Does Filibuster Reform Have a Chance?

Jimmy Stewart in one of the filibuster scenes from the 1939 film "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," where he plays a small town newcomer who challenges the power structure on Capitol Hill. Senate Democrats recently sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid urging him to push for reform of the filibuster process.

/ AP

Updated at 2:30 p.m. ET

A letter has been signed by every returning Democratic senator urging Majority Leader Harry Reid to push for filibuster reform in the New Congress, National Journal reports.

The letter, which was circulated by senators Carl Levin of Michigan and Mark Warner of Virginia, "expresses general frustration with what Democrats consider unprecedented obstruction [on the part of Republicans] and asks Reid to take steps to end those abuses," according to National Journal.

The letter does not outline a specific change to current filibuster rule, which allows Republicans to block legislation (1) by requiring 60 votes for passage, not a simple majority, and (2) slow down debate on even largely non-controversial issues, essentially killing them since the Senate often does not have time to spend to get to a vote.

Though filibuster reform remains a long shot, the Democratic senators hope the letter bolsters its chances for gaining steam in the next Congressional session.

"Hopefully that gives [Reid] the juice he needs to negotiate reasonable changes so we can stop the abuses next year," said Missouri Democrat Claire McCaskill.

Calls for change come on the tail of a two-year period of unprecedented filibustering and filibuster threats by Republican senators, who have employed the tactic repeatedly not just to block controversial legislation, but also to generally run out the clock on Senate productivity. (In late November, for example, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell threatened a blanket filibuster of all legislation, period, until Congress had passed a tax compromise deal.)

As the Washington Post's Ezra Klein points out, filibusters are among Congress's most effective stalling devices: "While many Americans understand that you need 60 votes to break a filibuster, relatively few realize that you need about a week of floor time on the Senate to even take those votes," Klein writes.

Based on recent proposals by Democrats Jeff Merkley and Tom Udall, it's likely that any Democratic proposals for reform would largely focus on speeding up the filibuster process - not eliminating it. The process of filibustering a bill would, theoretically, become more difficult to start and would require senators to stick around on the floor to sustain it.

"There need to be changes to the rules to allow filibusters to be conducted by people who actually want to block legislation instead of people being able to quietly say 'I object' and go home," McCaskill told National Journal.

Senate Democrats have also called for the end of a rule that mandates a 30-hour waiting period between a vote to break the filibuster and a vote for the actual bill.

Merkeley, a first-term Democrat from Oregon, released a memo last month proposing that the rules be reformed. Part of his proposal would mandate that five filibustering senators be present on the floor for the first 24 hours of a filibuster, and that 10 be on the floor for the following 24 hours. After that, 20 members would need to stay on the floor to filibuster a bill going forward. And through all of this, debate would have to continue or the filibuster would end. Currently, senators who filibuster or threaten filibuster generally do not have to have a physical presence on the floor.

A spokesman for McConnell told National Journal that Democrats would regret the adoption of a filibuster reform were they to return to the minority. Outgoing Connecticut Democratic Senator Chris Dodd, the only current Senate Democrat not to sign the letter, has argued against the move as well.

Merkley told National Journal that it was too early to guess the fate of a possible reform in the 2011 Congress.

"The next step is that when we come back in January, to actually be able to hold that type of conversation on the floor of the Senate," he said.

Update: Reid is already devising a plan with his caucus to take specific steps for filibuster reform, the Washington Post's Greg Sargent reports. The Senate leader reportedly devoted a significant portion of time to the subject at a Democratic caucus meeting this week.

[dd7979]

Good. Let the Dems do the dirty work and change the filibuster rules. The GOP controls the house and there are 22 Dems up for election in 2012. If they win the same number of seats they won in 2010, they'd lose 12 seats! The Dems also have a lot to defend in 2014.

Fillibuster reform will make it easier for the GOP to overturn Obamacare in 2012.

[simpleconservative]

Funny how Democrats love the filibuster when they are the minority and hate it when they are a majority. I recommend Levin and Warner actually read the constitution. This may enlighten them as to the purpose of the Senate in American governance. The intent of the rules is to slow down the rush to legislation and require very serious debate before anything can gain enough support to be brought to the floor and be passed by a simple majority!

[PatriotMike3]

Ah yes, when the filibuster was good for the Dems, nothing needed change. Now that the circumstances have changed ("Elections have consequences."), this must change!! Democrats have all the intellectual integrity of the Mafia.

[simpleconservative]

You are giving Dem's too much credit implying there is some semblance of honor somewhere!

[Thad Boyd]

"A spokesman for McConnell told National Journal that Democrats would regret the adoption of a filibuster reform were they to return to the minority."

Something McConnell didn't seem to think too hard about in 2005 when he supported a Republican threat to declare the filibuster unconstitutional.

The Dems should have let them do it. The filibuster is an inherently conservative tool; its primary purpose is to allow a minority to preserve the status quo against a majority vote for change.

[jk12852002]

One of the happiest characteristics of this glorious country of ours that no matter which Political Party or philosophy you subscribe to - Left or Right, Republican or Democrat, Liberal or Conservative - sooner or later you're going to be in the minority for a time. Both sides need to be careful what they do when they are in the majority, because sooner or later it will come back to bite them in the ankle. Or about three feet higher.

[Thad Boyd]

Unfortunately I think the majority of Americans aren't well-represented by either major party.

[jk12852002]

It hasn't been that long ago (1995-2001, then again 2003-2007) when the Republican Pary held the majority in the Senate by less than the filibuster "magic number" of 60 seats. In those eras (the 104th, 105th, 108th and 109th Congresses) the Democrats strongly favored keeping the filibuster rules (because they were in the minority but had more than 40 seats). And the Republicans at the time were the Party that wanted to change the filibuster rules. Now that the numbers are reversed, so are the stances taken by the two parties.

Neither party care about "the Nation." Both parties want to game the system to their advantage. I say "A Pox On Both Their Houses."

[Thad Boyd]

Agreed.

I believe the filibuster needs to be reformed, but I don't think the Democrats are doing it for any kind of noble reason; they're just doing it because they're the majority party.

[PatriotMike3]

Great post. But the only party that wants this "change" is the party of imbecilic punks that saw their power to enslave this nation go down 2 months ago. That which was good for them then is good for them now. You don't get to change the rules of the game when you are on defense, Demoscum. Grow up and grow a pair.

[tsigili]

No. Not a chance.

[Birdman04]

If each and every politician would vote their conscience, based on the merits of the issue, rather than checking their respective party platform's agenda to determine how they stand and how they are supposed to vote on the issue,things might actually get done in Washington D.C. and elsewhere.
What is wrong in voting for what you believe in is right for the country regardless of what side of the pasture you graze on?

[Thad Boyd]

It pisses off lobbyists and party leaders, that's what.

Most politicians are more concerned with money and power than with doing what's right.

[realist51]

keep the fillibuster. however change the rule for clousure make the vote for clousure 55 (50 plus 10%) then allow the vote on the legislation. enforce the rule that whoever is fillibustering must be on the floor doing it the part about 10 and then 20 could be reduced to 5 then 10 i like the part about having to continue debate during the whole time once that ends then a vote should be taken. and to pass it say make it 53 votes

[msimamaji]

Fillibuster reform is Dead on Arrival. The Republicans in the Senate have profited greatly from it - It enables ever crook in the Senate to sabotage legilsation this country needs in order to get goodies for the folks who bought the Senate seat. Look at the way Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu behaved during the struggle for health care reform, and you'll see that filibusters cross party lines. Look at the way Senator Coburn behaved just this week. And remember, John McCain is single-handedly blocking funds for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder - even though the military has a horrifying rise in suicides due to PTSD. He's doing this simply as an act of "revenge" because he lost the 2008 election.
There are some good honest Senators who want to reform the filibuster - but the Tea Party Movement will sweep all the honest Senators out of office and replace them with two-bit, small town crooks.
So filibuster reform is dead - but the real blame goes to the American people. They ulitmately voted for the crooks to begin with.

[davidd5063]

The fillibuster needs to go - the American electorate is too willfully ignorant and arrogant to understand the process - if Rush and Glen B want to argue that the party in charge of the Senate can pass anything it wants (an obvious lie that allows Republican filth to benefit from their obstructionism), then do away with the rule. Republicans have demonstrated they are willing to use reconcilliation or threaten to change the rules everytime they don't like the fillibuster working the other way. In short, the Republican party has devised a way, through lies, misinformation, and the calculated push of the MSM in the US to the right of center, to use the fillibuster to hold the entire country hostage when they are in the minority and eliminate the ability of Democrats to do the same when they are in the minority. If the tables were reversed, you can be SURE the Republicans would change the rules - they already threated to until they got another "one sided compromise" a few years back.

[nottblu]

defintely blind in one eye.