The Outrageous House Republican Move to Enact Trump's Vote Suppression Proposals By the Backdoor of Budget Reconciliation

House Republicans will bring forward this week a surprising and dangerous form of the voting restriction proposals that President Trump has been relentlessly pressuring Congress to pass for months.

Now, House Republicans have deceptively rebranded the voting initiative, seeking to get elements of it passed as part of a "reconciliation" bill. Such bills need only 51 Senate votes, but they are restricted to fiscal measures.

The SAVE Act has nothing to do with budget procedure. But now, House Republicans have said, in general terms, they would be spending $10 billion on these legislative proposals. It is the $10 billion which grounds the claim to fit within the requirements for reconciliation treatment.

Here is a quick overview of the entire process. First, the bare-bones budget resolution, which the House Budget Committee reported on July 16, has to pass the House, and will in August be expected by its supporters to be put before the Senate, needing only 51 votes.

The new budget bill may fail for unrelated reasons, of course. It is part of a package that is already controversial: it proposes $73 billion for defense, primarily for the wildly unpopular Iran War, and intelligence, plus $12 billion for farm aid.

The House is expected to consider the budget resolution this week. House Republicans have given few particulars about the provisions for the $10 billion election-related portion to date and even on the floor they may not provide all the details of the voting restriction proposals.

This current budget resolution and later the reconciliation bill could fail for any number of institutional or political reasons. There is the general independence from Trump that has been shown by Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC), who announced he plans to try to block the bill, and others who are retiring. Four Senate Republicans voted against a past amendment with the SAVE act – Collins, Murkowski, McConnell and Tillis.

One former Senate aide said of a workable provision: "They could probably provide money to states for voter fraud enforcement or creating/enhancing voter ID requirements, but the number of strings put on the money would have to be pretty minimal to pass muster."

It remains entirely possible that the Parliamentarian might still rule that the language, addressing voter ID and citizenship and so forth even with self-restraint, was merely incidental, rather than primarily and directly fiscal and throw the thing out.

We may be in for a rough, lengthy and dangerous struggle to protect voting rights. So far, the SAVE Act has never succeeded. There is a lot of reason to doubt it can make it this time if opponents remain steadfast.