In truth, I hadn’t planned a fourth segment. But when I turned to Friday’s New York Times editorial page, this headline called to me: “Save Democracy: Kill the Filibuster.”
So even though the filibuster has been discussed in the first three parts of this series, how could I ignore this piece? It sorta felt this was the right place to rest the series—at least for now. (And a four-part series has a kind of nice symmetry to me.)
I don’t think I’ve sufficiently stressed previously that there’s nothing sacrosanct about the filibuster. It doesn’t appear in the Constitution. The founders sought to balance majority rule and minority rights.
They did so in a number of ways—including the establishment of a House of Representatives whose numbers were based on population and a Senate whose numbers were set at two per state—regardless of the number of individuals in a state.
But they never mentioned a supermajority. And that’s what the filibuster demands.
The Times editorial points out that the Constitution’s framers included no supermajority requirement because they saw that this approach had essentially brought governing under the Articles of Confederation to a halt.
Indeed, Alexander Hamilton wrote (Federalist 22), “What at first sight may seem a remedy is, in reality, a poison.” He feared such a supermajority requirement would be used to “embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of the government, and to substitute the pleasure, caprice or artifices” of a minority to the “regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority.”
The filibuster has been used, abused, and changed a number of times over the years. There have been varying recent suggestions about ways to curtail it that might meet the objections of Senators Manchin and Sinema, who are the Democratic holdouts.
Though I believe the elimination of this archaic rule is optimal, it’s worth exploring some compromises.
Manchin has even said he’d consider inflicting some “pain” into the process to make it less desirable. He suggested the “talking filibuster”: actually requiring a Senator to stand up and continue speaking to hold off the vote for as long as possible.
The most famous talking filibuster was conducted by South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond in opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1957. (Filibusters have often been used to oppose civil rights legislation.)
Thurmond spoke on the Senate floor for 24 hours and 18 minutes. If he and his purpose weren’t so heinous, I’d be tempted to express grudging respect for his perseverance.
Which of the likely Republican opponents can you imagine displaying such stamina? Rand Paul? Josh Hawley? Ron Johnson? Lindsey Graham? Certainly Mitch McConnell wouldn’t dabble with such a messy effort.
Oh, there’s Ted Cruz, who seems inordinately delighted by the sound of his own voice. Cruz actually did stage a 21-hour filibuster in 2013 in opposition to funding Obamacare. (Not-so-fun fact: part of his verbal barrage was reading from Dr. Seuss’s Green Eggs and Ham—nearly 8 years before his party latched on to Dr. Seuss as their “Cancel Culture” icon.)
One recent idea for a filibuster modification was suggested by former Senator Al Franken and political scientist Norman Ornstein, who co-authored an opinion piece in the Star Tribune.
When Franken was in the Senate, he’d noticed the extent to which his Republican colleagues were abusing the filibuster to stop President Obama’s nominees from being confirmed.
The problem with the filibuster had worsened in 1975—ironically, through a bipartisan agreement. Formerly, 2/3 of the Senators had to be present and voting to end debate and move to a vote.
But in 1975, the Senate changed that percentage to 3/5 of the Senate, or 60 votes. With the change, only a few members of the minority had to be there, putting the onus on the majority.
Franken wondered why the Democratic majority had to come up with 60 votes to end the filibuster. “Why don’t they [the Republicans] have to come up with 41 votes to sustain a filibuster?” He posed that question to Ornstein.
With such a change, Franken and Ornstein agreed, the burden would be where it belonged: if the minority felt strongly enough about a particular issue, they should surely agree with this adaptation of the filibuster rule.
Here are some additional ways to reform the filibuster, provided by Vox in a lengthy article that goes into greater detail on each of these proposals and provides additional background on this topic:
“Make fewer bills subject to the filibuster: The Senate can create carveouts and exempt certain matters from the filibuster altogether, as it does with bills subject to the reconciliation process.
[I note that this is what Rep. Jim Clyburn is suggesting should be done with any legislation involving voting rights, rightfully acknowledging their central role in our democracy.]
“Reduce the power of individual rogue senators: The Senate could make it harder to initiate a filibuster. Right now, unanimous consent is required to hold a vote without invoking the time-consuming cloture process. But the rules could be changed to allow an immediate vote unless a larger bloc of senators — perhaps two or five or 10 — objected to such a vote, instead of just one.
“Make it easier to break a filibuster: The Senate could reduce the number of votes necessary to invoke cloture. This could be done as an across-the-board reform, like the 1975 change to the filibuster rule that reduced the cloture threshold from 67 to 60. Or it could be done by creating a carveout for certain matters, such as the 2013 and 2017 reforms that allowed presidential nominees to be confirmed by a simple majority vote.
“Reduce or eliminate the time it takes to invoke cloture: The Senate could reduce the amount of time necessary to invoke cloture and conduct a final vote. This could be done by allowing a swifter vote on a cloture petition, by reducing or eliminating the time devoted to post-closure debate, or both.”
I consider all the above last resort options if there’s simply no way to bring along Manchin and Sinema. But I hope they’re not necessary. The growing list of prominent individuals who have said the filibuster per se must go includes former President Obama.
Fittingly, Obama expressed his opposition while delivering the eulogy for Congressman John Lewis, and it couldn’t be more relevant to consider his words as the House and Senate consider the two voting rights acts.
The New York Times reported then:
“The former president seized the moment to cast the filibuster as a vestige of a grim period in the United States when Southern lawmakers used it to impede voting rights and other advances for African-Americans.
“Once we pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, we should keep marching. And if all this takes eliminating the filibuster — another Jim Crow relic — in order to secure the God-given rights of every American, then that’s what we should do.”
The Times editorial that prompted me to write this post also begins with voting rights legislation:
“It is hard to imagine a more fitting job for Congress than for members to join together to pass a broadly popular law that makes democracy safer, stronger and more accessible to all Americans.
“Last week, the House of Representatives passed H.R.1. The bill, a similar version of which the House passed in 2019, is a comprehensive and desperately needed set of reforms that would strengthen voting rights and election security, ban partisan gerrymandering, reduce big money in politics and establish ethics codes for Supreme Court justices, the president and other executive branch officials.
The editorial then warns what will happen federally if H.R.1 (now S.1 in the Senate) doesn’t pass: the further undemocratic entrenchment of the Republican minority, as in states like Wisconsin and North Carolina. Despite the fact that Republicans win fewer votes than Democrats, their gerrymandered control leads to maps that give them big legislative majorities.
And the editorial points to the Roberts Supreme Court’s decisions that have had the effect of encouraging voting restrictions, as previously noted in this series, as reasons the legislative passage is so important.
“Any intellectual justification for the filibuster has been gutted by the fact that it doesn’t apply anymore to many important issues before the Senate.
“The point of H.R.1 is not to help Democrats. It is to rebuild and reinforce the crumbling foundations of American self-government and abolish voter restrictions erected for explicitly partisan gain — a federal law that would protect all voters. If the choice is between saving the filibuster and saving democracy, it should be an easy call.”
With that, the Times Editorial Board rests its case. And so do I.
14 thoughts on “SAVING OUR DEMOCRACY, PART 4 (and the last on this subject for now)”
Thank you, Annie, for this 4th article!
And thank you for citing the Federalist Papers!
I was just mentioning to someone one of the Federalist papers (57, I think) in a discussion on political parties, in a comment on one of my recent posts, but I forget which, sorry, and was reminded that that long on-going discussion is also an important part of our founding documents. Which I need to read in their entirety, some day.
LikeLiked by 3 people
You’re welcome, Shira. Sounds like a task worth doing!
LikeLiked by 2 people
To tell you the truth Annie I don’t really understand the whole filibuster thing. If it is a just mechanism to delay the vote, which will pass eventually, then what does it achieve in the long run? Is it something written in the Constitution?
LikeLiked by 1 person
No, Joni. No filibuster in the Constitution. That’s the point. I have a neat quotation in there from Alexander Hamilton explaining why the founders thought requiring a supermajority would stop govt from functioning. It should just be a majority vote: 50 plus one.
The idea of the filibuster, which has its roots in slavery, was to protect the minority by giving it a say, but in fact it can bring government to a halt (which is actually what the Republicans want to do anyway, for the most part). But since there are so many state efforts now to suppress the vote, I think there will have to be some kind of compromise, or the Democrats will agree to get rid of it. The right to vote is so basic to our democracy that they have to pass protective legislation —especially knowing that in their midst are Senators who tried to throw the election to trump even after the insurrection in which they and their colleagues might have been killed.
It’s so strange to have this administration running things so smoothly and really showing how good government can improve people’s lives—at the same time that these crazy people are determined to end our democracy. Truly bizarre.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks for explaining that Annie. What strange times we are living in…..so many things don’t make sense anymore….and how a democracy could even want to suppression the right to vote is surely among the strangest! I’m enjoying the new improved drama-free White House, even if it does make for less exciting news on CNN. I swear every day of Trumps ‘presidency was taken up with some drama or other…..and if there wasn’t one he created one…..a definite sign of his clinical diagnosis!
Excellent series! I’m not sure how I’ve managed to do it but I appear (fingers crossed) to be finally following you again.
Than you, Sheree. And hooray—hope this connection lasts!
Excellent series, indeed. I find this complicated enough that I should really sit down and read all four posts again. Especially on that filibuster. Thanks for laying it out.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you, Denise! I really appreciate your support. I wish the filibuster talk were more encouraging right now.
Annie, gerrymandering is the savior of the South. You need to include Georgia in your role call of states using gerrymandering to hold on to state control. It took 3 changes to the Augusta district to beat the last remaining white Democrat Representative from Georgia, John Barrow. They are at it again while they control all 3 levels of the state government. Hold your hats. This is for real!!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I know, Dennis. They’re up to all sorts of “bad trouble.” But there’s Stacey and Fair Fight and some very smart women working on the business community. They performed a couple of miracles already—actually saving our democracy. I’m hoping for more where those came from.
Just finished your ‘Saving Democracy’ series. Fantastic, Annie. I had thought an inherent part of a filibuster was the continuous speaking component so thanks for setting me right. Also LOVED the Ted Cruz anecdote about Dr Seuss before it was turned upon – such irony!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks so much, Matthew. One of the changes they’re talking about is requiring the filibuster to be RELEVANT to the topic at hand. That would at least be refreshing, though I still think it’s gotta go…