Senator Merkley’s filibuster reform proposal is, I think, really good. (Pdf link.) It takes away the current function of the filibuster — which is to enable a determined minority to prevent debate and votes — and restores the best notion of the filibuster, which is to guarantee that the minority party has its ideas heard, and enable minorities to force a debate before a vote.
Some key features:
1) Senate minority (and also the majority, but that’s less of a concern) has an absolute right to have a reasonable number of amendments (Merkley suggest five) discussed and voted on for every bill. More than five amendments could be presented by either side, but would require either unanimous consent, or an agreement between the leadership of both parties.
2) In order to filibuster a bill, at least ten Senators must be willing to put their names on a written filibuster request. That is, they’re required to take responsibility for the filibuster.
3) A significant number of Senators (“five for the first 24 hours, 10 for the second 24 hours, and 20 thereafter”) would need to be on the floor of the Senate at all times to sustain the filibuster. Furthermore:
The Senate could also require debate to be continuous. Under this requirement, if a speaker concludes (arguing either side) and there is no senator who wishes to speak, the regular order is immediately restored, debate is concluded, and a simple majority vote is held according to further details established in the rules.
This further expands the visibility of the filibuster. Americans who tune in to observe the filibuster would not see a quorum call, but would see a debate in process.
I’m frankly in favor of this. What do you think?
I don’t know about the limit on the number of amendments, but the requirement for actual debate seems fair.
[threadjack alert]
Here is another change that is being proposed to be brought to the Congressional legislative process. It seems that the (likely) new Speaker of the House wants to break up the large omnibus budget and appropriation bills that are passed every year into much smaller bills and vote individual programs up or down. I bring this up because I’ve wanted to see this happen for years. I am of the opinion that a lot of crap gets passed because it got put into a bill to get a few votes for the whole bill rather than on it’s own merits. It’s not going to be simple, but I strongly support this. This would be a real reform that would make a real impact. If the GOP pulls this off in the House (and remember, as per the Constitution appropriation and taxation bills cannot originate in the Senate) it would be a real accomplishment they could point to in the 2012 elections.
Hm, can’t go back and edit.
U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 7, Paragraph 1:
All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
Hm. Am I right? Does this mean both Taxation and Appropriations bills, or only Taxation ones?
I have no problem with letting people require discussion of indefinitely many amendments, provided they need continuous debate to do so. That requirement alone would likely destroy the phony filibuster.
The omnibus bills are a product of the glacial slowness of the Congress. If all of the individual spending bills haven’t been passed by the start of the fiscal year, then they roll all the individual bills into one and try to pass that instead.
I do like Merkley’s proposal (I think the default number of amendments should be higher than 5, but what do I know?). Transforming the filibuster into something more like the imaginary filibuster that everyone has been frustrated with the Dems for not forcing the Repubs to do seems like a nifty idea, much better than just decreasing the number of votes allowed. If a minority party is dedicated to blocking a bill, it could still do so under Merkley’s proposal, but it actually has to be dedicated and willing to do it very publicly.
I’d rather do away with the filibuster entirely and just accept that 2002-2006 (and the next time the Repubs control the leg and the exec) would have been even worse (with the Repubs actually able to implement their agenda in full), but I don’t think that is an option most people support (plus, some form of delaying upper house is very common).
I’ve been thinking that they should agree to make a change like this at some point in the future. Why would the minority party vote to reduce it’s power now? So instead vote for it to take effect in 5 or 7 years.
Why amend it? Why not do away with it altogether? The complaint (http://bit.ly/ZrhILv) in COMMON CAUSE et al v. BIDEN et al argues that the filibuster is unconstitutional precisely because it interferes with majority rule. Bondurant’s article in the Harvard Law School Journal on Legislation (available here http://bit.ly/UwVzfY) says the filibuster is an unintended consequence of the elimination of the “previous question motion” from the rules of the Senate in 1806. At the time, that motion concluded debate on a given topic, but was rarely used, so it was removed as part of an effort to streamline the rules, but this paved the way for the gradual rise of the filibuster. Originally, there were only six exceptions to majority rule, which required a supermajority in the Senate- impeaching the president, expelling members, overriding a presidential veto of a bill or order, ratifying treaties and amending the Constitution.”