2021 US Senate Composition. Loomis/Sayles https://www.advisorperspectives.com/images/content_image/data/7b/7b6b6b002b68f3db2439165fc33d5cc5.png
Not surprisingly, Democratic politicians and strategists have framed their efforts to overcome the Senate filibuster to further their agenda. A filibuster is a delaying tactic to prevent a vote from being taken on a bill. Once a simple majority of a Senate committee (50 percent plus 1) approves of a bill, it goes to the floor for a vote by the entire Senate. If a simple majority of the Senate approves of the bill, it becomes law. Before the Senate votes on the bill, it can be debated and debated. The debate continues until some number of Senators vote to end the debate and vote on the bill. The number of votes needed to end debate is set by rules on which the Senators also vote. The number of votes necessary to end debate is 60, 10 more than the Democrats are likely to muster.
Most Democratic Senators would like to see the number of Senators needed to end a debate reduced to a simple majority. This reduction in the number of Senators required to end a debate would follow a trend started in 1975. Then the number of votes was changed from 67 to 60. Senators rationalized this change as necessary because it was too difficult to get 67 votes to end a filibuster.
Most Democratic Senators would like to see the number of Senators needed to end a debate reduced to a simple majority. This reduction in the number of Senators required to end a debate would follow a trend started in 1975. Then the number of votes was changed from 67 to 60. Senators rationalized this change as necessary because it was too difficult to get 67 votes to end a filibuster.
Of course, Democrats cannot achieve their agenda because it takes 60 votes to end a filibuster. But the reason for changing the number is broader than the Democratic congressional agenda. Even though this Democratic agenda includes issues with which overwhelming majorities of voters agree including background checks for gun purchases, citizenship status for young people who entered the U.S. unlawfully as minors, and measures to alleviate and mitigate climate change. Besides the overwhelming public support these initiatives enjoy, most analysts and experts cite their important for the welfare of the country. Moreover, Republicans have not presented any counter proposals to address the issues the Democratic proposals are intended to solve.
The filibuster is anti-majoritarian. The founding fathers knew it was anti-democratic and tried to limit its use. The idea of a majority rule permeates the Constitution. Legislating in both the House and Senate assumes majority rule except in five specific instances. (The Congress added two additional instances with the 14th and 25th amendments.) Not only is the simple majority exalted as the primary way to pass legislation in the Constitution, but some scholars also believe the filibuster, which did not exist until 1806, is unconstitutional.
Support for the filibuster was directly related to most Southerners' fears that the more numerous anti-slavery Senators would abolish slavery without the filibuster. Although the filibuster could not stop Civil War and thus ending slavery, it was used primarily by southerners to maintain lynching and anti-black Jim Crow practices from 1877 to 1964. Despite this filibuster history, there is virtually no chance of getting 10 Republican Senators to vote to end it. Indeed, it is unlikely that all 50 Democratic Senators are willing to end it.
Among Senators who support the filibuster arguments vary from fictionalized accounts of how it came about to unsupported claims about its benefits. For example, some Senators assert that the filibuster should remain because the founding fathers inserted it into Senate rules. And some Senators also assert that the filibuster promotes discussion and compromise. Both claims are demonstrably false. Some scholars argue that a simple majority is more likely to lead to discussion than a supermajority because more senators are available (49) to reach compromise positions.
As inconsistent as the filibuster is to democratic government, there is another reason for doing away with it. Senators use the presence of the filibuster to prevent the passage of laws that would curtail efforts to deny voting access. For at least the last 20 years, Republicans have used increasingly strenuous efforts to deny voters access to the polls. While these efforts have centered on voters of color, they affect anyone likely to vote for Democrats, including young whites, the disabled, and poor whites. The measures include tricks such as whispering campaigns that the police will arrest voters in certain precincts, having illegal poll watchers intimidate voters, and publishing the wrong dates of elections or addresses of polling places. More recently, Republicans have used additional efforts to make it harder for Democratic voters to access the polls. These measures have included illegal purges of voter lists, restricting the number of voting machines and polling places, limiting the hours in which polls are open, and restricting the time for early voting and the availability of absentee ballots. These efforts have persisted despite voting rights being the cornerstone of democracy.
Now, the filibuster is hamstringing efforts to equalize access to voting; Republicans are using it to destroy democracy. Following Donald Trump and his followers' attempt to violently overthrow our government on January 6, six states have passed broad laws that allow Republican-dominated legislatures to overturn the voters' choice in elections. Texas is currently in the process of passing a similar law. The only way to quash these laws and prevent others from being instated is by bypassing federal laws. Senators who favor the filibuster are, in effect, preventing the passage of these laws. Unless enough Senators can remove the filibuster, democracy in the United States is almost certain to be replaced by the type of government in Hungary and Russia: illiberal democracy or electoral autocracy. What an ignominious end to the American experiment.
The filibuster is anti-majoritarian. The founding fathers knew it was anti-democratic and tried to limit its use. The idea of a majority rule permeates the Constitution. Legislating in both the House and Senate assumes majority rule except in five specific instances. (The Congress added two additional instances with the 14th and 25th amendments.) Not only is the simple majority exalted as the primary way to pass legislation in the Constitution, but some scholars also believe the filibuster, which did not exist until 1806, is unconstitutional.
Support for the filibuster was directly related to most Southerners' fears that the more numerous anti-slavery Senators would abolish slavery without the filibuster. Although the filibuster could not stop Civil War and thus ending slavery, it was used primarily by southerners to maintain lynching and anti-black Jim Crow practices from 1877 to 1964. Despite this filibuster history, there is virtually no chance of getting 10 Republican Senators to vote to end it. Indeed, it is unlikely that all 50 Democratic Senators are willing to end it.
Among Senators who support the filibuster arguments vary from fictionalized accounts of how it came about to unsupported claims about its benefits. For example, some Senators assert that the filibuster should remain because the founding fathers inserted it into Senate rules. And some Senators also assert that the filibuster promotes discussion and compromise. Both claims are demonstrably false. Some scholars argue that a simple majority is more likely to lead to discussion than a supermajority because more senators are available (49) to reach compromise positions.
As inconsistent as the filibuster is to democratic government, there is another reason for doing away with it. Senators use the presence of the filibuster to prevent the passage of laws that would curtail efforts to deny voting access. For at least the last 20 years, Republicans have used increasingly strenuous efforts to deny voters access to the polls. While these efforts have centered on voters of color, they affect anyone likely to vote for Democrats, including young whites, the disabled, and poor whites. The measures include tricks such as whispering campaigns that the police will arrest voters in certain precincts, having illegal poll watchers intimidate voters, and publishing the wrong dates of elections or addresses of polling places. More recently, Republicans have used additional efforts to make it harder for Democratic voters to access the polls. These measures have included illegal purges of voter lists, restricting the number of voting machines and polling places, limiting the hours in which polls are open, and restricting the time for early voting and the availability of absentee ballots. These efforts have persisted despite voting rights being the cornerstone of democracy.
Now, the filibuster is hamstringing efforts to equalize access to voting; Republicans are using it to destroy democracy. Following Donald Trump and his followers' attempt to violently overthrow our government on January 6, six states have passed broad laws that allow Republican-dominated legislatures to overturn the voters' choice in elections. Texas is currently in the process of passing a similar law. The only way to quash these laws and prevent others from being instated is by bypassing federal laws. Senators who favor the filibuster are, in effect, preventing the passage of these laws. Unless enough Senators can remove the filibuster, democracy in the United States is almost certain to be replaced by the type of government in Hungary and Russia: illiberal democracy or electoral autocracy. What an ignominious end to the American experiment.