Manchin holds all the cards

The Senate will vote today on whether to advance the For the People Act, a sweeping voting rights package that would end partisan gerrymandering, expand early voting, make Election Day a federal holiday, and make it easier to vote by mail, among other significant reforms. Sen. Joe Manchin, who opposes the bill but has proposed a compromise, may still support this procedural step in order to start debate. But his vote will likely make no difference, as Republicans are poised to use the filibuster to block the legislation. The vote is expected around 5:30pm ET.

• — Republicans are united in their opposition to both Democrats' original bill and Manchin's proposal, describing them as poorly drafted and overly prescriptive. "The real driving force behind S. 1 is the desire to rig the rules of American elections permanently, permanently in Democrats' favor," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.
•  
• — Democrats counter that the legislation is a necessary remedy to Republican-led states' rush to enact restrictive voting laws. They have presented the bill as the party's best chance to undo them, while limiting the impact of special interests on the political process. President Biden, who, according to White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki, is "absolutely revolted" by GOP attempts to restrict voting access, supports the legislation as well.
•  
• — However, even if all 50 Senate Democrats vote to advance the bill today, it is expected to fall short of the 60 votes needed to begin debate. That would leave Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer with only one option to pass it: blow up the legislative filibuster. Progressive Democrats have been clamoring for that since the party won its narrow Senate majority in January, but moderate Democrats like Manchin say they will never go along. —The New York Times

Curiel: Gerrymandering and the point of no return

"Research suggests that independent commissions draw more competitive districts than those drawn by state legislatures. Leading constitutional law expert Richard Pildes makes a strong case that more competitive districts can, in turn, provide the incentives for representatives to take more moderate positions, thereby lessening polarization within Congress. Redistricting definitely has a role to play in potentially depolarizing the House, but the nationalization of American politics, the power of primaries, and single-member districts might lead to self-reinforcing of political polarization. Solving redistricting at this point might not be sufficient." —John Curiel in RealClear Politics

John Curiel is a research scientist at the MIT Elections Data and Science Lab.

MORE: Republican congressman admits gerrymandering should help GOP take back House —The Independent

Okay, let's call it infrastructure month

So it didn't get done in a week. Or two. Or three. But there's a chance an infrastructure deal could pass by the end of the month. Maybe. At the White House yesterday, President Biden met privately with Sens. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema—key Democrats who are part of a bipartisan group working on the legislation—and his infrastructure team is on Capitol Hill for further talks today. The main sticking point is funding the bill. White House officials are encouraged by the direction the talks have taken, but Biden has rejected proposals considered by the congressional group that would index the gas tax to inflation and apply user fees to electric vehicles. Stay tuned. —CNN

MORE: Manchin-led committee puts forth sprawling energy infrastructure proposal —The Hill

Consequences for Belarus

The U.S., the European Union, Britain, and Canada announced new sanctions on Belarusian officials yesterday, four weeks after President Alexander Lukashenko forced down a Ryanair commercial flight and arrested dissident journalist Roman Protasevich. The sanctions against officials allegedly involved in the May 23 arrest stopped short of the hardest-hitting type of economic sanctions, but the strong, coordinated response from Western countries will deliver a blow to Lukashenko's base of support. Western leaders also demanded the immediate release of Protasevich and his traveling companion. Since they were detained, Protasevich has been forced to appear on Belarusian television, each time appearing to have been beaten. —The Washington Post

MORE: An international anti-corruption court is needed to deter kleptocrats —Financial Times

Faisal: Populism threatens open society

"The greatest threat to open society in our times is posed by authoritarian populism. Jan-Werner Müller, in 'What Is Populism?', points out that populists are always anti-pluralist. Populists claim that they, and they alone, represent people. Turkish populist President Recep Tayyib Erdogan, in the AK Party's Congress, declared in defiance of his numerous critics, 'We are the people; who are you?' This is the universal tune of populist politics. Populism is an exclusionary form of identity politics that poses a danger to democracy, as democracy requires pluralism and the recognition that we need to find fair terms of living together as free, equal, but also irreducibly diverse citizens." —C.K. Faisal in The Wire

C.K. Faisal is an independent political researcher and columnist based in India.

MORE: Populist leaders in Eastern Europe run into a little problem: Unpopularity —The New York Times

Focus on global democracy

Here's a familiar-sounding tale. With 100% of the vote counted in Peru's recent presidential election, Pedro Castillo, the son of illiterate Andean peasants, won by 44,000 votes over his far-right rival Keiko Fujimori. But Fujimori has claimed fraud, challenging about 500,000 votes, calling for half to be annulled, and obliging officials at Peru's electoral board to reexamine ballots—despite the lack of evidence of wrongdoing. Though national and international observers say the election was transparent, Fujimori and her supporters have vowed not to accept the results, and she has recruited Lima's most expensive law firms to quash 200,000 votes, almost all from poor Andean regions. As the U.S. goes, so goes the world. —The Guardian

• — Ethiopia. Ethiopians voted yesterday in a major test for Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed. The parliamentary election, delayed from last year, is the centerpiece of a promised reform drive by Abiy, who described it as "the nation's first attempt at free and fair elections." But Abiy, whose rise to power initially seemed to signal a break with decades of authoritarian rule, has since waged war in the Tigray region. International concern has grown about the election as well, as opposition groups have accused the ruling party of harassment, manipulation, and threats of violence. —Associated Press
•  
• — France. Early results of regional elections in France indicate that both President Emmanuel Macron and his opponent Marine Le Pen will fail to make the gains they were hoping for in the first round. Macron's centrist La République En Marche party is projected to gain more than 10% of the vote—just enough to take part in the second round next weekend. Le Pen's far-right National Rally has also fallen short of expectations, and both parties are trailing the conservative party, Les Républicains. One of Macron's MPs, Aurore Bergé, described her party's poor performance as a "democratic slap in the face for all of us." —BBC News
•  
• — Scotland. A Scottish MP is calling for more action, education, and awareness to counter disinformation. Stewart McDonald, a member of the nation's Foreign Affairs Select Committee, released a document yesterday outlining threats such as international state actors peddling fake news and fomenting divisive narratives through social media, broadcast media, and 'soft power' institutions. "Russia, China, and Iran have all been credibly accused of attempting to distort the information ecosystem in Scottish public life, using a range of platforms and media to manipulate public opinion," McDonald said. Truly a global problem. —The Courier

Kristian: How to have patriotism without nationalism

"The crux of the matter is what that patriotism entails: Is it love of our place and neighbors, or love of the state and its power? American patriotism is too often the latter. It frequently indulges in jingoism, pride, militarism, and idolatrous civil religion. It is competitive, aggressive, and offended by even constructive criticism: 'Love it or leave it' is the familiar refrain." —Bonnie Kristian in Christianity Today

Bonnie Kristian is a columnist at Christianity Today, a contributing editor at The Week, and a fellow at Defense Priorities.

MORE: 'The average American doesn't understand how an American can turn against their country': Lessons from the Oklahoma City bombing —The Washington Post

Re: The depressing figure that 30% of Republicans believe that Trump will be "reinstated" as president. That number is congruent with the 29% of Republicans who say they will not get vaccinated. A large chunk of Republicans have been infected by various memes that interfere with making rational choices. What are the vectors of this mental infection? It can't ALL be due to The Donald. In any case, it augurs ill for the health of the American body politic. —Barry L., Massachusetts

Finding a solution to health insurance in the U.S. is not as complicated, imho, as some want to make it out to be. I believe there are a few fundamental questions that rarely, if ever, get asked, answered, or even discussed.

Why does health insurance depend on whom you work for? People speak of 180 million people losing their employer healthcare when millions do not have any to lose. Yet why do they have it provided by their employer, which is also subsidized (hence, we all pay for it in one way or the other via product prices, higher taxes for government workers, etc.), in the first place? Why is employer-subsidized insurance okay, but government-subsidized is not? As mentioned, we all end up paying for it in the end. Or, to put it simply, if subsidies are bad, i.e., let the free market rule, then why have any subsidized health insurance?

I have been lucky enough to have great health coverage via the military and then a Fortune 100 company. I have also been on the other side, paying for it out of pocket, full price. It was a wake-up call to fill out pages of forms, interviews, pre-conditions, etc. It literally took weeks to get it.

I think the way to deal with healthcare would be to put everyone in the same boat. No subsidized health care for anyone. Start there and look at it through that lens. I know it won't happen that way. But if people would deal with it by framing the problem that way, rather than with blabber, we'd have a real solution within days.—Bill T., Arizona

The views expressed in "What's Your Take?" are submitted by readers and do not necessarily reflect the views of the editorial staff or the Stand Up Republic Foundation.