I haven't had time to follow the details of the voting rights battle at the Federal level, but I'd like to suggest these measures for the centrists or moderates in Congress who have not given up hope of getting something done:

1. If I recall the old Voting Rights Act (it should not be surprising that voting rights have crumbled in some areas without it there), it singled out certain states? A way to sidestep legislative issues in crafting new legislation building on the old is that the federal legislation should apply to all states, period.

2. In theory, I think it's ok to require state-approved picture ids limited to state id or drivers license. However, the reality on the ground seems to be (from what little I know on the issue) such id's are too hard to get in some cases, or something like that. Iit would be best, in my opinion, to acknowledge that in theory there's nothing wrong with drawing a line and having good verification of a person's right to vote.

3. In general, the dems should assess if there are any compromise points so that there's an improved chance of getting things passed. I am not suggesting compromising on clearly important matters, such as pushing back against gerrymandering, as possible.

4. I'm not sure if I'm right or wrong on the filibuster (I oppose getting rid of it), but it would be helpful in my opinion, for those claiming that it "obviously" needs to be removed, if they could please address themselves to a key objection to removing it. The objection is:

If that filibuster is removed, and if (or when) the Republican party takes over both houses, then that at this point (given what we have seen from too many Republicans the last few years) that would spell a total disaster for the country. If the filibuster is left in place, the Republicans winning both houses would not amount to quite the same disaster. In other words, what do advocates of removal of the filibuster say to the concern that there is probably no going back, that it is a procedural measure helping to protect the country from the worst that the Republicans have to offer and in general may be a classic example of changing a procedure at a moment when it favors what you advocate, but perhaps not thinking clearly about the fact that there may well come a day when the Democrats could wish they still had the filibuster in place.

I get that there are some useful responses to this, but I find it striking that I have not heard one. One of the useful responses might be that if the Republicans succeed in horribly harming the voting system in too many states (and they seem to be well on their way) then there's not so much point to talking about the future of the country. In other words, the counter-argument is that getting rid of the filibuster is based on the argument that this is a "break glass only in case of emergency" level of situation.