Tag: Carl Levin

GOP Senators Continue To Flirt with Filibusters

This past January U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid refused to press for adoption on a simple majority vote (at least 51 of the 100 Senators) of significant, but still flawed, reforms of the body’s filibuster rule. Instead Reid and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell agreed to much weaker changes to the rule. Past posts have expressed my dissatisfaction with this rule and the recent change.

As a result, the Senate and the U.S. are still facing threatened filibusters by Senate Republicans over confirmation of presidential nominations.

Chuck Hagel

The most recent example is the nomination of Chuck Hagel to be Secretary of Defense.

Yes, on February 26th the U.S. Senate did vote, 71 to 27, to invoke cloture and end debate on voting on confirmation of this nomination. The 71 votes came from 53 Democratic, 2 Independent and 18 Republican Senators, including Senators John McCain and Lindsay Graham, who continued to be severe critics of Hagel. (Two Democratic Senators did not vote: Mark Udall and Frank Lautenberg.)

Later that same day the Senate voted, 58 to 41, to confirm Hagel for this position. For this vote, only four Republican Senators were in the majority: Senators Thad Cochran, Mike Johanns, Richard Shelby and Rand Paul. (Senator Lautenberg did not vote.)

While I am pleased that there was no prolonged filibuster of this nomination and that the  Senate did vote on confirmation, getting there, in my opinion, was needlessly prolonged and again demonstrated the dysfunctionality of the Senate. Here are some of the reasons for that opinion:

  • In early February Democratic Senator Carl Levin, the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, delayed a committee vote on the nomination in an attempt to garner support for same from some of the Republican committee members.
  • On February 14th, the Senate failed by one vote to invoke cloture, 59 to 40 (Majority Leader Harry Reid later switched his “Yes” vote to “No” so he could later move to reconsider cloture).
  • Republican Senators Lindsay Graham and James Inhofe had put “holds”on the nomination and thereby prevented a vote on confirmation; Graham wanted more information from the Administration about the Benghazi attack (in which Hagel had no involvement) while Inhofe fomented that Hagel was anti-Israel.
  • Chris Cillizza, a Washington Post columnist, reported that Republicans were voting against cloture because there were no political risks from doing so; they said they had legitimate doubts about Hagel’s ability to lead the Pentagon; and resistance was a Republican rallying cry.
  • Another Washington Post columnist, Jonathan Bernstein, stated that Republican Senators are insisting on a 60 vote requirement for virtually everything because many of them see no difference on cloture and substantive voting and do not require extraordinary reasons to vote against cloture.
  • Senator McCain said that one of the reasons for Republican opposition to Hagel, their former Republican Senate colleague, was his very vocal criticism of President George W. Bush over the Iraq war.
  • Some Republican Senators were opposed to Hagel for allegedly receiving money from a group called “Friends of Hamas” — a rumor that started with a joke about a nonexistent group.
  • On February 15th 15 Republican Senators wrote a joint letter to President Obama asking him to withdraw the Hagel nomination.
John Brennan

This dysunctionality is not over with the confirmation of Hagel. Senator McCain has threatened a similar GOP strategy with respect to confirmation of John Brennan as Director of the CIA.

Jacob J. Lew

On the other hand, the Senate on February 27th confirmed, 71 (including 20 Republicans) to 26, the nomination of Jacob J. Lew for Secretary of the Treasury.

And on February 25, 2013, the Senate confirmed, 93-0, Robert Bacharach to be a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. He, however,  had been appointed to that position in January 2012, and in the last Congress, in July 2012, clouture was defeated, 56-34.

All of this silliness over Chuck Hagel and potentially over John Brennan would have been prevented if the Senate this past January had adopted more significant reform of its rules regarding filibuster.

 

U.S. Senate Adopts Modest Reform of Its Filibuster Rule

On January 24, 2013, the U.S. Senate adopted a bipartisan modest two-part reform of its filibuster rule. Both were adopted by over two-thirds of those voting and thereby complying with another part of its rules requiring a two-thirds vote to amend the rules.

Senators Reid & McConnell

This bipartisan reform package was brokered by Majority Leader, Democratic Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, and the Minority Leader, Republican Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.[1]

The Reform

The reform has two parts.

By a 78-16 vote, the Senate adopted the first part of the package. For only the two years of this session of Congress and by standing order only, the minority Republicans will have the right to make a minimum number of amendments during floor debate, but their ability to use filibusters to prevent debate on legislation will be limited. This part also will limit dilatory tactics on lower-tiered judicial and executive branch nominees.[2]

The second part of the reform package was a permanent amendment to the Senate rules to allow prompt scheduling of legislation where there is a bipartisan consensus for passage and limit stalling tactics to prevent Senate conferees from meeting with their House counterparts to resolve differences in competing bills. This part was adopted by a vote of 86-9. [3]

This bipartisan reform eliminated the possibility of the Democratic Senators using the so called “constitutional” or “nuclear” option of changing the rules by a simple majority vote.[4]

Reactions to the Reform

President Obama

Thursday night President Obama immediately released a statement saying he was pleased the Senate had taken action to move routine measures along. He observed that in his last State of the Union address, he had “urged Congress to take steps to fix the way they do business. Specifically, I asked them to address the fact that a simple majority is no longer enough to pass anything – even routine business – through the Senate,”

The President continued, “At a time when we face critical decisions on a whole range of issues – from preventing further gun violence, to reforming our broken immigration system, to getting our fiscal house in order and creating good paying jobs – we cannot afford unnecessary obstruction.”

President Obama also noted that the reforms “are a positive step towards a fairer and more efficient system of considering district court nominees, and I urge the Senate to treat all of my judicial nominees in the same spirit.”

Washington political commentators suggest the following reasons for the adoption of these modest reform measures, rather than the “speaking filibuster” proposal led by Senators Jeff Markey and Tom Udall:

  • very few citizens care about the filibuster and its reform, and the activists who did were not effective in rallying public opinion;
  • virtually no individual senator– especially the Majority Leader Harry Reid–wants the Senate to be like the House of Representatives which operates by simple majority rule;
  • the current Majority Leader and other Democratic senators are pragmatists and realize that in the future, perhaps as early as 2015, they could be in the minority and do not want the Republican majority to ram things through by a simple majority vote;
  • the “talking filibuster” alternative option advanced by Senators Merkley and Tom Udall was seen by many as an ineffective idea; and
  • partial bipartisan reform now may lead to more reform later.
Senator Tom Harkin

Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa and a sponsor of one of the motions to amend the filibuster rule, on the other hand, was very disappointed in this result. He said that he previously had warned President Obama that if there were no serious reform of the filibuster rule, Obama “might as well take a four-year vacation.”

Senator Merkley, one of the leaders for the speaking filibuster proposal,  said he was “disappointed with the package but noted the ‘growing momentum’ toward Senate reforms.” He “also vowed to continue pushing filibuster reforms if the Senate returns to its clogged, unproductive state of the past two years.”

The activists for reform were equally disappointed. The leader of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee said, “This is a bad decision based on fear–a decision that will ultimately hurt millions of people who would have been helped by progressive bills that the Republicans are sure to filibuster.” The political director of CREDO opined, “It looks like Senator Reid got fooled again, but sadly it’s the American people who are going to pay the price.” Another citizen reformer noted, “It changes nothing on how we move forward.” Fix the Senate Now, a coalition for reform, said it was a “missed opportunity.”

[1]  Raju & Gibson, Reid, McConnell reach Senate filibuster deal, Politico (Jan. 24, 2013); Kane, Senate leaders reach deal modifying filibuster rules, keep 60-vote hurdle, Wash. Post (Jan. 24, 2013); Slack, Obama hopeful Senate filibuster deal will pave way for meaningful action, Politico (Jan. 24, 2013); Bernstein, Why Senate reform fizzled (for now), Wash. Post (Jan. 24, 2013); Clizza, Why filibuster reform didn’t happen, Wash. Post (Jan. 24, 2013); Klein, Harry Reid:”I’m not personally, at this stage, ready to get rid of the 60-vote threshold, Wash. Post (Jan. 24, 2013); Tom Harkin: Filibuster Reform Failure Hamstrings Obama Agenda, Huff. Post (Jan. 24, 2013). The proceedings on reform of the filibuster rule are found at Cong. Rec. S247-S274 (Jan. 24, 2013).

[2] The first part of the reform was Senate Resolution 15, and its text and 76-16 roll call are found at Cong. Rec. S272 (Jan. 24, 2013).

[3] The second part of the reform was Senate Resolution 16, and its text and  86-9 roll call are found at Cong. Rec. S274 (Jan. 24, 2013).

[4] Senator Harkin’s proposal for amending the filibuster rule was defeated as was a proposed amendment to the rules offered by Senator Mike Lee (Republican of Utah). (Cong. Rec. S271 (Jan. 24, 2013).) The reform proposals offered on January 3, 2013 by Senators Tom Udall, Merkley and Lautenberg were not brought to a vote. In his remarks on the floor, Senator Carl Levin entered into the record what he described as a lengthy rebuttal of the claim that the Senate had the constitutional power to change its rules by a simple majority vote.

U.S. Senate Again Postpones Decision on Filibuster Reform

Yesterday was supposed to have been the day when the U.S. Senate would decide whether and how to reform its rules regarding the filibuster. However, it did not happen. Decision was postponed again.

The apparent reason for the delay is the desire of Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid (Democat of Nevada), to continue discussions about a possible bipartisan, compromise reform package with Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell  (Republican of Kentucky).

Manu Raju of Politico reports that the two Senators met yesterday morning on this issue. The exact details of their discussions are still unknown.[1]

But Reid apparently is pressing to eliminate filibusters preventing debate on legislation from even starting, from entering talks with the House of Representatives and from voting on certain presidential nominations, particularly district court judicial nominees. Reid also is reported to be considering requiring 41 senators to vote to sustain a filibuster, a subtle shift from the current practice that requires 60 votes to break the stalling tactic. This proposal would shift the burden on the opposing party and force the opponents to ensure all their votes are present.

McConnell, on the other hand, apparently wants to ensure that the minority has a guaranteed number of amendments if the majority chooses to speed debate. Previously Senators Carl Levin (Democrat of Michigan) and John McCain (Republican of Arizona) were leaders of a small group suggesting the minority be able to offer at least two amendments while preventing them from filibustering in a handful of situations.

After yesterday’s Senate Democratic caucus luncheon, Reid said that having the Senate decide the filibuster reform issues would be postponed 24 to 36 hours in order to allow the two leaders to continue their discussions.

However, Reid added in his public statement that if the Republicans still did not agree on this bipartisan proposal in that time period, Reid would proceed with adopting a reform measure with the so called “constitutional” or “nuclear” option whereby a simple majority of the Senate (at least 51 of the 100 Senators and all Democrats and Independents).

Yesterday afternoon Reid recessed the chamber, rather than adjourning, in order to extend the first legislative day of the session and thereby extend the time to use the “constitutional” or “nuclear” option.

In the meantime, the New York Times reiterated its editorial support for reform. It complained that over the last six years, there has been “an unprecedented abuse of the filibuster by Republicans, who have used the practice to hold up nominees high and low and require a supermajority for virtually every bill.” The newspaper also lamented that the Democrats appeared to be considering “only a few half-measures” and instead should also abolish the so called “silent filibuster.”

The Times said, “Supermajorities were never intended to be a routine legislative barrier; they should be reserved for the most momentous bills, and the best way to make that happen is to require that objectors work hard for their filibuster, assembling a like-minded coalition and being forthright about their concerns rather than hiding in the shadows or holding up a bill with an e-mailed note.”

As explained in prior posts, I agree with the Times, except I would go further and abolish the filibuster altogether.

Only Three Days Until U.S. Senate Decides on Filibuster Reform

On January 3, 2013, the U.S. Senate of the 113th Congress convenes for the first time. One of the first items of business will be adoption or amendment of its rules.

Prior posts have examined the so-called “speaking filibuster” reform proposal led by Senator Jeff Merkley of Washington State. Although I think it does not go far enough to prevent the minority Republican Senators from stopping action on the nation’s urgent business, the only way it can be adopted on January 3rd is by a simple majority vote of at least 51 Senators under the so-called “constitutional option” or “nuclear option.”[1]

This prospect last Friday prompted an even weaker reform measure from four Republican Senators (John McCain, Lamar Alexander, Jon Kyl and John Barrasso) and four Democratic Senators (Carl Levin, Chuck Schumer, Mark Pryor and Ben Cardin).

This so-called bipartisan plan’s main changes would allow the majority leader to prevent filibusters when the Senate starts debating legislation; reduce the number of filibusters when the Senate is ready to start trying to write compromise legislation with the House; ensure that each party would be allowed two amendments to each bill; and reduce the number of federal judgeships subject to filibusters, although not for top judges. This group’s proposal is not a rules change, but rather a “standing order” that would expire next term. In addition, although the proposal does not require a speaking filibuster, a document explaining the proposal said the leaders of the two parties would require it.

In order for this weaker “bipartisan” proposal to block the one from Senator Merkley, the former’s supporters have to obtain the backing of only one more Democratic Senator (in addition to the four that are its original sponsors) that would deprive Senator Merkley’s proposal of the 51 votes its needs to pass under the “constitutional option.”

One of their most promising targets for this additional vote for the weaker proposal has been Senator Dianne Feinstein, who has been reluctant to change the rules on a party-line vote because of concerns about what will happen if and when Democrats are once again in the minority. On yesterday’s “Fox News Sunday,” however, Feinstein said she is hopeful the bipartisan plan will work out, but she would not rule out the Democrats’ going it alone.

According to the Huffington Post, there are two other Democratic Senators that are possible endorsers of the more limited reform. They are Senators Baucus of Montana and Donnelly of Indiana.

Even if the “bipartisan” proposal could deprive a simple majority for the Merkley proposal, it appears doubtful that the “bipartisan” version could obtain the 67 votes it would need for adoption under the current rules requiring a two-thirds (or 67) votes to amend the rules. However, if the Merkley proposal is defeated, its backers could reluctantly support the “bipartisan” version as “something is better than nothing.”

Keep in mind that a  broad coalition of nearly 50 progressive and labor organizations that have been actively lobbying for filibuster reform have rejected the bipartisan proposal, calling it a “recipe for continued Senate gridlock.”

Watch carefully the news from the Senate on January 3rd to learn what happens.

[1] This account is based upon the following: Assoc. Press, Bipartisan Senators Propose Curbing Filibusters,  N.Y. Times (Dec. 28, 2012); Weissman, Lawmakers Suggest New Rules To Speed Up Senate Business, N.Y. Times (Dec. 28, 2012); Breaking the Filibuster, Huffington Post (Dec. 28, 2012); Johnson & Grim, John McCain, Filibuster Reform Opponents Offering Counterproposal, Huffington Post (Dec. 28, 2012); Kim & Everett, Bipartisan compromise pitched on filibuster, Politico (Dec. 28, 2012); McAuliff & Grim, Weakened Filibuster Reform Plan Revealed in Congress By John McCain, Carl Levin, Huffington Post (Dec. 28, 2012); Grim, Weak Filibuster Reform Offer Rejected By Progressive, Labor Coalition, Huffington Post (Dec. 29, 2012); Grim, Dianne Feinstein: Filibuster Reform Headed In Bipartisan Direction, But Nuclear Option Still On Table, Huffington Post (Dec. 30, 2012).

 

Update on Changing the U.S. Senate Filibuster Rule

Prior posts have discussed the internal Senate movement for reforming its filibuster rule that now requires 60 of the 100 Senators to agree to vote on the merits of most proposed legislation and confirmation of presidential appointments. Other posts have covered the pending federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of that rule.

There have been further developments on both fronts.

Internal Senate Efforts

Jeff Merkley, Democratic Senator from the State of Washington and the leader of the filibuster reform effort, is building a simple majority (at least 51 votes) for reforming the filibuster rule on January 3, 2013, when the new session of Congress opens. His basic proposal is the so-called “talking filibuster” with these major points according to his December 12, 2012 memo to fellow Senators:

  • If at least 41 Senators voted for additional debate on a legislative proposal, there would be additional debate.
  • Such additional debate would require at least one Senator to be on the floor presenting arguments on the proposal.
  • If there were no Senator present to speak to the proposal, the presiding officer would rule that extended debate was over, and the Majority Leader would schedule a simple-majority cloture vote to end all debate after an additional 30 hours of debate,

Approving such a change by a simple majority vote has been called “the nuclear option” or “the constitutional option.”

In response to a simple majority coalescing to support such a reform, some of the leading Senate Republicans (John McCain, Lamar Alexander, Jon Kyle and Lindsay Graham) are trying to convince Democratic Senators (Mark Pryor, Carl Levin and Chuck Schumer) who are reluctant to use the “nuclear” or “constitutional” option to embrace a more limited reform that could be supported by 67 Senators (the number required by the existing Senate rules). The exact nature of such a more limited reform has not been disclosed. Nor has the likelihood of enlisting 67 Senators to support such a more limited reform been assessed.

Moreover, many observers are skeptical about the ability of the “talking filibuster” proposal put forward on December 12th by Senator Markley to stop the dysfunctionality of the Senate. They point out that the proposal does nothing to prevent “holds” by individual Senators that prevent Senate action or to prevent the offering of amendments during a debate. Nor does this proposal ban filibusters on motions to proceed with consideration of a bill or nomination or require any Senator’s remarks to be germane to the matter at hand. Moreover, who doubts the willingness of the Republican Senators to talk and talk?

As we come closer to January 3rd, a failure to resolve the “fiscal cliff” stalemate may preempt attention to filibuster reform that day and politically eliminate the possibility of changing the filibuster rule by a simple majority.

Litigation over the Filibuster Rule

In May 2012 Common Cause, four members of the U.S. House of Representatives and three private citizens sued certain Senate officers. The complaint alleged that the filibuster rule was unconstitutional, and the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on various grounds.

On December 5th the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued an order asking that at the upcoming hearing on the dismissal motion the parties should be prepared to discuss all arguments set forth in the briefs and in particular to address Plaintiffs’ vote nullification theory of standing for the plaintiffs who are members of the House of Representatives.[1] The following are the parties’ arguments on that theory from their previously filed briefs:

  • According to the plaintiffs, the House member plaintiffs were in the majority when the House passed the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act (the DREAM Act) on December 8, 2010, only to have it die in the Senate when it subsequently failed to invoke cloture of the debate 55-41. So too the House member plaintiffs were in the majority when the House passed The Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections Act (the DISCLOSE Act), 219 to 206, on June 24, 2010 only to have it die in the Senate when a vote for cloture of the debate failed, 59-39 on September 23, 2010. As a result, it is contended, these plaintiffs’ legislative votes were nullified by the Senate’s filibuster rule, and they have standing to sue under Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (1997); Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 438 (1939); and D.C. Circuit cases.
  • The defendants, on the other hand, assert that the House members lack standing under Raines because they have not been individually deprived of something they are personally entitled to  and because their votes would not have been sufficient by themselves to defeat or enact a bill if they had not been nullified.

The December 10th two-hour hearing itself apparently focused on the issue of whether the plaintiffs had standing to bring the lawsuit. Judge Emmit G. Sullivan said the case raised difficult issues and at the end of the hearing asked defense counsel to submit a short brief on certain questions. Later that same day, however, the court limited the request for an additional brief to whether the court could address the political question doctrine without reaching the issue of standing.

The defendants’ supplemental brief of December 11th cited precedents from the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit holding that a federal court may address the issue of lack of justiciability under the political question doctrine without first addressing the issue of the plaintiffs’ standing to bring the lawsuit.

The next day the plaintiffs filed their supplemental brief agreeing with that legal proposition. However, they argued, the case was justiciable on the grounds of U.S. Supreme Court cases holding that rules of the Senate or the House are subject to judicial review. In short, said the plaintiffs, there was no “political question” foreclosing the courts from considering this case.

We now await the court’s ruling on the dismissal motion.

[1] Perhaps related to the standing of the Congressmen in the filibuster case is the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision to review a case challenging the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act in which a so-called “Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group” of Congressmen intervened to defend that statute, and the Supreme Court’s order for the parties in that case  to address whether or not this Group has Article III [constitutional] standing in this case.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

A Citizen’s Response to Washington Skirmishing Over Changing the U.S. Senate’s Filibuster Rule

The U.S. Senate, in my opinion, is dysfunctional. One of the major sources of this failing is its filibuster rule that at least since 2009 has made it necessary to have the votes of at least 60 of the 100 Senators in order to do almost anything. I have railed against this rule and the way it has been used in many prior posts.

In anticipation of the new Congress’ convening in early January 2013, a group of Democratic Senators is developing support for modest changes to the filibuster rule. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is supportive of this effort. The exact nature of the proposed changes apparently has not been set, but would at least include banning the filibuster on motions to take up proposed legislation for debate on the Senate floor and motions to take Senate-approved legislation to conference with the House of Representatives’ negotiators plus requiring those invoking the filibuster rule in other instances to stand up and speak on the Senate floor.[1]

Under the standing Senate rules, any amendment to the rules requires a two-thirds (67) votes. In the next session of Congress in January this would mean that all 53 Democratic Senators plus the 2 Independent  Senators plus 12 Republican Senators would have to vote in favor of any amendment.  All Washington observers agree that such a vote could not be attained for the proposed change to the filibuster rule.

Therefore, the supporters of changing the filibuster rule argue that at the start of a new session of Congress the Senate may change or adopt new rules by a simple majority vote (51).

This possibility has caused some of the Republican Senators to go apoplectic. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said adopting this proposed rule change by a simple majority vote would be like throwing “a bomb into the Senate, have it blow up, and have everybody mad as heck.” Senator John Cornyn of Texas, the incoming Republican whip, said, this would “shut down the Senate” and was an abuse of power. Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma added that it would “destroy” the Senate and cause a severe backlash. Similar comments have been made by Republican Senators John Barrasso of Wyoming, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and Senator Mike Lee of Utah. Such remarks, in my opinion, are absurd.

There are even some Democratic Senators who have expressed opposition or skepticism about changing the rules by a simple majority vote. Senator Carl Levin of Michigan said he preferred “not to use a mechanism which I believe is dubious.” Senator Bill Nelson of Florida said he did not like the simple majority-vote option.  Newly re-elected Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri stated that although she fully supported changing the rule, she was “not 100 percent in support” of the simple-majority-vote approach to doing do. Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii merely said he was studying the proposal. In addition, Democratic Senator-Elect Joe Donnelly of Indiana said he was concerned about not protecting the things that make the Senate unique.

Much of this Democratic opposition or skepticism is the concern that someday they will be in the minority and wanting to block Republican proposals. However, this concern implicitly endorses eternal stalemate and the current Republican agenda of opposing most federal government action.

What then can U.S. citizens do to support changing the filibuster rule? I propose the following:

  1. Sign the electronic petition supporting the change.
  2. Write an email or letter to the Senators and Senators-Elect who are the initiators of the petition thanking them for doing so: Jeff Merkley, Tom Udall, Kirsten Gillibrand, Tom Harkin, Amy Klobuchar, Jeanne Shaheen and Elizabeth Warren.
  3. Write to other Senators and Senators-Elect (Angus King, Maria Cantwell, Tammy Baldwin, Martin Heinrich, Mazie Hirono, Tim Kaine and Chris Murphy) who have publicly stated the need for changing the rule and urge them to join the petition campaign.
  4. Write to Majority Leader Harry Reid and urge him to press forward with changing the rule by a simple majority vote.
  5. Write to Democratic Senators (Carl Levin, Bill Nelson, Claire McCaskill and Daniel Inouye) and Senator-Elect Joe Donnelly who have expressed opposition or skepticism about the simple-majority-vote approach and urge them to change their minds and support this approach for the filibuster rule.
  6. Write to the Senators from your State and urge them to support changing the filibuster rule by a simple majority vote.
  7. Write letters to the editors of newspapers and express your support for this effort.

Contact information, including email forms, for current Senators is available on the web. You will have to search for similar information for Senators-Elect.

[1] The recent developments discussed in this post are drawn from the following sources: Noah, Die, Filibuster, Die, New Republic (Nov. 16, 2012), http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/magazine/110215/die-filibuster-die;Weisman, The Senate’s Long Slide to Gridlock, N.Y. Times (Nov. 24, 2012), http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/25/us/politics/new-senates-first-task-will-likely-be-trying-to-fix-itself.html?hp&_r=1&pagewanted=print&;Raju, GOP warns of shutdown over filibuster, Politico (Nov. 25, 2012), http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=ACE6831F-56E7-419A-8137-85D3D3E7BF5E; McAuliff, Mitch McConnell: Filibuster Fight Is An Unnecessary “Bomb” in the Senate, Huffington Post (Nov. 27, 2012), http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/27/mitch-mcconnell-filibuster_n_2200494.html?utm_hp_ref=politics; Bernstein, No, Republican obstruction isn’t because Harry Reid is mean to them,  Wash. Post (Nov. 27, 2012), http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/no-republican-obstruction-isnt-because-harry-reid-is-mean-to-them/2012/11/27/232d2276-38dc-11e2-9258-ac7c78d5c680_blog.html; Collins, Happy Talking, N.Y. Times (Nov. 28, 2012), http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/29/opinion/collins-Happy-Talking.html?pagewanted=print; Steinhauer, Resistance on Method for Curbing Filibuster, N.Y. Times (Nov. 28, 2012), http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/29/us/politics/method-for-curbing-filibuster-faces-resistance.html?pagewanted=print.

Miniscule Suggested Reform of the Dysfunctional U.S. Senate Rules

The U.S. Senate Rules, in my opinion, are an embarrassing blot on our democracy.

Just this week two Senators, Democrat Carl Levin and Republican Lamar Alexander, agreed that the Senate was “dysfunctional, gridlocked and broken.” They pointed out that the current Senate Rules require, at most steps of the legislative process, agreement from all 100 senators; absent unanimous agreement, the Rules entail a time-consuming process that requires a supermajority of 60 senators to move forward.

Levin and Alexander then proposed a revised rule that  would allow the majority leader to bring a bill to the floor for a vote without the 60-vote process on condition that the bill would be open to all relevant amendments, but not to non-relevant amendments.

Any change to the Senate Rules to reduce or eliminate the ability of one Senator to block consideration of important matters is better than none. But this proposed change is too miniscule as is true for other suggested reforms on this subject in recent years.

Instead I advocate more significant changes.

  • First, the Senate should operate by majority rule except where the Constitution requires a supermajority (two-thirds) vote for (a) overriding a presidential veto or (b) consenting to the ratification of treaties or (c) proposing constitutional amendments or (d) expelling a member.
  • Second, the Senate should have weighted voting so that a Senator from a more populous state would have more clout than a Senator from a sparsely populated state. For example, a Senator from Wyoming (the least populous state) would have one vote while a Senator from California (the most populous state) would have 66 votes.

Such significant changes would recognize that in a democracy the wishes of the majority of the people should be the fundamental governing principle (except when the Constitution otherwise provides) and that our primary allegiance is as U.S. citizens, not citizens of 50 states.