HR1: The “skinny bill” silliness

There’s a non-sequitur posing as an argument, gaining traction among the chatterati. That “argument” is expressed best in a tweet by the great Nate Silver:

This argument has been echoed by colleagues and friends. It has become “the reasonable view,” the sort of thing sensible-types think and say.

It also is plainly malarky.

HR1 draws together many reforms, for sure. But Silver’s argument presumes that there is a core that could garner a sufficient majority, but that that majority is being jeopardized by the other bits that have been added on.

This “argument” has no relation to the facts.

HR1 is a three-layer cake—with plenty of icing dolloped on top.

Layer 1 is John Lewis’s Voter Empowerment Act (plus other voter protections), which would effectively reverse many of the efforts by Republicans in the states to make it harder for Democrats to vote.

Layer 2 is the idea suggested by Chief Justice Roberts in Rucho v. Common Cause: An end to partisan gerrymandering through the exercise of Congress’s Election Clause power.

Layer 3 is a suite of reforms — from transparency requirements to the first system to enable…