future. It is an individual act but a communal experience. It is a statement we make about ourselves, to ourselves, but also to each other. It is how we say, “I am part of something larger, and my voice matters, and so does yours.” When we chip away at that communal experience, we diminish democracy.
So my question: do you support early voting? If so, why? If not, why not?
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
@Sean – Bob Brink’s bill on absentee for pregnant women passed this year.
@Brian – we can’t have voting on Saturday. Our Jewish friends wouldn’t be able to participate.
@Sailorcurt – use the smilies 🙂 And I can’t answer number 4 😦
#2) The Legislature. SHE will be the President of the Senate. 🙂
Immigrants must pass a test before they are allowed to become citizens and vote. Natural-born citizens should be required to pass the same test before they can vote.
Vivian,
Please do not encourage the use of smilies. I vote against smilies. Let’s outlaw them. Grin.
Mr. Mouse:
Correct.
I called it a trick question because the Vice President is elected with, and under the procedures set forth for, the Executive branch.
However, the only Constitutionally defined power of the Vice President is granted in Article 1 which defines the powers of the legislative branch.
The Vice President is Elected with the Executive Branch, but serves in the Legislative.
Good on you for getting it right, but how many “everyday Joe’s (or Jane’s)” walking down the street know that? Most people have only the vaguest notion of how our governmental system is supposed to work and probably 75% of what they DO “know” is wrong.
But they vote.
That just makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
Sailorcurt,
Problem is Dick Cheney wanted it both ways. He insisted upon on the protections from both branches. He tried to thread the needle that he was not subject to anything.
Common sense tells us that the VP does not enjoy more protections then the President. But that is not how Dick Cheney saw it.
They also vote in the Senate — even Biden got that wrong.
As for Cheney, he has the immunity due any advisor to the President. As President of the Senate, he has the immunity due the Senators — although he must be impeached to remove him from that office.
Originally, the VP was set as the President of the Senate not just to give him something to do, but to be a counterweight to the President. The 12th Amendment messed that up.
“I vote against smilies. Let’s outlaw them.”
Repression, I tell you — taking away our freedom of expression. Well, sir, take THIS :-), and THIS ;-), and THIS :-/, and finally, THIS :-0.
Mouse,
From what I understand of it, the only time the VP votes in the Senate is to break a tie.
Ties in the Senate really are pretty rare due to the Senate tradition of allowing the right to filibuster. The side that thinks they are going to end up losing only has to say “OK, we’ll filibuster then” and eliminate the decisive vote of the VP.
It is interesting that today one does not even need to really filibuster in order to do prevent passage of legislation. Back in the old days, one (or a group) had to actually grab the podium and run on endlessly without stopping. In these modern times one just needs to indicate a desire to filibuster to bring things to a standstill without having to go through all of the trouble (what did you do when you needed to use the bathroom?).
Of course back in the old days a lone wolf could filibuster and today it takes at least a significant minority (41 votes) in order for your efforts to not to be brought to a quick end.
The right to filibuster is a Senate tradition (covered in the rules of the Senate), not something enshrined in the Constitution.
I think the above is correct. Somebody educate me if any of that is in error.
“From what I understand of it, the only time the VP votes in the Senate is to break a tie.”
So what? Let us say, for the sake of argument, that the VP could participate in every Senate vote, but he must vote last. Then the VP could abstain from every vote unless the vote was tied when it came his turn to vote. Would that be any different than what we have now?
Mouse,
Yes it would. The VP is not allowed to cast a vote for cloture (ending a filibuster) right now. The only time Dick Cheney even showed up for a vote was after cloture had been envoked and a resulting tie vote was expected.
Sailorcurt,
Perhaps you have a better understanding of things. Perhaps I am not 100% accurate. I am sure that Senate rules are such to eliminate the powers of the VP except during tie votes. But what about cloture?
It takes 60 Senate votes to involve cloture. But what happens if one Senator is absent for whatever reason in an extremely tight vote? Can the VP, with his/her power of a vote push things towards one outcome or the other on extremely tight votes? I’m unsure about this.
Perhaps someone who has better knowledge can educate us (or at least me)?
The Senate rules actually have no bearing on the VP’s power…that is established in the Constitution and is limited to acting as President of the Senate (a role which the VP routinely delegates to a Senator…something not unique to Dick Cheney by any means) and to cast the tie-breaking vote when needed.
The Senate cannot pass rules to “eliminate” those powers. Nor could they pass rules to increase the powers of the VP in the Senate…that is simply not in their purview. It would require a Constitutional Amendment.
The Senate rules DO, however, regulate debate and cloture. That is covered by Senate rule 22 and makes no mention of the Vice President having a voice in a Cloture vote, even as a “tie breaker” (which is literally impossible since cloture requires a 3/5 super-majority, rather than a simple majority…by definition, there can be no tie) Only duly elected Senators may vote on cloture motions.
As far as your point about “privilege”, Any person acting in the capacity of an adviser to the President is covered under Executive Privilege whether actually a member of the Executive or not.
If the VP claimed Executive privilege regarding something not related to advising the administration, (s)he would be out of order…however the claims Cheney made were directly related to meetings regarding the administration’s energy policy, which would fall under the “adviser to the Executive” role. This advisory capacity is not a Constitutionally defined role, but is a legitimate one nonetheless.
That’s why the Democrats in Congress haven’t pushed harder…even after they took the majority…to force the issue. It is much easier to vilify someone for their actions when there is no court opinion justifying those actions. If Congress truly believed that Cheney’s claims to Executive privilege are fallacious, why haven’t they challenged them in court?
Because the political value of claiming that he is obfuscating and evading would be eliminated when the courts inevitably ruled against them.
Ain’t politics fun?
Sailorcurt,
But Dick Cheney not only sought to obtain coverage under executive privilege, he sought protection as a member of the Senate. He wanted it both ways!
And as for the VP being a tie breaker in the 3/5th rule for cloture.
Recently one Democratic member of the Senate was shelved due to medical problems (Senator Tim Johnson – South Dakota). Not enough to cause him to be replaced, just enough to keep him from showing up for votes for a prolonged period of time.
Due to his absence, it might be possible to obtain 40 senators to vote against cloture and 59 to vote for it. I’m just wondering if the VP could “stand in” and become the last vote necessary to get to the 60 votes required. If the Senator had not been shelved, the VP’s vote would have been irrelevant since it was not enough to swing the vote (being only 1 vote in 100) by itself. But with the absence of one vote, does not the 1 vote make a difference?
I understand this circumstance would not be governed by the Constitution but by Senate rules. I would guess that Senate rules do not allow any additional powers to the VP that would dilute their own powers. But in a case that allowed for insertion of the VP by their own rules? I wonder what the courts would have to say?
I really can’t speak to the “protection as a member of the Senate” because I know of no such protections. Executive Privilege is a well established concept and has been supported by Supreme Court decision. I know of no similar protections offered to the Legislative branch…so I have no idea what you mean by “wanting it both ways.”
I believe what you are referring to is the fact that Cheney (correctly) claimed to be a part of the legislative branch when challenged with not following guidelines set forth by Executive order (which, by nature, only apply to the Executive branch).
His claim of Executive Privilege, as I said before, was related to his role as a Presidential adviser and had nothing to do with the branch of government in which the Vice Presidential powers lay. They are completely unrelated issues. It’s no different than claiming executive privilege for an adviser that is in NO branch of government. What qualifies them for Executive Privilege is their role as a Presidential adviser, not their “day job”.
As far as the Senate question, Any vote in the Senate only requires a Quorum, which consists of “a majority of the Senators duly chosen and sworn” (Senate rule 6).
Invoking Cloture requires 60 votes (“three fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn”…rule 22), but there is no requirement for ALL Senators to be present, only a majority. In other words, as long as there are at least 51 Senators present, they can entertain a cloture motion, if motion doesn’t get 60 votes, it fails, no matter how many Senators were absent.
Under current Senate rules there is no provision for the VP to cast a vote in a cloture motion under any circumstances.
Could the Senate pass a rule allowing the VP to cast such a vote? I suppose so. The Constitution is pretty clear that the houses can set their own procedural rules.
Would such a rule hold up in court? I have no idea. The courts can be more fickle than legislators sometimes.