Changing the filibuster (from a Dutch word for ‘pirate’)

 Bill Knight column for 9-23, 24 or 25, 2021

 Anticipating and preventing a filibuster took considerable effort by bipartisan negotiators who achieved a 69-30 Senate approval of a $550 billion infrastructure bill, and now senators and President Biden are scrambling to pass voting rights. Amy Klobucher (D-Minn.) and James Clyburn (D-S.C.), respectively, are substituting the compromise Freedom to Vote Act for the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, and are pushing for a filibuster exception to voting rights.

Government must either preserve Americans’ right to vote or the filibuster (derived from a Dutch word for “pirate,” appropriately).

What the ding-dang-deal is a filibuster, you think? It’s one senator’s objection preventing action. To be considered, bills must have a 3/5 supermajority, so 41 out of 100 senators can block bills. (An exception: In 1974, the “budget reconciliation” procedure was adopted enabling measures to be considered IF all parts of a bill significantly involve federal revenue or spending, as determined by the parliamentarian.)

Filibusters were the way Southern Senators protected the “Southern Way of Life” (slavery or segregation) by defeating civil-rights bills, but more recently Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell has used the mechanism to derail things he’s opposed.

At first, the Senate ran by letting members “move the previous question” to vote, but that rule was rarely used and dropped in 1806, but that meant there was no way to end debate, accidentally creating a filibuster.

In the 1800s, Sen. John Calhoun of South Carolina was a “vehement racist [who] wanted to preserve slavery,” according to Adam Jentleson, author of “Kill Switch: The Rise of the Modern Senate and the Crippling of American Democracy.” And by the 1920s – despite 70% popular support and backing by presidents of both parties – filibusters killed anti-lynching and anti-poll tax bills.

“From the 87 years between Reconstruction until 1964, the only legislation against which the filibuster was deployed was civil-rights legislation,” Jentleson said.

Founder Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 22 criticized supermajority rules, writing, “Its real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of the government, and to substitute the pleasure, caprice, or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent, or corrupt junto, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority.”

Once, it may have been a way to limit majorities from steamrolling legislation, offering minorities some influence, and its defenders, such as conservative Democrats Joe Manchin (W. Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (Ariz.), claim it forces compromise. Others say it creates obstructionism.

 “It’s time to change the Senate rules and stop holding this Senate hostage,” Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin said.

Change is possible, too. It’s a rule; 51 votes could change it. Senate rules set a simple majority for approval; the filibuster betrays that.

It’s been modified before. It’s no longer like the “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” movie scene. Talking is no longer required; just announcing an objection stops everything. It’s easy now.

“When Mitch McConnell became Leader, he began using the filibuster at a rate never been seen before,” Jentleson said. “That is a huge reason why we see such gridlock in Washington.”

Also, the Senate changed filibustering in 2013 (for nominations) and 2017 (for Supreme Court appointments).

Today, what makes change so vital is voter-suppression threats in 30 laws passed in 18 states, according to the Brennan Center for Justice.

“Although the filibuster had historically been used to block progress on civil rights,” said Knox College grad John Podesta, founder and chair of the Center for American Progress, “it also seemed to promote debate, so long as Senate minorities were working in good faith with the majority, finding honorable compromise where possible.

“With the pressures of near-constant electioneering, 24-hour news, and increased political polarization, it has become clear that assessment no longer holds. Instead of promoting debate and compromise, … the filibuster has in recent years become a tool of the minority to block legislation on nearly every major issue facing our nation.”

Repealing the filibuster rule would eliminate Congress’s inability to take action, and help Republicans advance their agenda when they retake the Senate.

“Passing labor-law reform, voter-protection legislation, and the Build Back Better investment,” said AFL-CIO president Liz Shuler, “we need democracy in the U.S. Senate.”

If the Senate drops or at least limits the filibuster, debate would be restored, negotiations could happen, and bipartisanship could occur.

Again, the choice, Jentleson said, is “between reforming the rules or getting nothing done.”