“And what I worry about would be that you essentially have still two chambers – the House and the Senate – but you have simply majoritarian, absolute power on either side. And that’s just not what the fathers intended.” – Then-Sen. Barack Obama in 2005 on Republican efforts to end filibusters of federal judges
“I pray God when the Democrats take back control we don’t make the kind of naked power grab you are doing.” – Then-Sen. Joe Biden in 2005 on Republican efforts to end filibusters of federal judges
Joshua Baca
Last week, Sen. Tom Udall, on this Web site, highlighted his efforts to make Washington work for New Mexico. He primarily focused on what he called “obstruction in the Senate” and an effort to end the use of a filibuster. A filibuster delays or blocks legislative action in the Senate and can only be overcome by a cloture vote, which requires 60 votes. It exists to encourage debate, deliberation and compromise.
Most New Mexicans are more concerned with the unemployment rate, budget deficits and a lagging economy than Senate parliamentary procedure. But the truth is Washington is not working for New Mexico because of extreme partisanship, backroom deals and Democratic efforts to ram through legislation with little or no Republican support.
Senator Udall and the current Democratic leadership are responsible for the hyper-partisan environment that exists today. They decided to rule Washington with an iron fist and refuse to accept any proposals or ideas that do not fall in line with the liberal orthodoxy.
This was most evident during the health care debate as Senate Democrats pushed forward to pass health care reform at any cost and without Republican input or support. They inserted special deal after special deal to clinch the votes of wavering Democratic senators and ignored commonsense Republican alternatives.
The outcome: a 60-40 vote on Christmas Eve to overcome a Republican filibuster. When the minority party is shut out of the lawmaking process, as they have been since Senator Udall was elected to the Senate, the only tool at their disposal is the filibuster.
The filibuster is what’s unique and good about the Senate
Senator Udall portrays the filibuster as a negative, obstructionist tool that is counterproductive. But in reality it is the heart of what makes the Senate the upper chamber. It enables deliberation and encourages compromise, which produces better legislation because it allows all views to be represented. The Senate was intended to be different from the House, where the rules allow the majority leadership to silence dissenting views.
The filibuster is a good thing. It’s democratic and it’s what makes the Senate so unique.
Contrary to what Senator Udall described as “abuse of Senate rules,” the Wall Street Journal noted that the Republican filibuster on financial sector overhaul bill on Monday “marked the first time Republicans have successfully voted to stall action of a major legislative priority of the Obama White House.”
The filibuster has since ended, but despite the fact that Republican Senator Richard Shelby had been working with Democratic Senator Chris Dodd on a compromise, Senator Udall released a statement calling Monday the vote “Obstruction of Wall Street Reform” in an effort to score political points against Republicans. Overall, Senate Democrats have succeeded passing the Obama agenda on a party-line vote until now.
Up until January, Senator Udall and Senate Democrats enjoyed a 60-vote, filibuster-proof majority that came to an abrupt end after Republican Scott Brown was elected to the Senate. Prior to that, Senate Democrats shut out Republicans from the legislative process because they had the 60 votes needed to obtain cloture, or in other words, move the legislation through the Senate strictly on a party-line vote.
When members of the minority party stick together they can have an impact on legislation and force the majority to compromise, which is obvious with the financial services reform bill. Now, conveniently, Senator Udall and his colleagues want to change the rules of the game to suit their political needs.
A New Mexico senator should know better
In 1787, during the Constitutional Convention, the Connecticut Compromise created a bicameral legislature. The upper chamber, the Senate, would have equal representation. The lower chamber, the House, would elect representatives based on population. Ultimately, the purpose of this compromise was to ensure that smaller states with less population wouldn’t be drowned out by larger states with larger population.
Eliminating the power of one senator to filibuster any legislation would undermine the purpose of the Connecticut Compromise and make New Mexico equal to New York. Not only is this proposal bad for democracy, it is bad for New Mexico, and a New Mexico senator should know better.
It’s fair to ask Senator Udall if he would be promoting these radical changes in the Senate rules if he was in the minority party and a Republican occupied the White House.
I agree with Senator Udall that the ways of Washington are in desperate need of change. But changing the rules of the Senate to suit his political fortunes is why Washington is so badly broken.
Joshua Baca is a former congressional staffer and campaign operative for former U.S. Rep. Heather Wilson and served as a United States Senate page to U.S. Sen. Jeff Bingaman. He is a current public affairs professional and campaign consultant in the Washington, D.C. metro area. Follow Joshua on Twitter at twitter.com/beltwaybaca.