Don’t Eliminate the Filibuster. Reform It.

Instead of using it always or never, let it be used sometimes and selectively.

By and
59



(Photograph by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images.)

The Senate’s power-sharing agreement, key to proceeding with the Biden Administration’s agenda, has finally been resolved after Mitch McConnell dropped his demand for a guarantee that Chuck Schumer won’t scrap the legislative filibuster.

Schumer knows the benefits to his caucus that come with the threat of eliminating the filibuster, and many prominent Democrats have called for the legislative filibuster go the way of the judicial filibuster, which was partially eliminated in 2013 by Democratic Sen. Harry Reid and then eliminated entirely in 2017 by McConnell.

Completely eliminating the legislative filibuster is a shortsighted policy that overlooks legitimate concerns about a majority party becoming a legislative steamroller, passing seismic bills on thin majorities in a sharply divided country.

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
59
By and
Comments (59)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Davechauncey

    I think it is simple: if you are going to filibuster then you must actually sit on the floor and talk. In all honesty, the Senate Democrats could force that issue if they want but they prefer not to waste the time as well. That's what has created the current system of a senator saying they will filibuster and it blocking legislation completely: laziness and not wanting to deal with it.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Jonathan Crymes

    This reform seems easy to game. Like slightly modifying and re-introducing a bill until the filibusters are used up. Glad to see the debate and the argument engages though.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    David Chen

    "Good Faith" is the key phrase here, and there isn't much of it in America or DC.

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Victor Clairmont

    The filibuster is safe as long as Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin oppose it.

    I said the day after The Morning Dispatch after the runoff Georgia election, that Joe Manchin just became the most powerful swing vote senator.

    I was riiiiiiiiiiight.

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    BrettH

    It’s a nice thought but I doubt there’s any chance for reform. How you can even filibuster without being on the senate floor is such a joke.

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    PC Albright

    Not sure setting a limit on the number of filibusters is a good idea, and seems ripe for gaming. Here's another idea---how about requiring the filibuster to only apply when a Senator is actually speaking and holding the floor á la Mr Smith goes to Washington?

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Pat Riot

    Since we're playing "what if" with the Senate, here's my proposal on how to fix what is clearly an unsustainable situation with its ridiculous skew against democracy.

    My proposal is that senators from more popular states get number of votes loosely based on the state's population, skewing the Senate toward a more population-based system but not making it fully like the House--and keeping the Senate with the same number of Senators as there are now (so we wouldn't have to buy them a new place to sit and all of that).

    Here's how it would work.

    We would give each senator extra a vote for every five million in their state's population, rounded to the nearest five million.

    In other words, a state with >2.5m would round to 1 extra, a state with <2.5m would round to zero extra, a state with 6m would round to 1 extra, 8m would round to 2 extra, and so on.

    Hence states with populations under 2.5 million get one vote per senator like they do now, but states like Texas (pop. 25m) get 5+1=6 votes each, Ohio (pop. 11m) 2+1=3 votes each, and so on.

    In this scenario (yes, I spreadsheeted it, I'm insane), the Senate would entail a total of 222 votes, 111 needed for a majority, 133 to break a filibuster, and 148 votes to impeach the president.

    Based on the current breakdown, the current Senate would have 118 D votes and 104 R votes, which would be closer to the population breakdown, but still not enough D votes to break a filibuster or impeach.

    (Interestingly enough, if you made the Senate absolutely population based--by switching out the 5m number to "1", the Democrats *still* would only have 57% of the votes in the Senate e.g. not enough to break a filibuster or impeach).

    Obviously this would require a Constitutional amendment and would never pass in our current partisan breakdown, but an interesting thought experiment nonetheless.

    Collapse
  8. Fudrock

    Thank you for this. It's not a perfect solution, but it's a start. The louder the chorus insisting that this institution be reformed as opposed to abolished the better. As it stands, it is broken and abused. Chuck Todd had an interesting exploration on filibuster reform on his podcast from a thinker on the left. Again, refreshing to hear ideas about reform, as opposed to the expected clamoring on the left salivating to re-enact their agenda. Sadly, most of those proposing reform aren't in Congress. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/filibuster-gop-kasie-hunt-nathan-gonzales-adam-jentleson/id1156592336?i=1000506909932

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    rlritt

    I totally agree. The Senate's job is to negotiate the best for the country. It should never be my way or no way.

    Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Tricia Stevenson

    Just wondering why no one brings up the most basic reform of all for the filibuster: Senators would actually have to DO it. No more "threatening" to filibuster; you must speak and not yield until cloture is invoked. I have a sense that would make it a more serious legislative action, and would make it a more rarity, only used in exceptional situations.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      VladimusPrime

      Out of curiosity, If some one stands up to speak and refuses to yield the floor, and they just let him go for 24 hours until they pass out from dehydration or whatever...then the chamber can just pass the bill anyway no? I mean it takes an extra 24 hours right, but so what? Is there a time limit on how long a bill has before it needs to be passed to be valid? To me it seems the catch right now is that you need 61 votes to end debate. So you tell senator so and so to cram it. Hold the the vote, and if you don't have 61 to move to the up and down vote there is no need to speak. Do you not have to have the 61 votes to end debate if you give every Senator as much time as they want to speak in one standing? Maybe that should be the rule. IF every senator get a chance to stand up and debate, and they all speak or abstain. Then the bill just moves to an up or down vote. And so if 40 senators hate a bill and they wish to stop it they can each take 20 hours or so in a row to speak and grind the congressional session to a halt, until some one move to withdraw the bill or they all get to have their say. That way if you really want to pass something over their objections you have to take like a month to let them bloviate until they have to be taken to the hospital. It would be slow, but on the otherhand most Senators are over 70 I doubt they would have the stamina to hold such a spectacle, and if they did God willing many would suffer serious medical problems from it. If you are willing to talk yourself to death to stop a 3% increase in the marginal tax rate people should be forced to take note. And if you are not, then maybe it isn't that serious.

      Frankly I think they should just institute trial by combat to end debate, each side chooses a champion, and they fight to the death. The winner get to decide whether the bill goes to a vote or is tables. This will also have the benefit of creating more turnover among incumbents. Also Committee chairmanships should be decided by fight to KO.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        rlritt

        Do you think it could be televised?

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          VladimusPrime

          Yes, but they will have to be filmed exclusively on VHS handheld devices, for that authentic Boyfights look.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            rlritt

            Ha ha. I'd pay good money to see that.

            Collapse
Load More