Connect with us

Politics

Could UAFA pass as a floor amendment to immigration reform?

LGBT groups support bill despite exclusion of bi-national gay couples

Published

on

Chuck Schumer, Charles Schumer, New York, United States Senate, Democratic Party, gay news, Washington Blade
Chuck Schumer, Charles Schumer, New York, United States Senate, Democratic Party, gay news, Washington Blade

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has raised the possibility of UAFA as a floor amendment. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

In the wake of a Senate committee decision to exclude bi-national gay couples from immigration reform, LGBT rights supporters are turning to a possible floor amendment as a way to salvage inclusion in the bill.

LGBT groups working on the issue — Immigration Equality and the Human Rights Campaign — told the Washington Blade they’ve asked Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) to offer the language as an amendment when it comes before the full Senate as expected this month.

Steve Ralls, a spokesperson for Immigration Equality, said discussions are underway to push for a floor amendment along the lines of UAFA, which would enable gay Americans to sponsor their foreign partners for residency in the United States, but a lot depends on the case before the Supreme Court challenging the Defense of Marriage Act.

“I can tell you if the immigration bill is moving toward a vote before we have a Supreme Court DOMA ruling — or after we have a bad Supreme Court ruling — a floor option is something we very much want to look at,” Ralls said. “We’re kind of in two competing timelines here; it’s not entirely clear how quickly the immigration bill will move forward for a vote, and we don’t know exactly when we’re going to have a Supreme Court ruling.”

Bombarded by accusations on his Facebook page that he betrayed the LGBT community by asking the Senate Judiciary Committee to hold off on the amendment, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) in response raised the possibility of a floor amendment.

“I’ve been a lead sponsor of the Uniting American Families Act for a number of years and I believe and desire that its principles should be included in the immigration bill,” Schumer writes. “There will be an opportunity to add it to the bill on the Senate floor.”

But none of the groups involved say they’ve received commitments from Leahy that he’ll introduce the amendment on the Senate floor, nor has the Vermont senator publicly committed to offering the amendment.

Jessica Brady, a Senate Judiciary Committee spokesperson, said she doesn’t have anything to offer in terms of public commitment for offering UAFA as an amendment on the floor.

“I’m going to have to refer you back to Sen. Leahy’s comments in the markup, when he said he would continue to fight to take discrimination out of the law,” Brady said. “He didn’t specify if he would offer an amendment on the floor.”

Moreover, finding the 60 votes on the Senate floor to end a filibuster on UAFA is significantly more difficult than obtaining the simple majority needed for passage in committee.

Assuming all 54 members of the Democratic caucus support UAFA — and the votes from Sens. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), Mark Landrieu (D-La.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), who don’t support marriage equality, are in question — five Republicans would need to vote “yes” in addition to Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), the only GOP co-sponsor. The Democrats are now short one vote following the death of Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.).

Ralls said finding the necessary 60 votes to end a filibuster on the Senate floor will be “tough,” but he expects Schumer and other Democrats in committee who couldn’t bring themselves to vote for amendments out of fear of losing Republican support for immigration reform to find support for a measure for bi-national couples on the floor.

“I think all of the Democrats on that committee who told Sen. Leahy not to offer the amendment last week owe to our families and they owe it to Sen. Leahy to find the path to 60 votes if we need them to get us there,” Ralls said.

The White House has talked about the possibility of UAFA as a floor amendment to immigration reform once it reaches the Senate floor. Under questioning from the Washington Blade on Friday, White House Principal Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest said he thinks “there is an amendment process on the Senate floor where this could be considered, so I don’t want to predict the outcome at this point.”

On NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Schumer said he expects the immigration bill to see action soon on the Senate floor — meaning the question of whether UAFA will be introduced as a floor amendment will have to be answered soon.

“We’re going to put immigration on the floor starting on June 10. I predict it will pass the Senate by July 4,” Schumer said. “We’re hoping to get 70 votes — up to 70 votes, which means a lot of Republicans.”

LGBT groups continue to back reform

Even without the provision for gay couples, LGBT groups are continuing to say they support the measure because it contains other provisions that would directly impact the LGBT community and provide a path to citizenship for the estimated 267,000 LGBT people who are among the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the country.

Among the provisions that directly impact the LGBT community is repeal of the one-year deadline on filing for asylum — a deadline that many LGBT asylum seekers in the United States miss because they’re unaware of it or lack the financial resource to meet it — and improvements in immigration detention facilities to benefit transgender detainees.

In a conference call with reporters, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, GLAAD and GetEQUAL highlighted these aspects of immigration reform to bolster its support among LGBT people.

Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, was among those who said the provisions related to asylum and detentions facilities are important to the work done by LGBT advocates.

“We also recognized early that the bill will impact many more LGBT people than simply would be impacted by UAFA,” Kendell said. “We have seen some of the most horrific stories of damage done, discrimination, harassment, terrorizing [involving] LGBT asylum seekers and detention facilities in this country.”

Ralls acknowledged that Immigration Equality continues to support the immigration bill despite discontent over the lack of UAFA-like language in the legislation.

“We’re very disappointed that the bill does not currently include binational families, but as the LGBT organization that speaks to more immigrants than every other group in our community combined, we support the bill, as it includes important provisions that would help many of those individuals, many of whom are our clients, too,” Ralls said.

Fred Sainz, HRC’s vice president of communications, also said his organization still supports immigration reform even without language for bi-national gay couples.

“We are committed to immigration reform,” Sainz said. “Undocumented individuals that happen to be LGBT will immeasurably benefit from immigration reform.”

Meanwhile, the Republican-controlled House has its own “Gang of Eight” working on its version of reform, although the legislation that group of lawmakers produces, as Ralls noted, isn’t expected to include a provision for bi-national gay couples.

“Our strategy all along has been we want to be in the Senate bill, that if a Senate and House bill go to conference, we can rely on our champions in both chambers to make sure that we stay in the bill that reaches the president’s desk,” Ralls said.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), sponsor of UAFA in the House, would likely be the one to amend the bill to include the provision, but given the conservative nature of the House, amending the bill in either committee or the floor to include UAFA seems unlikely.

Ilan Kayatsky, a Nadler spokesperson, said plans for what will happen with the House bill after it’s unveiled by the House “Gang of Eight” are unclear.

“We still don’t know what form or process the House CIR bill will take, so it’s premature to sort out the UAFA specifics just now,” Kayatsky said.

What happens if the Supreme Court strikes down DOMA?

The best hope for bi-national couples may be a ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court on pending litigation challenging DOMA, the federal law prohibiting federal recognition of same-sex marriage. The Obama administration has consistently cited this law, and only this law, as the reason why married bi-national gay couples are ineligible for a visa through the marriage-based green card application process.

Moreover, UAFA would no longer be operable for these legally married couples if DOMA were struck down. Even though UAFA provides a path to residency for “permanent partners,” it would no longer provide relief for couples in these states because the law, under Section 2, subsection D, only applies to those who are “unable to contract with that other individual a marriage cognizable under this Act.”

But the situation is murkier for bi-national couples who live in states without marriage equality. Will someone living in Texas be able to sponsor someone as a “permanent partner” or will they have to travel to a marriage equality state, wed, and then apply for a green card through a marriage-based green card application process? What if they cannot leave the state out of financial constraints?

Ralls said the way Immigration Equality interprets UAFA, the law would still have some use in non-marriage equality states even if DOMA is struck down.

“In some ways, it would make it simpler for couples in non-married states, they would not have to travel, they would be able to apply from their home state for their green card,” Ralls said. “So, in some ways, it’s broader and it applies to couples in all 50 states without forcing them to travel.”

Jon Davidson, legal director for Lambda Legal, said he can’t say at this point under what circumstances a bi-national same-sex couple in a non-marriage equality state would be eligible to apply for a visa if UAFA were law and DOMA were struck down.

“I don’t believe there is a definition of that term in the bill and the focus has been on creating relief from DOMA, not the range of reasons that might make it impossible to travel to a state where same-sex couples can marry,” Davidson said. “Indeed, if the bill were to pass, a court might interpret ‘unable to contract’ to reference legal inability not practical inability in light of one’s personal circumstances.”

But even with the possibility of a Supreme Court ruling against DOMA that would allow at least married bi-national couples to stay in the United States, Ralls said it’s incumbent upon Congress to act.

“We think DOMA is unconstitutional, and we hope the court agrees,” Ralls said. “But when it comes to advocating for real families who are impacted by this, we’re not willing to put all of our eggs in a basket that hasn’t yet been delivered. I do not want to have to tell our couples, the day after a bad DOMA ruling, ‘I wish we had fought harder in Congress.'”

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

White House

Trump-appointed judge restores White House TV pool access 

Judge called in to question president’s justification of the ban

Published

on

CNN's TV booth sat dark on Sept. 21, 2026. (Washington Blade photo by Joe Reberkenny)

A federal judge ordered the White House to restore West Wing press credentials to three news organizations after President Donald Trump attempted to bar their access for unfavorable reporting.

Early Thursday morning, Trump-appointed U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly granted a temporary restraining order brought by POLITICO, CNN, and MS NOW as part of a joint lawsuit. The lawsuit cites the imperative role of a “free press” and ordered the 78 journalists’ credentials returned to the three outlets for at least the next two weeks as litigation plays out.

In the eight-page ruling, the judge goes over a slew of laws that Trump may have violated in banning the three media groups — from stepping on their First Amendment rights to a free press to the Fifth Amendment right to due process.

The judge also questioned Trump’s justification for removing the outlets, originally saying it was a matter of national security.

“The court is skeptical — at least on this record — that defendants’ interest in safeguarding national security is the actual motivation for, or is even advanced by, the revocation of plaintiffs’ hard passes,” Kelly wrote in an 8-page ruling issued just before 1 a.m. ET.

“Nothing in the record that predates this suit suggests that the revocation of plaintiffs’ hard passes was motivated by national security concerns. Certainly, that is not what President Trump said when he announced that he was ‘banning’ plaintiffs from the White House — instead, he focused on the alleged lack of truthfulness and negativity of plaintiffs’ reporting,” the judge added.

The Washington Blade reached out to the White House press office asking if the administration would file an appeal to keep the journalists out of the West Wing but did not hear back before publication time.

Continue Reading

White House

White House press pool pushes back after Trump bars three outlets

As President Trump refuses entry to outlets he deems unreasonable, lawsuits have been filed to regain access to the West Wing

Published

on

(Washington Blade photo by Joe Reberkenny)

Past the first checkpoint to get into the White House, multiple carts filled with camera equipment sat along a fence. Wagons loaded with tripods, cables, mics, and cameras sat just past where they normally would be working at full power. Today, they were turned off and packed away.

Last week, President Donald Trump decided to bar CNN, MS NOW and POLITICO from the White House following reporting he considers “FAKE NEWS.”

Trump, in a post on Truth Social on Monday morning, described his move as “instituting an assault on the FAKE NEWS,” which he said has “grown like Cancer in our beloved United States of America.”

“It is corrupt, purposeful, pervasive, fully coordinated, and totally out of control,” he wrote on the social media site he owns. “It is a threat to our National Security, and must be stopped, NOW!”

As a result, all of the major television networks that comprise the television press pool — ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and Fox News — suspended their White House TV pool coverage. They decided to no longer send camera crews to cover President Donald Trump’s events.

“The public has a vital interest in receiving accurate, independent information about its government,” the five White House TV pool networks said in a joint statement Monday. “No administration should restrict a news organization because it objects to its reporting.”

POLITICO, CNN and MS NOW filed a lawsuit Monday to immediately restore access for their reporters, who had their credentials confiscated by the Secret Service.

In the White House, there was a noticeable shift in the atmosphere. The Washington Blade is the only LGBTQ news outlet that is part of the White House Press Pool, and was acting as the primary print pooler as the situation unfolded on Monday. 

Whispers about who might be kicked from the press pool next could be heard both in the press area of the West Wing, as well as outside the part of the White House dedicated to filming the president’s office. The area where TV stations normally film their live shots of the White House while reporting looked less busy than a normal Monday — especially as the president made his way to New York City ahead of the UN General Assembly meeting this week.

(Washington Blade photo by Joe Reberkenny)

CNN’s outdoor filming area, which is staffed nearly at all times, sat dark with a green cover over the space that normally houses its cameras and political reporters like Kaitlan Collins.

There were small signs of solidarity from other outlets in the press office. A sign that has hung outside one of the news offices in the West Wing was updated. It originally read, “WE STAND WITH AP” following President Trump’s first attempt at removing a news outlet he deemed unfavorable. It now includes “I STAND WITH AP CNN MSNOW POLITICO.”

The change could also be felt as the press pool attempted to cover the president.

There was a ribbon cutting in honor of the $6 million helipad installed at Trump’s behest — which had nearly no audio as a result of fewer microphones in the space following the outlets’ removal on Monday afternoon, and partly because of the loud sound of Marine One.

Vice President JD Vance defended Trump when asked about the changes to TV access at the White House, standing with the president despite this likely being a violation of the First Amendment’s guarantee of a free and fair press.

“He’s not banning media outlets. What he’s doing is saying we’re not going to give you special access to the White House if you engage in what is effectively propaganda,” Vance said, alleging that 92% of the stories from CNN, MS NOW and Politico about Trump are “negative.”

“That’s not representative of the American people. It’s not representative of public opinion,” Vance said.

He pushed back on the notion that this is a hindrance on free speech — claiming access to the president through White House visitation is a privilege — a privilege that in this administration, at least until courts weigh in, could change the landscape of the American media system.

“It’s about basic fairness. They can still report. They still have the access to free speech. They’re just not going to get an office in the White House anymore,” Vance said.

Jacqui Heinrich, the White House Correspondents Association President condemned the president’s actions in restricting media access in a statement sent to WHCA members on Saturday.

“Today’s action revoking access for journalists from CNN, POLITICO, and MSNOW violates the First Amendment. The implications extend beyond these organizations: a standard used to exclude one news outlet because of its coverage could be applied to any outlet in the future.

“The American people, through a free and independent press, must be able to scrutinize those elected to power, regardless of whether government officials view it favorably. That’s why courts have repeatedly held that once the White House provides access to journalists, it cannot deny that access arbitrarily or based on the content of their reporting. The WHCA calls on the administration to immediately restore our colleagues’ access.”

Continue Reading

Congress

Jeremy Moss looks to bring LGBTQ advocacy from Lansing to Capitol Hill

Congressional candidate would represent Detroit suburbs if elected

Published

on

Michigan state Sen. Jeremy Moss (Photo courtesy of the Michigan Senate Democrats)

With fall comes swapping out T-shirts for sweaters, raking leaves and, of course, elections. The summer’s primaries have narrowed the playing field in a slew of races, but the big ones — the actual races for seats in federal and local elections — are still to come.

Jeremy Moss is one of those people running for a congressional seat in Michigan. Despite his young age, Moss has quickly learned the ropes of politics in the state, already serving terms in the Great Lakes State’s House of Representatives and Senate.

Moss sat down with the Washington Blade to discuss his history in Michigan politics, his experience as an openly LGBTQ legislator and his vision for a better America as he looks toward Congress.

He currently represents Michigan’s 7th Senate District, but now he is setting his sights beyond Lansing toward Capitol Hill to represent Michigan’s 11th Congressional District, which includes Detroit’s northern suburbs.

Moss earned his bachelor’s degree in journalism from Michigan State University, where just a few years later he made history as the first openly gay person elected to the Michigan Senate and the first to serve as its president pro tempore.

His political experience stretches across multiple offices.

Moss worked in the offices of Southfield Mayor Brenda Lawrence, who also served in the U.S. House of Representatives, and State Rep. Paul Condino.

Moss, at age 25, was elected to the Southfield City Council in 2011, becoming the youngest member elected in the body’s history. He then switched over to the state legislature, representing Michigan’s 35th House of Representatives District in the Michigan House of Representatives from 2014-2018, becoming the second openly gay member elected to the Michigan legislature.

He then moved from Michigan’s House to its Senate in 2018, elected to represent the 11th Michigan Senate District and becoming the Assistant Democratic Leader. Moss started his second term in the Michigan Senate in 2023, this time representing District 7.

He currently has a long list of priorities listed on his campaign website, many of which have become standard for Democrats running across the country, with a particular focus on minimizing — and cleaning up — issues that the Republican-controlled federal government has created under President Donald Trump.

Those goals include lowering healthcare costs, tackling the cost of living crisis, holding U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement accountable and fixing the broken immigration system, restoring national voting rights, protecting rights — with a particular focus on abortion access and LGBTQ rights — combating corruption in politics, preventing gun violence and strengthening gun safety, empowering Michigan workers, and preserving the environment.

Why Moss is running for Congress

When asked why he wants to run for Congress, Moss pointed to his lengthy resume in state leadership, with a clear voice arguing that if he can do it in Lansing, he can get it done in Washington.

“I’ve served 12 years in the legislature and have ascended into leadership as president pro tem of the Senate,” Moss explained to the Blade. “We flipped our state legislative chamber to a Democratic majority for the first time in 40 years in 2022, and we passed some big, generational-changing, consequential Democratic wins that had languished for a generation, but had improved people’s lives in our state.

“We’ve passed the first gun safety laws in a generation that are saving lives. We protected the right to vote amidst attacks from Donald Trump and other conspiracies. We pushed forward and finally put LGBTQ rights in our state civil rights law. We provided free school meals and lunches for all public school children in the state of Michigan.

“The problems from Washington, D.C., aren’t getting less severe over time,” he continued. “They’re getting more severe. So this district unexpectedly opened up due to a series of retirements and it was just a great opportunity for me to continue to advocate for big change that we’ve already achieved here in the state legislature.”

“I’m a product of this district. I grew up here. I’ve represented a bulk of the district already in the state legislature, and I knew that I was going to earn grassroots support to be able to wage this campaign. We sought it out, we earned it, including some premier endorsements from Gov. (Gretchen) Whitmer, among many others, and were highly successful in the primary because we were in tune to the needs of this district.”

Moss has been endorsed by a slew of Democratic leaders and organizations, including, as he pointed out, by Whitmer.

Other endorsements include former Gov. Jim Blanchard, Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, Attorney General Dana Nessel, the Equality PAC, the Human Rights Campaign, the Unity Fund, and the LGBTQ+ Victory Fund.

His political identity and the Democratic Party

Moss described himself as being “on the liberal end of the spectrum,” but argued that the Democratic Party’s internal divisions should not be the central focus.

“I’m certainly on the liberal end of the spectrum, but I don’t even think it necessarily has to be this progressive versus establishment fight that we’ve seen play out,” Moss said when asked about various elements of in-party disagreements. “It has to be between action and, and inaction, fighters versus folders.”

He said that distinction between action and inaction is central to how he would approach Washington.

“At this moment, I think we need to demonstrate that we are ready to take on Donald Trump and MAGA chaos with boldness and effectiveness. I’ve been saying all along our campaign trail, we can no longer be the party that shows up to the knife fight carrying a pie chart, and so I think we have to be showing that we have spine and we have punch, and we’re really ready to be tough fighters for, for Michiganders and the American people.”

“We can’t walk on eggshells anymore. We can’t pull our punches,” he added. “We can’t fear that we’re offending someone, you know, one way or another with how we act. People are expecting a bold party to take on MAGA, and I think that’s exactly what the Democratic Party needs.”

Becoming an LGBTQ legislator

Moss also reminisced with the Blade about his first run for elected office — at a time when Michigan had no openly LGBTQ members serving in the state legislature — and how that experience became deeply connected to his identity and his approach to LGBTQ politics.

In 2014, Michigan was in the pre-marriage equality era, and the state had no openly LGBTQ members serving in the legislature.

“12 years ago in 2014 — this was pre-marriage, the pre-marriage equality era — we had zero people from our community serving in the legislature, and still they were talking about us.

“The big topic then in Michigan was whether or not to expand our civil rights law to include LGBTQ protections, so that people from our community would no longer face discrimination in housing and employment. And they were talking about us regardless of whether or not we were at the table.”

Moss eventually helped lead the effort to expand Michigan’s civil rights protections to include LGBTQ people, a measure that passed with bipartisan support.

He said his experience as an openly gay lawmaker allowed him to make the case for LGBTQ protections in terms that extended beyond LGBTQ issues.

“One thing I definitely aligned with Gov. Whitmer at the time was making the case that discrimination was not only morally wrong, but it was bad for business,” he said. “By not having these protections for our LGBTQ neighbors and family members and friends and community members, we were actually holding back our economy. We were essentially allowing people to be kicked out of Michigan as consumers and workers, because of who they are and how they identified.”

That led to various efforts — including committee hearings and meetings with advocates, businesses and the public — that helped make Michigan what the Movement Advancement Project deems the 16th most LGBTQ-friendly state, solidly above other states due to its robust LGBTQ-related legislation.

“I wanted to meet everybody where they were, including those who may have not been involved with or engaged with the LGBTQ community as legislators, but understood that we couldn’t sustain the economic impact of discriminating against our community,” Moss said. “And as I’ve said all along, discrimination is bad for business. That’s something I think helped broaden the vote and earn some bipartisan support for it.”

Representation and LGBTQ youth

For Moss, the importance of LGBTQ representation also comes from his own experience growing up.

“I think about when I was younger, when I was 18 years old. It was in 2004, and, you know, there are certain things that really shaped me in that time … Michigan had a ballot proposal that passed to have the strictest language banning marriage equality in our state constitution. We didn’t even allow civil unions in that language in our constitution to exist, and there were scandal-plagued LGBTQ politicians.”

“It was the same year that Jim McGreevey was forced to resign as he came out,” he said. “So it really was a signal to me that, you know, you don’t have a future. Not just you don’t have a future in politics; you might not even have a future. Period, and it was pretty defining for me.”

Despite those fears, Moss continued to pursue public office.

“And you can’t be what you can’t see, and so to be able to break the barriers at the state level and at this congressional level, I think is a signal to anybody who is struggling with wondering where their place is?”

“I think that visibility is incredibly important, and it’s something that I needed when I was much younger, and it’s something that I’ve been honored to be able to provide for the, for the next generation of emerging leaders.”

His LGBTQ priorities in Congress

When asked what LGBTQ issues he would prioritize in Congress, Moss emphasized the importance of growing the number of LGBTQ lawmakers while also expanding federal nondiscrimination protections.

“To have a caucus in the legislature has made all the difference because you can, you know, run these issues across the field. You can have somebody take on marriage. You can have somebody take on trans rights. You can have somebody take on LGBTQ youth. You can have somebody take on discrimination protections.”

He sees much of the work he wants to get done on Capitol Hill as a direct follow-up to his work in Lansing — most importantly, the passage of the Equality Act. The legislation has been debated in some form for more than 50 years at the federal level, with the goal of protecting LGBTQ people from discrimination under federal law.

“I think the Equality Act is incredibly important. That’s kind of the, the counterpart to what we’ve done in the state legislature, ensuring discrimination protections for the LGBTQ community,” he said.

“I think housing and, and workplace discrimination is, is everything, you know, to protect our community so that they can have a safe place to call home and earn a living … That’s incredibly important across the board. And I would really want to take a leading role in telling the story of how we were able to do it in Michigan after 50 years since this act was first written — and finally finished the job federally to ensure their federal protections in, in, in, in employment and housing.”

LGBTQ political organizations and Congress

Moss said the LGBTQ political organizations that have supported his political career from its early stages have helped him along the way.

“Obviously, I’ve been affiliated with Victory Fund since I first ran for office, and they were early endorsers, but Equality PAC, which is the political arm of the LGBTQ caucus in Congress, has been an incredible part of my support system. From day one they helped me out.

“I’ve been getting to know a lot of the members of Congress who are LGBTQ, really over the last year of this campaign. So I’m eager to join them. I’m eager to be one of the players on the field here to be able to advocate and advance our issues.”

Voting rights

Voting rights are another major focus for Moss, an issue he said dates back to his experience during the 2004 campaign over marriage equality.

“Something I’m very passionate about is voting rights, and it really does go back to that 2004 campaign where it was very evident that elections can determine your future.

“Elections can determine what rights you do have and don’t have, and so I’ve been very laser focused on increasing access to the ballot box, making sure our democracy remains whole and accessible.”

He explained how Trump’s recent attacks on voting legitimacy and mail-in voting have only made his desire to help that much stronger.

“We went through a real trial of that in 2020 with, with Michigan’s presidential election, with Donald Trump and Rudy Giuliani — as he jetted into Michigan and tried to overturn our valid and accurate election results. We were kind of the spotlight of the nation in that stop this deal movement that led to Jan. 6.”

That, according to Moss, spurred direct action on his end.

“I took the helm as chair of the Senate Elections Committee, and we wrote the law to implement pieces of that ballot proposal, including drafting the law that implemented nine days of early voting here in Michigan, increased access to absentee ballot. We further secured our canvassing and certifications so that nobody could jet in with an alternative slate of electors and send them to Congress on Jan. 6.”

“So I’ve been on the front lines in Michigan on defending our election systems and strengthening protections for both voters to access the ballot box and protections against those who want to overturn our election results.”

Those issues are still present today, he explained.

“He’s pushing for suppressive tactics like the Save Act. The Supreme Court has eroded the federal Voting Rights Act,” Moss said. “I want to really get into Congress as an election expert, we have a Michigan story to tell. I wrote a lot of that story, and, and I think the most urgent thing that we could pass is the John Lewis Voting Rights Act to make sure that there’s no pocket of discrimination anywhere in our country, and that people have the ability to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed right to vote.”

What he would do differently in Washington

Moss also shared that he believes Democrats should communicate differently in Washington, with an emphasis on getting things done.

“Yeah, again, we’ve, we’ve seen politics evolve in this Trump era, and I think that Democrats need to communicate differently.

“He talks so brazenly, and how proud he is that he’s renamed the Gulf of Mexico or Lake Ontario. I put that in the stupid category.

“He’s also done things in the harmful category that he boasts about, like cutting Medicaid and cutting SNAP. And of course, he’s doing things in the dangerous category, but proud of it, like trying to overturn our elections or suppressing the vote.

“What we’re doing is both popular and good for people, whether it’s growing our economy from the middle class outward, whether it’s lowering costs, whether it’s making healthcare more affordable, whether it’s strengthening the core functions of our democracy, we have to be talking about it with the same gusto and confidence that MAGA talks about their agenda.

“I think this is a party that needs more spine and more punch, and really meet this moment because I think that’s what people are looking for, and that’s really what I think a new generation will bring into this next Congress.”

Continue Reading

Popular