[mAEStro-paNDa]

How exactly do you think she will execute that plan?

Voter ID laws have been enshrined in some states through ballot measures voted on by the public, for example.

Not only that, turnout and money in politics are arguably more of a priority to tackle, in that they would make addressing voter ID laws or gerrymandering much easier.

Overall I'm not sure her "plans" to solve these issues goes far enough, or gives enough detail of how they would be executed.

[Someone1234]

Restoring the full Voting Rights Act would be a good start.

SCOTUS essentially said "this is out of date, therefore unenforceable." Then challenged congress to pass an updated one, but they have not. Some of the stuff going on was illegal under the VRA for the states it touched. I'd like to see them pass an updated one that impacts all 50 states equally, it would be much harder for SCOTUS to find it outdated then.

[dragonwriter]

> How exactly do you think she will execute that plan?

Like most Presidential plans, it requires Congressional support, but beyond that it's not unusually difficult; while the feds can't do it for all elections easily, Art. I S4 gives Congress the power to make or alter regularions for House elections superceding state rules and Congress can also adjust the safe harbor rules for considering Presidential electoral votes properly given to use Presidential elections as a hammer, and states are unlikely to separate out qualifications for different offices to limit the effect of such federal regulations, because it would radically increase the administrative complexity of elections.

[rtkwe]

There's the most power on the level of federal elections where congress has the power to dictate the "time, place, and manner" at any time (Article 1 Section 4). So for the whole of Congress they have pretty full and broad powers to make whatever they want happen. To get similar things at the state levels there's the ever useful strategy of just dangling a large pot of money for states. And ballot measures aren't completely binding they can be modified by the legislature of the individual states.

I do think money in politics is a big issue but with Citizens United it's hard to do anything about that since "spending money is speech" means there's very very little wiggle room in the 1st amendment for putting a stopper on the geyser of corporate money. [1]

[0] https://medium.com/@teamwarren/my-plan-to-strengthen-our-dem...

[1] Is a real messy problem. Personally I think corporations getting the full rights of citizens is a bit bonkers and I wish there was an easy way to draw a line between people collectively pooling their money for speech and a corporation doing the same thing. Maybe some test around profit making or something to tamp down on the feedback loop of companies spending money to make way more money in return from legislative changes.

[Steltek]

In the vein of "dangling money", elections are expensive to run and states would not want to double spend to follow their rules + Fed rules.

[rtkwe]

Yeah I imagine that's part of the calculus too that it would be easier to use the same rolls, machines and rules but getting them to reform the district drawing process would be somewhere our hypothetical Warren admin would probably have to incentivize with money.

[Spooky23]

If she had a democratic senate, it’s easy. You tie it to highway funds and block grants.

The Federal government reigns supreme.

[munk-a]

This is a super valid question given all the obstructionism that's likely to come out of any attempt to reform the system - that said I'd take a politician who recognizes the importance of this over one who is happy to wallow in the corruption any day.

[davidw]

Being in favor of enfranchisement is certainly a better starting point than being against it.