Everybody [at least everybody who wants an effective democracy] talks about ending “filibuster abuse,” but who\u2019s doing something about it? At least one US Senator is. On Thursday, Dec. 2, Sen. Jeff Merkley [D-OR] announced a set of proposals to reform the Senate\u2019s rules on filibustering.<\/p>\n
Calling abuse of the filibuster \u201cthe heart of the Senate\u2019s dysfunction,\u201d Merkley says<\/a> that \u201cthe Senate\u2019s original commitment to full and open debate has been transformed into an attack designed to paralyze and obstruct the Senate\u2019s ability to function as a legislative body.\u201d Before outlining his specific proposals for reform, Merkley offers a succinct and persuasive summary of how the filibuster has been abused in recent years:<\/p>\n The filibuster can be thought of as the power of a single senator to object to the regular order of Senate deliberations, thereby invoking a special order that requires a supermajority and a week delay for a vote. Historically, this power did not paralyze the Senate because it was invoked upon rare occasions. In recent times, however, minority senators have started objecting to the regular order on nearly a daily basis, paralyzing the Senate.<\/p>\n It is important to observe that a senator who objects to the regular order pays virtually no price in time or energy. At most, one senator must stay near the floor to object to any unanimous consent proposal designed to force a vote. As a \u201ccourtesy,\u201d this task can be handled by a member of the objecting senator\u2019s leadership. Contrary to the deeply rooted popular impression, a filibustering senator does not need to speak continuously on the floor to sustain his or her objection.<\/p>\n Indeed, following the initial objection, the responsibility shifts to the majority to assemble a super-majority. And if the majority wants to maintain continuous debate to dramatize an objecting senator\u2019s obstruction, it is the majority that bears the burden of maintaining a quorum on the floor. Without such a quorum, a single senator can shut down debate by asking for a quorum call.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n If you had to read that block quote several times to understand it, join the club. Senate rules are complicated and convoluted\u2014a maze of ins and outs that only a serious student of parliamentary procedure could love. [If you\u2019ve ever attended a college-level Model United Nations session, you\u2019ve witnessed how, even when it\u2019s only a simulation, some \u201cplayers\u201d use procedures as weapons to defeat opponents\u2019 proposals.]<\/p>\n Merkley also outlines the perverse effects that filibuster abuse has had in 2010 on the Senate\u2019s ability to function:<\/p>\n \u201cThese are not the marks of \u2018the world\u2019s greatest deliberative body,\u2019\u201d says Merkley.<\/p>\n Merkley\u2019s eight-point proposal does not suggest eliminating the filibuster. Rather, it attempts to address filibuster abuses while also protecting the legitimate right of the minority to express its viewpoint. His ideas are not the only ones out there\u2014just the most recent. Earlier this year, Sen. Charles Schumer, chairman of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, held hearings on the same subject. Over the summer, Senators Frank Lautenberg [D-NJ] and Michael Bennett [D-CO] offered their own versions.<\/p>\n Here\u2019s a somewhat edited version of Merkley\u2019s proposals. Warning: Once again, a lot of this stuff is \u201cinside baseball,\u201d so don\u2019t be surprised if it seems obscure. For the sake of brevity, I\u2019ve edited out some of the details about how it would work, what specific language Senators would use in motions, etc. You can read all the gory details here<\/a>.<\/p>\n Personally, I find #5,\u00a0 #6 and #8 the most intriguing, common-sense based and innovative, from a layperson’s point of view.<\/p>\n And remember, these proposals are offered by an insider for other insiders. For one Congressional observer\u2019s analysis [spoiler alert: he likes most of what he sees and explains why], check out the post by David Waldman, of Daily Kos\u2019 Congress Matters<\/a>.<\/p>\n #1) Narrow the scope <\/strong>[of the use of the filibuster]: Eliminate the use of the filibuster on motions to proceed. Blocking deliberation has little place in a legislative body. If a Senator believes a bill is so deeply flawed that debate should be suspended, the senator still has the right to move to table the bill.<\/p>\n #2) Further narrow the scope:<\/strong> \u2026it is worth debating banning filibusters on amendments since members would still have the right to filibuster the final vote. [\u2026Examine] the value of limiting filibusters on appointing conferees.<\/p>\n #3) Create an expedited path for nominations:<\/strong> \u2026.The regular order for each nominee might still be subject to a filibuster, but only under the revised filibuster requirements discussed below.<\/p>\n #4) Require a filibuster petition:<\/strong> Require a substantial number of senators, perhaps 10, to file a filibuster petition to block a simple majority vote on an amendment or a bill. By creating a public record, senators have to take responsibility for obstructing the process. This also prevents a single senator from blocking the regular order.<\/p>\n\n