The filibuster rule in the U.S. Senate, which gained notoriety two years ago for nearly preventing health care reform, could very well be getting a makeover in 2011.
Last week, Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley and New Mexico Sen. Tom Udall introduced a proposal that, if passed, will reduce the strength and frequency of the rule.
The filibuster only exists in the Senate, not the House of Representatives, and makes it possible for a small group of senators to demand a 60-vote majority before debate over a bill can come to an end. Traditionally, senators have only resorted to using it on extremely controversial bills, but the partisanship of the last two decades has changed that. According to Senate records, there have been more filibusters since 2006 than the total between 1920 and 1980.
“The very nature of the Senate is about preserving the capacity of minority opinions, and the filibuster is a reflection of that.” said Daniel HoSang, a University political science professor. “But absent bipartisan cooperation, the filibuster just becomes obstructionist. These days, the standard is unless there are 60 votes, no bill can move out of the Senate.”
The Merkley-Udall proposal offers a number of changes that will tweak the filibuster to make it less of a roadblock for legislation. For example, it would require senators to once again openly carry on their filibusters on the Senate floor. The so-called “talking filibuster” used to be a fundamental requirement, but in recent years it has become less of an obligation for senators.
“Today, a senator can bring the Senate to a halt without ever having to actually appear on the floor,” Courtney Warner Crowell, a spokesperson for Sen. Merkley, said. “The Senate needs to address this dysfunction and others, and put common sense rules in place to restore accountability to the filibuster.”
The proposal would also extradite the nomination process for federal court judgeships. Although filibusters over nominations are defeated far more often, the process is routinely delayed by lengthy debate — up to 30 hours — after each filibuster defeat. At present, there are more than 90 vacant seats out of the 858 federal courts across the country, and last session saw the lowest number of confirmed nominees in 30 years.
The provisions of the Merkley-Udall act will continue to be debated over the next three weeks. As it stands, all 53 Democratic senators committed last December to support filibuster reform, but not all have specifically endorsed the Merkley-Udall proposal. Most Republican senators continue to oppose the idea, saying it is an attempt by frustrated Democrats to change the system in their favor.
Ironically, filibuster reform could actually pose more harm to Democrats than good, at least in the near future. In the midterm elections, Republicans won control of the House of Representatives and therefore would be able to block legislation they oppose even without a filibuster. Moreover, although Democrats have a Senate majority, some in their party have voted alongside Republicans in the past.
However, for most this proposal comes down to long-term changes, not short-term goals.
“In the larger scheme of things, the filibuster rule doesn’t benefit any party in particular because majorities fluctuate over time.” John Davidson, a University political science professor, said. “In the short term, it will probably work to the disadvantage of the Democrats, but I don’t think anyone should be concerned with the short-term when dealing with institutions.”
Senators will need to reach a decision on filibuster reform by Jan. 24, the first legislative day of the new Congress. After that, changes to Senate rules will not be allowed until the start of the next session in 2013.
[email protected]