Tight Senate Vote to Reform the Filibuster Draws Near
By Alex Gauthier | 01/22/2013 | Electoral Reform, Headline, Legislation | 19 Comments
Merkley compares the filibusters during LBJ and Harry Reid’s tenure as Senate Majority Leader
This is likely the do or die moment for the Senate vote to reform the filibuster. Through what is called the ‘talking filibuster,’ Senators would no longer be able to halt legislation with a phone call. The rule change is being asserted by Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon), Tom Udall (D-New Mexico), and Tom Harkin (D-Iowa). The Senate customarily addresses its rules at the start of a new congressional session, technically beginning on January 3rd, but can last for weeks as long as the Senate stands in recess rather than adjourns. As long as the Senate technically remains in its ‘first legislative day’ a simple majority vote, or 51 senators, can amend Senate procedure.
Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) announced this morning that the Senate would remain in recess in order to allow consideration of rule changes throughout the week. “We will reserve the right of all Senators to propose changes to the Senate rules. And we will explicitly not acquiesce in the carrying over of all the rules from the last Congress. It is my intention that the Senate will recess today, rather than adjourn, to continue the same legislative day, and allow this important rules discussion to continue later this month.”
Reid has been trying to cut a deal with Senate Republicans who are largely opposed to the institution of a talking filibuster, but the Merkley proposal claims it is central to substantive reform. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (D-Kentucky) has voiced serious opposition to filibuster reform. One may recognize McConnell as the senator who decided to filibuster his own bill several weeks ago.
Regarding the need for filibuster reform, Merkley said on the Senate floor today, ”On issue after issue after issue we saw inaction…How much action can there be if we see more than 100 filibusters in the next two years.”
According to the Merkley-Udall proposal, it will amend the filibuster rules by:
- Eliminat[ing] the Filibuster on Motions to Proceed: Clears a path to debate by making motions to proceed not subject to a filibuster, but providing two hours of debate.
- Requir[ing] a Talking Filibuster: Forces Senators who filibuster to actually speak on the floor, greatly increasing public accountability and requiring time and energy if the minority wants to use this tool to obstruct the Senate.
- Expedit[ing] Nominations: Reduces post-cloture debate on nominations from 30 hours to 2 hours, except for Supreme Court Justices (for whom the current 30 hours would remain intact).
- Eliminat[ing] the Filibuster on Motions to Establish a Conference Committee: Reduces the steps to establish a conference committee from three motions to one, and limits debate the consolidated motion to 2 hours.
Merkley contended earlier this month that they had at least 48 Democratic votes in favor of his filibuster reform proposal, but several Democratic Senators have previously avoided votes on filibuster reform including Dianne Feinstein (California), Max Baucus (Montana), Carl Levin (Michigan), and Barbara Boxer (California).





Leave Your Comment →
19 Comments
Cathy Rumbaugh
01.23.2013
filibuster is there for a reason and it must stay
Larry Hood
01.23.2013
no it there for a reason for minority support
Judy Thomas
01.23.2013
If we would elect people that would work together instead of “it’s my way or the highway” we would not need the full buster. Without it, we will have more laws like Obamacare
Danny Nicholas
01.23.2013
We must restore the filibuster to the way it was portrayed in the movie”Mr Smith goes to Washington”. The present form allows the senator to filibuster without being present. That’s not the way it is supposed to work.
Daphine Wilson
01.23.2013
They are not trying to get rid of it. They want to make whoever does it to stay and talk and to show up to do it instead of phoning it in. They are also saying not to filibusterthat you can’t discuss an issue. I think it is fair for both sides. That will keep them at work instead of them phoning it in and all of them going to play giolf!
Daphine Wilson
01.23.2013
Mitch Mcconnell brought up a bill and when Harry Reid brought it to the floor he filibustered his own bill..just didn’t want to work that day I guess
Murray Mccory
01.23.2013
they always change the rules to make it convenient for themselves. no politician is exempt from the temptation to accept huge bribes, thousands of dollars now, and millions to come.
Ryan Kiplinger
01.23.2013
The only action that I want Congress to take is that of repealing laws.
Mirko Zeen
01.23.2013
Talking filibuster.
Adrian Lewis
01.23.2013
How DARE they !!! They are representing : We The People ” ! They were entrusted to work to benefit US !
David Alvarado
01.23.2013
I’d like to see this reform passed and see if it helps the senate
Pat McDowell
01.23.2013
Oh, but it was ok when the democrats wanted to filibuster.
typical democrat hypocrisy.
Johnny Smith
01.23.2013
Cathy, no one is advocating getting rid of the filibuster. The only thing they’re debating is restoring it to the way it originally was, where a senator had to physically stand in front of the world and talk a bill to death. As it is today, merely the threat of a filibuster will table a bill, and voters never know why certain legislation was not passed. With the reform, they won’t be able to hide behind a technicality when they shoot down a bill with the filibuster.
Alex Gauthier
01.23.2013
@alexg
Great point Johnny. The merkley proposal will keep the practice of the filibuster in place, but require someone to hold the floor and express their views to delay a vote
Duane Roy
01.23.2013
maybe things would go smoother if we didn’t allow all the under handed bribery that goes on between big corporations and “our” politicians
Joshua Tucker
01.23.2013
Every bill…ever suggested…in the history of ever…should have to be voted on.
Stormoak Lonewind
01.23.2013
call your rep/sen and tell them you will not vote for them again unless they reform, stop spending, and do the job efficiently.
Rustin Sparks
01.23.2013
Ummm… Mitch McConnell isn’t a “D”
Kthxbai.
Benny Hill
01.23.2013
As a true independent I value the filibuster because otherwise every dumb idea a progressive or right winger has will end up getting passed depending on who is running the Senate at the time. I do think though that every Senator should be there when a vote needs to be casts and a phone in is just wrong. On the other hand, backroom deals should not be brought up when all the senators are not in cession either.