also does not allow for drive-through voting either. neither does new york. neither does massachusetts. neither does minnesota. i mention those states because senators gillibrand, warren and klobuchar have jumped into if fight, attacking texas as racist. the things this law does there state doesn t allow. chris: in about 30 seconds, susan, where do we stand here? because red states are going to continue, you can you call it new voting restrictions or reimposing what the old rules were, pre-pandemic. the president can t get a federal law through because of republican filibuster in the senate. the supreme court is upholding the law changes, the voting changes in states like arizona. so what does biden and the democrats, what do they do? here s the disconnect. you can describe it as the biggest threat to voting, to democracy since the civil war. but democrats are not in a
also does not allow for drive-through voting either. neither does new york. neither does massachusetts. neither does minnesota. i mention those states because senators gillibrand, warren and klobuchar have jumped into if fight, attacking texas as racist. the things this law does there state doesn t allow. chris: in about 30 seconds, susan, where do we stand here? because red states are going to continue, you can you call it new voting restrictions or reimposing what the old rules were, pre-pandemic. the president can t get a federal law through because of republican filibuster in the senate. the supreme court is upholding the law changes, the voting changes in states like arizona. so what does biden and the democrats, what do they do? here s the disconnect. you can describe it as the biggest threat to voting, to democracy since the civil war. but democrats are not in a position to actually do anything
on that way of fulfilling the goal and hiring more attorneys when it comes to federal voting laws. back to you. steve: david spunt live outside the white house. thank you very much. when joe biden talks about voting changes are jim crow or worse than the worse than since the civil war. do you know who likes to hear that? the progressives. i will explain why. what he is trying to do is he is trying to suggest that the republicans are racist. and they are distorting the truth about hr-1 which would essentially, lawrence was talking about how it would federalize voting restrictions. lawrence: correct. steve: all across the country. it really is a federal takeover of voting rights in all 50 states. is he trying to appease the progressives because they are frustrated that he will not support the getting rid of the filibuster. and so it all comes it all fits together. they are not going to get rid of the filibuster. so he has got to sound like is he getting tough about this. but, when yo
why protecting voting rights is so important. the white house has really framed this as a moral imperative that the country needs to pursue. and one white house official this morning was specifically saying that the president would call out those efforts in republican-led states to enact voting changes. the white house the president would say they reflect the most egregious attempts to harm the integrity of our democracy since the civil war. the president is expected to push back in that as he delivers those remarks, remarks that he s been promising for weeks in philadelphia a little bit later this afternoon. now, the white house has said that this will really be part of a pressure campaign to try to drive some type of action. one thing that the president is also expected to talk about is putting together this coalition, including activists and advocates, really trying to combat what they are calling an unamerican trend against voting
a hedge against what i believe progressives want which is federal court to take over election. this is the judicial parallel to hr one, they want the federal court rather than state legislatures to set rules for elections so i think this was a big victory. one of many big victories but i think it was a big one and it s very telling reporters obviously we want talk about the practical impacts. the justice department sued georgia for recent voting changes. his opinion in which justice alito laid out five criteria by which courts should assess state laws, for this make it hard for the justice department to prevail i think it will. it s interesting for the arizona provisions were throwing out out of precinct ballots justice has this paragraph when he says the lower court says nonwhite voters