Gerrymandering, disinformation, and dark money underlie the debt ceiling crisis. ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌

[link removed]

The debt ceiling is an artifact of pre–World War II fiscal policy. In the modern era, it makes no sense that Congress must separately authorize debt to cover spending it has already agreed upon.

Once, it was a quaint bit of Americana. Like the Electoral College, it’s no longer charming.

Since the 2011 repeal of the Gephardt Rule — a sensible 1979 reform that allowed Congress to authorize spending and raise the debt limit in a single vote — the debt ceiling has become a cudgel. A party that seizes control of one branch of government — or even half a branch — refuses to raise the debt ceiling. The government is held hostage, and a crisis ensues.

It has become a regular tool, unfortunately, for congressional Republicans.

They brought the government within days of the “X date” (when the government cannot pay its bills) in 2011. The standoff led Standard & Poor’s to downgrade the United States’ credit rating. In December 2012, the Treasury Department had to take extraordinary measures as it again approached the debt ceiling.

Indeed, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen’s “extraordinary measures” to keep the government open for a few more months aren’t extraordinary at all — the Treasury has had to deploy them at least seven times since 2011.

Isn’t this just political hardball? Yes, parties use whatever tools they have for an advantage. But it is nihilistic to constantly threaten to crash the economy as a negotiation ploy. As bad as all the standoffs of the last decade were, this one is likely to be worse. In 2011, Republicans had specific demands about budget cuts and strong party leaders empowered to make a deal on behalf of the caucus.

Today, the kooky fringe is in control. And, as Jonathan Chait writes in New York magazine, the right wing is “refusing to lift the debt ceiling unless Biden gives them . . . something

[link removed]

. They have not decided what.” Let’s hope they decide before our government defaults on its debts, potentially triggering a global financial crisis.

As the Brennan Center noted in a day-long conference and series of writings

[link removed]

a decade ago, all this reflects some fundamental flaws in our creaky governmental system. We have a Madisonian system of checks, balances, and veto points . . . and a polarized Western European party system. This new form of extreme obstructionism was relatively new, and we wondered what the consequences would be. In 2016, we found out: dysfunctional government produces populist passion and political strongmen. On this one, unfortunately, the United States was not even remotely exceptional.

Back then, numerous Republicans and conservatives joined our conference to discuss a way out. Now many of them have been drummed out of their own party. Once, the debt ceiling threat was used to advance entitlement changes and tax cuts. Now it’s a tool for insurrectionists and QAnoners.

How to address the polarization behind so much of this?

One answer is to bar partisan gerrymandering, as the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act did. Incumbents in hypersafe districts don’t fear swing voters, they fear primary challengers. In the Republican Party, they especially fear challengers supported by dark money and billionaire-backed super PACs.

Counterintuitive steps can fortify our system against extortionist lawmakers. One is to bolster the role of political parties

[link removed]

, as the Brennan Center has urged, by enabling them to raise more money than is currently allowed. Another is to strengthen the standing committees, which often are venues for bipartisanship (and substantive engagement). My colleague Maya Kornberg has an important new book

[link removed]

on that very topic coming out in two weeks.

President Biden is right to stand firm. The Republicans must drop this wreck-the-economy threat. But we can’t leave it there. Without genuine democratic reform, we’ll be in the same place over, and over, and over again.





Dangers Ahead in Moore v. Harper

Even if the Supreme Court doesn’t fully endorse the radical “independent state legislature theory

[link removed]

” in the high-stakes election case argued in December, there are still concerning paths the justices could take. Some seem to be exploring ways to increase their authority to overturn state court rulings they disagree with. “Depending on how the Court defines this power, Moore could transform the relationship between state and federal courts in election cases, posing a whole new set of risks,” Ethan Herenstein and Thomas Wolf write. Read more

[link removed]

In Conversation with a State Supreme Court Chief Justice

State supreme courts have long had a significant impact on people’s lives. Now they’ve taken on new prominence since the fall of Roe v. Wade and other decisions curtailing federal protections. In a wide-ranging discussion, Alicia Bannon and Washington Supreme Court Chief Justice Steven González explore the role of state judiciaries and constitutions in defending rights, the pitfalls of originalism, and the importance of diversity on the bench. READ MORE

[link removed]

[link removed]

Redistricting Takeaways from 2022

The midterm contest for the House came down to just 30 seats that were decided by 4 percentage points or less. A new Brennan Center analysis examines who drew those district maps, finding that they were more likely to have been drawn by courts or commissions than by legislatures. But the 2024 landscape may look quite different. “Congressional maps in states like North Carolina and Ohio — and possibly others — may be redrawn by legislatures to be even more skewed and, in the process, further reduce the number of competitive seats,” Chris Leaverton writes. Read more

[link removed]





Coming Up

IN-PERSON EVENT — Saying It Loud: In Conversation with Mark Whitaker and Eugene Robinson

[link removed]

Wednesday, February 22, 6:30–7:30 p.m.

New York



Five decades ago, the words “Black Power” transformed the civil rights movement, ushering out the nonviolent philosophy of Martin Luther King Jr. and John Lewis and heralding the turbulent year of 1966. Join us for an in-person event with journalist and author Mark Whitaker and Pulitzer Prize–winning columnist Eugene Robinson as Whitaker walks us through his new book, Saying It Loud: 1966—The Year Black Power Challenged the Civil Rights Movement

[link removed]

, and tells the story of that groundbreaking year. RSVP TODAY

[link removed]



Produced in partnership with the NYU Law Black Allied Law Students Association. This event will comply with NYU’s Covid-19 safety precautions

[link removed]

.

Want to keep up with Brennan Center Live events? Subscribe to the events newsletter.

[link removed]





News

Elizabeth Goitein on the “spillage” of classified information // CNN

[link removed]

Douglas Keith on the growing focus on state judicial appointments // WALL STREET JOURNAL

[link removed]

Jasleen Singh on Texas’s proposed election police force // NEW YORK TIMES

[link removed]

Wendy Weiser on the Justice Department’s civil rights work // WASHINGTON POST

[link removed]

Feedback on this newsletter? Email us at [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]







[link removed]

Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law

120 Broadway, Suite 1750 New York, NY 10271

646-292-8310

tel:646-292-8310

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Support Brennan Center

[link removed]

Want to change how you receive these emails or unsubscribe? Click here

[link removed]

to update your preferences.

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]