By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Senator Lisa Murkowski has become the first Republican to publicly oppose the SAVE Act, a proposed federal election bill strongly backed by President Donald Trump. Murkowski highlighted the hypocrisy of Republicans now supporting federal election mandates after vehemently opposing similar Democratic efforts in 2021, arguing that states should retain authority over election administration. She further cautioned that imposing new federal requirements so close to Election Day would disrupt state preparations and negatively impact election integrity, asserting that federal overreach is not the solution for building public trust.
Read the original article here
It appears that Senator Lisa Murkowski, a Republican from Alaska, has voiced her opposition to a proposed election bill championed by former President Donald Trump, offering what some interpret as a warning to her own party. Her stance, as articulated, centers on concerns about federal overreach and the potential disruption to state-led election preparations, particularly given Alaska’s unique circumstances. She emphasizes that the Constitution grants states the authority to regulate the “times, places, and manner” of federal elections, and that a one-size-fits-all federal mandate is unlikely to serve well in diverse states like hers.
Murkowski’s statement highlights the timing of such proposals, suggesting that imposing new federal requirements as Election Day approaches would create significant challenges for election officials who are already deep into their preparations. This rush, she argues, could negatively impact election integrity, forcing administrators to scramble to adapt to new policies without adequate resources. The core principle, in her view, is to maintain public trust in elections, and she believes that federal overreach is counterproductive to achieving this goal.
This position echoes past Republican objections to federal election reform efforts. For instance, in 2021 and 2022, when Democrats pushed for legislation like the “For The People Act” and a slimmer version known as the “Freedom To Vote Act,” Senate Republicans, including then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, argued that election rules should remain the purview of the states. McConnell stated then that there was nothing broken with the current system and no rational basis for federalizing election administration, which suggested a strong unified opposition from the Republican caucus.
However, some observers are skeptical of Murkowski’s current stance, recalling instances where she has publicly expressed reservations about legislation only to ultimately vote in its favor. This pattern has led to a perception among some that her opposition is performative, intended to create an appearance of independence without fundamentally altering her voting behavior. There’s a sentiment that she might be attempting to draw a distinction between Trump’s proposals and previous Democratic election reform efforts, suggesting that the Democratic bills aimed to expand voter access, while Trump’s proposals are seen as restrictive.
The skepticism is further fueled by the observation that Murkowski and Senator Susan Collins of Maine are often perceived as the more moderate voices within the Republican party, sometimes taking public stands against prevailing party lines, but ultimately aligning with the party on key votes. This perceived pattern of vocal dissent followed by eventual support has led some to believe that despite her current warnings, she may ultimately vote in favor of the bill, especially if it undergoes modifications or if there’s significant party pressure.
There’s a prevailing narrative that these “election bills,” particularly those from Trump’s camp, are designed to restrict voting access, a stark contrast to the Democratic aim of ensuring and expanding it. The historical context, including the struggle for women’s suffrage in countries like Switzerland, is sometimes invoked to suggest that men, consciously or unconsciously, consider gender when voting, and that political parties, including Republicans since the Reagan era, have strategically catered to specific demographics to win elections.
The core of the criticism against Murkowski is the concern that her public opposition is a tactic designed to appear principled while ultimately capitulating to party pressure. The argument is that she often expresses concerns, as she did with the “Build Back Better” bill, only to later vote for it, sometimes in anticipation of amendments that never materialize or in hopes of influencing the legislative process in ways that don’t ultimately materialize. This has led to a strong sense of distrust, with many predicting she will eventually “fold” or “roll over,” similar to what they perceive happened with previous key votes.
Ultimately, Murkowski’s warning to her party seems to stem from a belief that federalizing election laws is detrimental to democratic processes and the integrity of elections. Her specific concerns about disrupting ongoing state preparations and the potential for unintended consequences in states like Alaska are articulated as significant hurdles. However, the historical context and past voting patterns of some senators have cast a shadow of doubt on the ultimate impact of her current pronouncements, leading to widespread speculation about whether her opposition will translate into a definitive “no” vote.