iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Momentum For Senate Filibuster Reform Builds

First Posted: 07/26/2010 6:24 pm EDT Updated: 05/25/2011 6:10 pm EDT

Momentum is building to reform Senate rules that allow silent filibusters and force a 60-vote requirement for virtually any action, interviews with Democratic candidates and sitting senators indicate.

Democratic candidates said that they hear regularly from voters about abuse of the parliamentary tactic, which is likely to come up as the first vote new senators face in 2011. The supermajority requirement in the Senate has become such an obstacle to reform that it infiltrates policy discussions at every step. Last week at the Netroots Nation political conference, Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) gathered environmental writers to discuss energy legislation; the first few questions were related to energy, the rest of the conversation was dominated by the filibuster.

"The use of the filibuster and the way it's led to backroom deals has created the impression in the heartland that the Senate is dysfunctional," said Jack Conway, a Democratic candidate facing Republican Rand Paul in Kentucky. "They don't understand why Washington can't address the issues people care about. People in Kentucky wanted people focused on jobs -- 14 months [of the health care debate] laid bare how broken the system was."

Conway was joined in his backing of filibuster reform by the three other Senate candidates who HuffPost interviewed for this story: Paul Hodes of New Hampshire, Elaine Marshall of North Carolina and Roxanne Conlin of Iowa. Sitting Senators Al Franken (D-Minn.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) also said they supported reform.

"It's not constitutional. It's not statutory. It's a rule," said Hodes, adding that he wasn't certain what the new rule should look like exactly, but the current ones needed to be reformed. "Everywhere I go, they say, 'Make 'em bring out the cots and the telephone books.' People are eager for real backbone and some toughness from Democrats."

Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), a leader in the effort to reform the filibuster, said that support is strongest among new members and those running now. "They're all tuned into it," said Udall, elected in 2008, of the freshman and sophomore senators. "The core of support will by those: 2006, 2008, and whoever comes in in 2010." Merkley, Cardin and Franken have all been elected since 2006.

Merkley said that he's been canvassing his colleagues to determine how strong support is for reform. "I think we will be able to pull a couple dozen senators into the debate," he said. "Now is the time to heat up this conversation. Going into this election cycle with people running for office...it is important for people to remember that there was no supermajority requirement till 1917."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), during an address to the Netroots Nation conference, expressed his support for filibuster reform, comparing the situation to baseball's decision to ban the spitball and basketball's move to implement a shot clock. Neither rule had been needed before pitchers and basketball coaches abused the process, he said.

Reid has let the filibuster opponents know he's on their side. "Senator Reid has now said that he thinks that at the beginning of the next Congress there needs to be some kind of reform," said Udall. "There's a sense that we need to do something. Exactly what it is nobody quite knows yet."

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has been holding Rules Committee hearings to study the issue of reforming the filibuster. What was recently considered impossible is now looking inevitable.

"There is a lot of talk around the country and senators are hearing it. I think there is more interest in it in the caucus. I don't know if it is an issue we will deal with this cycle, but...I think its time is coming," said J.B. Poersch, executive director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. "Some of it is because, around the country, several of our candidates have adopted similar platforms and you have an opportunity to elect new Senators who have that on their agenda, too."

Udall said that the discussion has radically changed in the Senate. "The tone has changed. It used to be, when I first got here, people would say, 'Why are we doing this this way? This doesn't make any sense. And they would be referring to the procedure and the rules. And the saying always was, 'Oh, we're stuck with these rules. You can't change them. You need 67 votes. It's part of the filibuster. You just can't change it.' And people don't say that anymore," said Udall.

They don't say that anymore because it's not true and Udall, along with Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), has effectively made the case to his colleagues that it is entirely constitutional to change the rules.

The Constitution gives the vice president the power to break ties - not break 60-40 splits. Why would such a vote matter if the institution was not designed to be run by a majority?

Opponents of reform argue that the Senate is a continuing legislative body and that its rules can only be changed with 67 votes. But three vice presidents have previously ruled otherwise in the past - two Republicans and one Democrat.

If Vice President Joe Biden -- who has spoken out against abuse of the filibuster and has been studying ways to reform it -- were to rule on the first day of the next session that the Senate has the authority to write its own rules, Republicans would immediately move to object. Democrats would then move to table the objection, setting up the key vote. If 50 Democrats voted to table the objection, the Senate would then move to a vote on a new set of rules, which would be approved by a simple majority.

The simple act of holding the vote would have a therapeutic effect on the Senate even if it fails, said Udall, as it would inspire fear that abuse of the rules could lead to their destruction.

"People would then realize on both sides that if we abuse the rules, then they might change, because you do have an option of changing them. So I think there's a very healthy effect that flows from having the ability to adopt rules by a majority vote," he said.

Republicans in the Senate have performed more filibusters during the current congressional session than any minority in Senate history.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
 
 
  • Comments
  • 8,222
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (112 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dougyr2000
A person looking for truth in the news media
01:26 PM on 08/13/2010
I like the way the Democrats want to get rid of the filibuster. They cry about the excess use.
Just a few years back it was the Republicans who complained about the Filibuster and how it should be amended.
You can rest assured if the Republicans eke out a majority the complaint of changing the filibuster rule would not be whispered by Democrats. In fact they might cry foul, which is what they did for the few years the Republicans had a slim majority.
A fact missing about the last senate controlled by Republican's was the gang of 14. This groups was formed by a split of Dems and Repub to keep the majority from railroading anything through in less than a bipartisan fashion. This limited the amount of filibusters since this group decided where there was or wasn't a filibuster.
Funny thing is after the Dems took control the Republican 7 could not even a group of 6 together. Not a single Dem joined up. Boy that's odd.
07:42 AM on 08/01/2010
Filibuster in the senate.

A long time ago any Senator could prevent any law simply by talking about it. Any senator could stop the move to cloture. This was by design. Its to make the little states have a lot of power in the face of the big ones because representation in the house is apportioned. Its a simple and clever concept to have a working bicameral house. Its designed to stop tyrants.

Wilson also helped to dupe the states into the 17th Amendment, giving the election of Senators from the State legislature (making the State legislatures more or less irrelevant in the face of today's Fedzilla) and giving it to the people - more democracy (translates to bigger Federal government)! Major shift in power there. Less checking and balancing.

Fast forward to 1917. Wilson wants to bring America to war. The Senate uses a filibuster (then, by any member just not moving to cloture) to stop Wilson's war.

Wilson can't take no and wont tolerate the filibuster, so he has the rules changed. Now a move to cloture happens if TWO THIRDS agree to move. WAR BEGINS. Typical of a tyrant, they like that stuff so it distracts from the failing state and failing policies.

It erodes to THREE Fifths.

First it was one senator.

Then 23

Then 35

See the trend. In NEWSPEAK, majoritarian tyranny is good.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
08:55 PM on 08/01/2010
Very good comment. To bad the liberals have gone on to something else (Sara Palin's hand notes or Bristol's relationship with Levi) and will fail to learn something from it. Outrage at the thought of Republicans having the power to filibuster anything permeates these comments, but to me it looks as though they won't be filibustering anything at all. Either enough of them will go with the flow on issues like the current Supreme Court nominee (despite the fact that we know nothing about Kagen and we won't be finding out because the administration has blocked all access to her history) or this administration is working overtime conniving and plotting how to rule without Congress (the memo about amnesty, the EPA given Cap and Trade authority) and the Courts (the moratorium in the Gulf). I think of the reaction if Bush had tried any of this (I'm sure governing in this manner never entered his wildest dreams) and then I wonder if these "liberals" realize that we are, by far, the closest we've ever been to a tyranny. I guess they really cherish their entitlements, and "little" things like the attempt to control the web (Net Neutrality Act. BTW, did you know Obama is trying to find a way to use his executive powers to have the right to pull the switch on the internet in an "emergency"?) will only affect evil conservatives.
photo
MadAs
Tuned-in science editor
10:15 AM on 07/29/2010
Throughout, the constitution speaks to majority rule, higher proportions being specifically required only for special situations, and in Sec 3 of Article 1: "...each Senator shall have one
Vote."

Yet the Senate's rules seem to violate that because the cloture rule has given each "majority" member a 2/3-vote (40/60), and each "minority" member a full 1-vote. That is, to pass any bill by a majority, the "minority" gets its 40 votes and the "majority" gets 40 votes (1 x 2/3 = 40), the VP breaking the tie.

In so doing the Senate has unilaterally discounted the voting representation of the people and I think undone the intent of the constitution -- not to mention turning themselves into 100 worthless eunuchs.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Artemis34
"Women 4 the GOP" is like "Chickens 4 the KFC"
12:21 PM on 07/29/2010
Fanned

"100 worthless eunuchs" --- exactly!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
EJavaM07
Doing what no one else will.
12:22 AM on 07/29/2010
This is not going to happen. The dems are too afraid of the pub masters.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Peter Schurman
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
FACTISFACT
A war veteran. Finally retired
03:30 AM on 07/28/2010
I have read the article and also the comments on it by the learned commenter. My view after all that I have observed the politicians using Filibuster against national interest to gain individual or Party benefit to climb to power by obstruction and blame game, the reform should be done without any further delay or explanation for the over all national interest. Hope no further elucidation is needed. .
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
05:30 PM on 07/27/2010
The Constitution says each state's elected government is to pick their respective Senators. This (brilliant) idea from our Founders had the purpose of ensuring Senators would vote in the best interests of their states (no unfunded mandates) and not the best interests of themselves and their reelections. Well, the 17th Amendment changed all that (thanks to a progressive President) and now we have corrupt, parasitic career politicians (humans whose only talent is mediocrity and so whose yearning to be part of the ruling class is that much more poignant) who produce nothing, take from those who do produce and give to those who don't (after taking their fair share), promise what belongs to others for votes, and collect votes from people who think they are entitled to what someone else labored to earn. Thanks to our current administration and super majority democrat Senate a waitress working at the Hillbilly Cabin in TN with an ex-dead beat dad-husband and 5 kids is now paying for GM union members' Viagra. To Trollslayer69 and nammy50: reforming voters with 2x4's should never have been an issue (though I'll bet to you these voters were geniuses when they helped put The Empty Suit into our WH). Now we have a government of men, not laws. I hope you libs are proud of what you have done to our country. It looks like it's going right where you people always wanted to see it go.
photo
MadAs
Tuned-in science editor
10:33 AM on 07/29/2010
Zoni,
Most of this country shares your frustration, but if you want to do something about it you have to clear away the brainwashing and deal with the facts. The country's steep slide began under Reagan dismantling of the government, continued under Clinton with NAFTA, went into steep decline with the Bush wars, had its heart ripped out by the Roberts Court violations creating "corporapeople," and now the Republicans using filibusters to bring the country to their (the senate's) knees.

One can argue legitimately over conservative vs liberal ideas and policies, but it’s of little import when we the people have been reduced to serfs and our once powerful voice, our livelihood, and our wealth have been transferred to a few ignoble thugs. (also see my comment just a few bars above.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
05:25 PM on 07/30/2010
MadAs, please explain how this country had its heart ripped out by the Supreme Court's ruling that corporations have the same free speech rights as the individual? Be specific, give examples, and describe the decline. Obama campaigned on Afghanistan being the "morally right" war while the Iraq war, "Bush's War" (despite the fact that almost the entire Congress voted for it with the same information the Bush administration had) was the "morally wrong" (yet successful according to the very liberal Newsweek) war. So I would say the Afghan war is "Obama's War" now. This country thrived under Reagan after 4 years of decline under Carter, a decline that started with FDR and his contempt for the Constitution. Clinton only did well with a Republican controlled Congress. Filibusters do not bring either senates or countries to their knees. Filibusters force public debate on whatever legislation a majority in Congress is attempting to pass (and CAN pass with a SIMPLE majority. Remember ObamaCare?) You might want to ask yourself why that is such a problem with this current democrat controlled Congress. A serf is someone who is a slave to landowner. His labor,blood,sweat,and tears belong to the landowner. Redistribution of wealth is where the incompetent and parasitic government is the landowner and the (few) taxpayers are the serfs. Someone who is given a job is NOT a surf to his boss. HE CAN LEAVE anytime. If you cannot see the destructiveness of our current Congress/Administration there's no hope for us.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
04:52 PM on 07/27/2010
Why did my last comment not go through? It broke none of your rules.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
1murillo
Can't be neutral on a moving train - Zinn
12:26 AM on 07/28/2010
The thread is agonizingly slow.
And the moderators barely follow the rules, it's up to the individual moderator to delete or accept the comment.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ZeraLee
A Citizen's View from Main Street
03:40 PM on 07/27/2010
I can support going back to the days of the talkies, when filibustering meant standing on the floor and proving you resolve in a contest of wills. What we have now is just a cheap gimmick that encourages stagnation and rancorous partisanship.

A tool intended to protect the rights of the minority has been corrupted into a major weapon in the political civil war created by conservatives with an overweening sense of political entitlement.

Instead of being used to form a more perfect union, it is being used to tear that union apart.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ennis438
03:25 PM on 07/27/2010
Keep the filibuster, and return the favor to the corrupt GOP criminals when they regain power. We will need it then to prevent another depression and the destruction of the American dream if these criminals regain Congressional control.
12:06 AM on 07/28/2010
Agreed.
I was thinking when I read the article, be careful what you wish for...
God forbid that the Repubs had free rein to do everything they'd like to do.
photo
MadAs
Tuned-in science editor
10:46 AM on 07/29/2010
That's the reason it remains -- each side being afraid to give up their power. But I'll take the good and the bad legislation any time over no legislation or just tepid ineffective legislation. The bad can always be corrected, but with the filibuster now in use, the best we can ever expect to get is worthless garbage.

Also, the filibuster rule could be unconstituional or at least violates the intent of the drafters (see my comment at 10:15 AM just above).
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Artemis34
"Women 4 the GOP" is like "Chickens 4 the KFC"
03:03 PM on 07/27/2010
Also, get rid of the secret holds on nominees while we're at it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Acharn
09:22 PM on 07/27/2010
Absolutely! The secret holds are every bit as bad as the silent filibusters. I'd like to see more discussion of why every item of business brought to the floor requires unanimous consent. When was this rule adopted? What was its rationale? Is it an actual rule or is it the Majority Leader's interpretation? Protection of minority rights is important, but we've got a situation where they minority is blocking everything. The Senate needs a Thomas Reed.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Artemis34
"Women 4 the GOP" is like "Chickens 4 the KFC"
02:48 PM on 07/27/2010
The argument "What will the Republicans do when they are in power?" is so dumb.

Where were these people during the last administration?

Republicans don't care about the 60 vote rule at all.

When they have 50 votes and the VP they just ram it through budget reconciliation and make it law w/o 60 votes. And if you don't like it, the Republican VP tells you to go eff yourself!

So Democrats are the only idiots even trying to respect the parliamentary rules. STOP IT!

Go back to the constitutional simple majority & the VP to break the tie.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Artemis34
"Women 4 the GOP" is like "Chickens 4 the KFC"
02:43 PM on 07/27/2010
Time to go back to real filibuster where you have to stand up and defend your point, or at least talk, during the entire filibuster.

This is the kind of filibuster portrayed in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1d19wV1GZQ

The filibuster we have now is far too easy and requires not defense, no explanation, no talking, no even standing up for your position. It is a cowards filibuster.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Artemis34
"Women 4 the GOP" is like "Chickens 4 the KFC"
02:15 PM on 07/27/2010
I don't doubt that a lot of citizens complain. Americans want a government that governs!

Lieberman and Republicans literally want the US government to be for sale to the highest bidder.They say "Screw the people and screw democracy."

Time to go back the what the constitution requires in the senate, a simple majority with the VP breaking any ties (50 votes + the VP)!

The 60 vote parliamentary rule the senate imposes on itself puts way too much power in the hands of a sociopathic few.

People say that if we go with the constitution then the next congress will just repeals the laws made by the current congress. And I say that if that is the will of the people, so be it.

We shouldn't fail to make laws just b/c one day that law might be repealed!
photo
MadAs
Tuned-in science editor
11:29 AM on 07/29/2010
Agree with all 3 comments here (fanned). Re the consitutional aspect, you might find my comment just above at 10:15 AM interesting.
11:57 AM on 07/27/2010
"The Constitution gives the vice president the power to break ties - not break 60-40 splits. "

This point needs to be hammered home everyday, all day.

The faux constitutionalists have no counter to this fact.
photo
PDinCA
Clarity has reared its ugly head again
01:44 PM on 07/27/2010
I'm all in favor of filibuster reform, but this is not the clause to hang our hopes on.

The fact that the VP can vote when "they be equally divided" does not mean that all votes must decided by simple majority. The Constitution specifically provides that a two thirds supermajority is required for several things, including Constitutional amendments, treaties, and impeachments.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Artemis34
"Women 4 the GOP" is like "Chickens 4 the KFC"
02:18 PM on 07/27/2010
The constitution does not require a "super majority" to come to a vote / end a filibuster.

Not even for Constitutional amendments, treaties, and impeachments.