With the disaster in the Senate on Thursday, when Republicans proved yet again that they will not easily give up their discriminatory ways, the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell was aborted when it failed to pass a vote on cloture. The New York Times howled on Friday that The Senate Stands for Injustice, but this event really was just one more in a long string of aborted votes in the Senate that are bringing it increasingly closer to gridlock. Both parties have been guilty of this obstructionism over the years, but at least in terms of failed cloture motions, the past four years, with Democrats in the majority and Republicans aborting as many votes as they can, have seen these Senate abortions sail to an all-time high. It should be possible to put the Senate back to work actually debating and then having simple majority votes on passage of bills rather than aborting any votes on them. Let’s also eliminate the back alley vote abortions embodied in “holds” on legislation and limit total blockage attempts to no more than 10 for each caucus in a two year session.
Here is the Senate historian on how and when the current cloture rule came into being:
In 1841, when the Democratic minority hoped to block a bank bill promoted by Kentucky Senator Henry Clay, he threatened to change Senate rules to allow the majority to close debate. Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton rebuked Clay for trying to stifle the Senate’s right to unlimited debate.
Three quarters of a century later, in 1917, senators adopted a rule (Rule 22), at the urging of President Woodrow Wilson, that allowed the Senate to end a debate with a two-thirds majority vote, a device known as “cloture.” The new Senate rule was first put to the test in 1919, when the Senate invoked cloture to end a filibuster against the Treaty of Versailles.
Later, this rule was amended so that the current three-fifths, or sixty votes, is needed to invoke cloture.
The history of cloture motions and their passage is recorded here. I have converted the data on the Senate page into the graph above, where “Aborted Votes” are obtained by subtracting the number of times cloture was invoked from the number of cloture motions filed during a particular two year session in the Senate.
However, if we are to extend the vote abortion analogy even further, then the aborted votes in the graph represent votes aborted in clean, professionally run clinics. Sadly, many other votes in the Senate suffer back alley abortions (cloakroom abortions, in this case?), when legislation is abandoned or a Presidential nomination is never brought up for a vote because one or more Senators places a hold or even just threatens to do so. This process also has become extremely common practice, with one horrible result being the huge number of judicial positions that sit unfilled.
Rather than jumping all the way to the “nuclear option” of removing the filibuster entirely, I think it would make sense to make aborted votes open and extremely rare. I would love to see the Senate agree to end the practice of secret “holds” on legislation or nominations and put them into the same category with cloture. To make these vote abortions extremely rare, let’s limit each caucus to no more than ten attempts to block a bill or nomination, subject to being overridden by a sixty vote invocation of cloture. In addition, let’s limit each individual Senator to only one such attempt per session. That would retain a practice with historical precedent but rescue it from being the over-used and cheap parliamentary tactic that it has become in the last forty years. The Senate was able to function for the first fifty years after Rule 22 was adopted without exceeding this number of cloture motions.




36 Comments

The graph also does not measure the number of votes not taken at all for fear of successful filibusters, nor the number of bills watered down and compromised to get 60 votes, nor the number of highly qualified who did not get nominated for executive or judicial positions (or whose nominations were withdrawn without a vote) because they were too “controversial” to get 60 votes.
To pursue a completely different analogy: The filibuster is like a great shot blocker, pass rusher, or base stealer. Their value is measured not just in blocks, sacks, or steals, but also the number of times they alter a shot, hurry a pass, or distract a pitcher.
Yes, I was referring to those types of things as the cloakroom vote abortions. They probably greatly outnumber the ones in the graph by quite a bit.
And yes, even if a system like I am suggesting were adopted, spineless cretins like Obama or Reid soon would be “negotiating” that particular pieces of legislation would still need sixty votes in order to pass.
Ah, okay. I thought you were just talking about holds. But the “compromise effect” is at least as pernicious, and is what gave Obama cover to throw the public option overboard, and to make his craven tax cut deal with Mitch.
I’m sorry. I have no patience left for the Senate. It would be better for American Democracy, if there were no Senate. Failing that at least it ought to be brought to majority rule and only that. I favor the “nuclear option.” Tomorrow!
I think it’s time to abort the Senate. And corporate personhood. Constitutional Convention Now!
Well, that felt good, anyhow :)
There’s a benefit simply in calling b#llshit on the Senate. Go Jim!
In another thread, I had raised the issue whether a Constitutional amendment to abolish the Senate could be approved by the usual 3/4 of state legislatures, or whether it would require unanimous consent. Article V requires that “no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.” Would reducing representation of all states in the Senate uniformly and equally to zero (by abolishing the Senate altogther) be held to violate this condition?
If that were to happen you might be looking at a 65 repub senate in 2012 then how would you feel. The coutry like it or not is center right and if you don’t read the right wing equivilents of FDL you might not understand that.
The US self identifies as “center right” due to the years of demonization of the any term that can be used or considered a leftist term
However, if you look at polling on specific policies, the support is often there, and strongly so, for policies that can be, in fact considered “liberal/left” positions.
Sorry,
The Senate is here to stay. No politician would even think of voting to abolish the chamber. You anger should be laid totally at the feet of Harry Reid and his merry bumbling circus of incompetents. Here is why:
1. Point One: The two wings of the Republican Party like the Senate as is, complete with its arcane rules that frustrate the will of the majority.
2. Point Two: Think back to 2005 when then Senate Majority Leader Billybob Frist threatened the so-called “Nuclear Option” to render the Republicanized Democrats completely unable to stop anything because the Fire-breathing Dragon wing of the Republican Party felt the other wing was “filibustering” too much. Fast forward and switch the roles starting in 2007 when the Republicanized Democrats control the Senate. The Rep. Democrats not only allow the Fire breathing dragon Republicans to filibuster, but filibuster absolutely any and all legislation, nominees, and treaties/agreements. Battered Rep. Democratic Wife Rachel Maddow has kept very scrupulous count of all the bills that the fire-breathing dragons Republicans have blocked. Are we at 1,000 plus by now?
3. Point Three: Point two is underscored all the more when you think back to the election of Al Franken to the Senate. Firebreathing dragon Republicans blocked Franken for over 5 months before he was sworn in. Think back to Scott Brown’s special election win in MA. Not only did the Democrats mount no real opposition to Scott Brown (Marth Coakley was a joke at best or worst) but Harry Reid spent all of about five minutes, literally breaking his own neck in the process to getting Scott Brown, fire-breathing dragon Republican teabagging buffon sworn in. By the way, Scott Brown was Senator #41 for the Fire-breathing dragon Republicans, which provided the perfect excuse for Rep. Democrats getting nothing done in the Senate because they could then rely on Point Two as the ready-made catch-all excuse for allowing the Fire-breathing dragon Rep. to obstruct everything when they should have taken the Billybob Frist approach and nuked the Fire-breathing dragon Republicans in the Senate. That way, majority rule would have prevailed.
The House should have more influence in the process, e.g. an bill that passes in the House with 60% or more support should automatically get an up-or-down vote in the Senate.
As things are now, we live in a totalitarian democracy at best.
The same thing happened just over 2000 years ago in Rome. As Rome gained more influence around the Mediterranean, it became more corrupt as the Senate took more and more power away from the assemblies, which were supposed to represent the people.
Unfortunately, the House in the 111th Congress best representated the people, and it was the House that got screwed over because of the bullshit of Obama and Senate Democrats.
I’m so sick of this stupid argument that we should see Obama’s “deal” to extend the Bush tax cuts as a Second Stimulus. The vast majority of this $900 billion POS is not about stimulus and is nothing like the 2009 Stimulus.
Mark Penn likes the tax deal. NOW I’m sold…
/s
Yeah I couldn’t support abolishing the Senate. Reforming and getting some real leadership, certainly but not doing away with it.
Yep. Certainly was the only endorsement I needed. :)
If Obama didn’t live in a bubble, he would tell people like Penn to stop “helping” him. Which means of course that he probably asked for the endorsement.
dakine01 – How right you are and how gullible we have become in adopting as fact whatever comes to us in print or by voice. We like to think of ourselves as sophisticated readers and listeners when in fact we succumb to the ‘band-wagon’ effect just like everyone else – a phenomenon that draws us to be part of the majority, even when the majority is dead wrong.
The change in the rules that made the filibuster so abusable was that, when the cloture requirement was reduced from 2/3 to 3/5, it became 3/5 of the full membership of the Senate. Before it had been 2/3 of the members actually present in the chamber. At that point the filibuster became basically effortless — Senators didn’t have to hold the floor or even show up.
That is bullshit when you look close at it those singles making 20K get a tax hike! And family’s up to 40K also get a tax increase. Sure sounds real stimulative to me…NOT! The Rich get Richer and the poor get poorer…Oh yeah that is SOP for the Republicans.
Abolishing the Senate isn’t my first option either. I support filibuster reform. But I would still like to know whether the Constitution allows abolishing the Senate without a unanimous vote of the state legislatures. Even the remote possibility of it happening might have a salutary effect on some of “rouged lords” making decisions on more immediately practical and less drastic options. Actually, I’ve been surprised at the number of people here on Firedoglake who have advocated flat-out abolition. I think it’s a measure of the level of frustration (which is a good thing!).
“right wing equivalents of FDL”
What ones do you read?
Thank you, Jim: an excellent and informative article.
My feelings about the filibuster are basically (A) It’s bullshit, (B) Giving in to one is cowardly, (C) Giving in to the threat one is beneath contempt.
I appreciate the article bringing up the problem of the minority bullying the country with the filibuster.
I don’t appreciate the suggested solution. It strikes me as saying, “I want to make a deal with the bully who beats up my child every morning for his lunch morning. I’d like him to agree to only bully him once week and I’d like to set a limit on how many times he can bully him a year.”
If we’re going to stand against this, then let’s actually stand against it.
No more aborted votes. Return the filibuster to it’s original intent: a way of assuring that debate occurs before a vote. I have thought of two different ways to reform it. Both, though, would eliminate all super majority votes except for cloture to end debate on a bill and proceed to a vote. All other votes would be a simple majority. Here’s my two alternatives:
1) Just set a standard time that debate is extended when cloture fails. Thus the vote isn’t simply to end debate or not. It’s a vote either to a) end debate now and immediately proceed to a vote, or b) continue to debate for, say three days, and then vote at the end of that period. During this time no other business can take place on the floor of the Senate except the debate of this bill.
-or-
2) If cloture fails go to immediate old fashioned filibuster setting. The Senate remains in session until cloture passes or there is not a quorum or no one takes the floor to speak to the issue. No other business can take place. If there is no quorum or no one takes the floor, then the Senate is adjourned and a vote is scheduled at the next session, which is at the earliest possible. That is if this happens in the A.M then at the normal time the Senate meets after lunch, if it happens in the P.M. then at opening hours the following day. New cloture votes during the debate may occur at any time every four hours, even by interrupting a Senator holding the floor.
I’d prefer option 1, but option 2 would make good political theater.
But please, no more allowing voting to NEVER happen. Restore democracy.
Ben Nelson’s hair said he opposed filibuster reform. I expect all of the Blue Dogs would oppose it, including the Blue Dog-in-Chief.
I would support eliminating the Senate. I would also support limiting the role of the Senate. Let it approve cabinet members and treaties. Let it continue to be necessary for adding amendments to the Constitution. Let it be able to advise the House by sending bills for the House to consider. But let all bills only need to be passed by the House.
The Senate then would be a debating society.
This is the perfect time to eliminate the filibuster. The House is in the hands of the GOP, so the GOP doesn’t need to filibuster. The Senate is in the hands of the Democrats so they don’t need to filibuster. We should use this as a selling point to get rid of it in this time when the minority doesn’t need “special protection” and then also make clear that in the next Congress we won’t have that anymore so people better be sure and clear when they vote.
The best solution on the table right now is the one proposed by Sen. Merkley of Oregon. Leave the numbers where they are, but end the silent filibuster. Make them actually stand there and do it. Let the Republicans get up there and spend hours defending tax cuts for the rich. When our side needs to do it, just trot out the Bernie Sanders caucus.
Does Merkley’s plan have a snowball’s chance in hell? Probably not, but a guy can dream, can’t he?
Book Salon up with Greg Mitchell’s Campaign of the Century: Upton Sinclair’s Race for the Governor of California and the Birth of Media Politics hosted by David Dayen
I was reading the LATimes online yesterday, about Sanders.
The Times didn’t get that the filibuster has been turned into threats of filibuster by the use (or misuse) of cloture.
red state, real clear politics
since the tax rate has been in place for almost 10 years, people will not see any new money so they won’t spend any more so you are right its not a stimulus. It’s not really a tax cut. It’s only a tax cut in Washington speak since the money has not been collected yet.
Well not me, just to set in my ways. If a majority is for something, I look for reasons why. The main problem is that, No One reports what is in these Bills, just maybe because No One Knows.
Some how Bills should be limited to the subject matter, with a limit on that also, and enforced by a independent group of citizens. But I will not be holding my breath.
I certainly hope they remain! Anything out of the Republican Senate can be held hostage, just like the Republicans did showed more than a penchant to do. Turn about is fair play and I for one am looking forward to it.
have you tried townhall.com ?
Rules that actually require them to do their jobs? That’s… really radical (no pun intended: just expressing shock at the concept).
I like both #1 and #2, but I think I learn towards #2 since #1 involves arbitrary time frames. My concern is that it will make it more difficult to get Bills to the floor in the first place, but I really like the direction you’re moving in.