According to The Washington Post, this initiative has almost no chance of approval by senators.
The House of Representatives of the U.S. Congress approved on Thursday a bill introduced by Democrats to reform the electoral law in the country, but it has virtually no chance of approval by senators. This is stated in an article published in The Washington Post.
This initiative, as the Democrats say, is designed to protect the right of Americans to free expression of will. In a number of American states where Republicans are in power, last year they tightened the rules regarding control during voting, including by mail. Republicans explained this by the need to prevent electoral fraud. Democrats claim that their opponents are taking these steps to make it difficult for certain categories of citizens to vote. The bill in question, in particular, is aimed at countering these measures.
Democrats in the House of Representatives of the U.S. Congress managed to ensure the adoption of this initiative on a simplified procedure by including it in another bill, despite opposition from Republicans. Next, the document should be considered in the Senate. According to the publication, the probability of approval of the initiative in the upper house of Congress is extremely low, since Republicans strongly oppose it.
The publication also states that the chances of passing the bill have decreased even more due to the position of Democratic Senator Kyrsten Sinema (from Arizona). She said on Thursday that she would not support the efforts of her party members to change the rules of debate in the upper house of the U.S. Congress in order to avoid their deliberate delay for an infinitely long time. Sinema stressed that these changes would aggravate the differences between the two backbone parties of the United States.
We are talking about a reception related to the seizure of the parliamentary rostrum in order to prevent the adoption of a bill. This practice has received the name “filibustering” in the American political lexicon. Sometimes the threat of such obstruction alone is enough to remove an issue from the agenda.