Lankford: Maintain the filibuster; state election rules should be properly overseen by federal courts.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-NY, intends to have a vote on abolishing the filibuster early next week.

Despite the fact that it is doomed to fail, with two key Democratic votes against it in Sens. Krysten Synema, D-Ariz., and Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., this move has become a rallying cry for Republicans like Lankford.

“What Schumer is attempting to do is to stand up and say, ‘I’ve got a bill that is so vital to me.'” “I want to be able to pass it, and I’m going to rewrite the rules for the rest of my life,” Lankford added. “We’re battling it with tenacity.”

Although both parties have used the filibuster, both sides have also made adjustments to it.

Republicans, including Lankford, voted in 2017 to “blow up” — or abolish — the filibuster on Supreme Court candidates, allowing them to confirm Justice Neil Gorsuch with a simple majority in the Senate. That is now fixed in stone.

However, Lankford contends that what Republicans did to the judicial filibuster in 2017 and what Democrats are attempting to do now to the legislative filibuster are not similar.

“There’s a significant difference,” he stated. “There has never been a discussion of the legislative filibuster.” In 2013, the filibuster on the personnel side was abolished. Sen. Harry Reid, D-NV, changed practically everything on that front with a new filibuster option. Except for Supreme Court nominations, there was a massive movement and change in almost every area. We returned in 2017 and said, ‘All of this has changed, but this piece, we want everything to be consistent on this side.’ If we’re going to modify anything, we should change it all so that it’s consistent.'”

Lankford claims that by pushing to abolish the filibuster, Democrats are telling the American people that the voice of the minority doesn’t count, regardless of what they’re trying to blow up. However, according to an op-ed he published for The Wall Street Journal in 2017, he believes the minority party may utilise Senate procedures to prevent the body from legislating.

“But the Senate isn’t working,” says the op-ed. “First, the minority party has been abusing Senate procedures for months in order to postpone the nomination process and hence the whole Senate agenda.” Second, the Senate’s complicated procedures always compel a painfully sluggish legislative pace.”

However, in the same op-ed, he reiterates his support for the legislative filibuster, encouraging the Senate to preserve it and not abolish it.

“Every vote in the Senate should not require a 51-vote majority.” Because the Senate is the only body in the federal government where minorities’ voices are heard and discussion is safeguarded,” he explained.

Lankford believes the legislative filibuster should remain in existence regardless of whose party is in control, regardless of the agenda the majority wants to achieve.

Schumer, with President Joe Biden’s assistance, wants to amend the rules in order to enact voting rights legislation, which they both see as critical to ensure that everyone in the nation has the right to vote. On Tuesday, Jan. 11, Biden flew to Georgia to promote voting rights legislation as critical in areas like Georgia, where Republicans are reshaping elections to make it more difficult for people of colour to vote.

The Georgia law restricts access to the voting booth, but Lankford criticised both the President’s rhetoric surrounding the measure and the Democrats’ move to enact voting rights legislation in the Senate.

“I’m quite enthusiastic about voting rights,” Lankford explained. “Voter suppression is unlawful in the United States.” It should be outlawed in the United States, and nothing is changing on that front. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is still in effect. It is still unlawful to suppress any individual’s vote, and it should be illegal for anybody to suppress any individual’s vote. Right now, our federal courts have the authority to enter any state or territory and say, ‘You passed a legislation that suppresses individual voting rights.’ They can intervene as a federal court and overturn that.”

“What [the Democrats] want to say is that federal courts have been looped out of this, states have been looped out of this, the legislature has been moved out of this, and now it’s the White House, specifically the Attorney General of the United States, who will make all election law decisions for the entire country.” I have enough faith in the courts across the country. “Leave it alone.”

When asked if he feels there is a voter suppression problem in the country, Lankford stated election regulations should be left to the states rather than Congress.

“The great bulk of election legislation is really done in states rather than the federal government,” he explained. “…. That is where the great bulk of election legislation should be done, in the state.” Actually, the federal government has relatively little participation in elections, other than ensuring that citizens’ right to vote is maintained. That is why the Voting Rights Act was so crucial, and why it is still in effect. To be able to preserve persons’ voting rights.”

Lankford stated that he does not feel citizens’ right to vote is under threat, stating that if that is the case, the courts have the authority to overturn any statute that restricts an individual’s right to vote, which they have yet to do.