Creating another House

One criticism I occasionally hear about filibuster reform is that if we get rid of the filibuster, we'll just have two Houses of Representatives.  One response to that criticism is, so what?  But probably a more accurate one is, no we won't.  As Koger and others pointed out in their letter to the U.S. Senate, the Constitution contains plenty of provisions that ensure that the Senate will be a more deliberative body than the House.  Specifically, it is a smaller chamber (meaning members will know each other better and can debate issues longer without derailing legislative business), senators are elected infrequently in staggered terms (meaning members do not have to do what is politically expedient in any given moment), and one must be at least 30 to get elected (as opposed to 25 in the House).

Assuming we see some value in bicameralism, the basic Constitutional structure of the Senate assures that its members and functions will be substantively different from those in the House, even without a filibuster.

51 senators could end the filibuster today

So says Greg Koger over at Plain Blog.  It turns out there are several different parliamentary procedures Democrats could pursue to do this, and it doesn't need to be done on the first day of a session.

Imagine if the Democrats did this tomorrow.  This would change everything.  Suddenly the Republican threat to hold up all business until they get their tax cuts for the wealthy disappears.  Obama reneges on his pact with Senate Republicans and instead signs a Democratic tax bill that reverts taxation on income over $250,000 to Clinton-era levels.  DADT is repealed the next day.  The DREAM Act passes the day after that.  It's Democratic fantasy camp.

From the Democratic perspective, of course, probably the most annoying thing would be for Reid to engineer the death of the filibuster at the beginning of the 112th Congress.  Since Republicans will control the House, the Senate won't be the place where liberal legislation goes to die anymore, since it won't get there in the first place.  Ending the filibuster would certainly help move some Obama nominees through, but the time when this would really make a difference is now.  (Well, actually, a year or two ago.)

The logic of the filibuster

I've taken this exchange from the film "Grand Canyon" (1991) and edited appropriately.

Rocstar: Tell me this, are you asking me as a sign of respect, or are you asking because I've got the [filibuster]? 

Simon: Man, the world ain't supposed to work like this. I mean, maybe you don't know that yet. I'm supposed to be able to do my job without having to ask you if I can. That [majority] is supposed to be able to [pass its agenda] without you ripping him off. Everything is supposed to be different than it is. 

Rocstar: So what's your answer? 

Simon: You ain't got the [filibuster], we ain't having this conversation. 

Rocstar: That's what I thought: no [filibuster], no respect. That's why I always got the [filibuster].

Political scientists engage in the struggle against the filibuster

My good friend and longtime conference roommate Greg Koger is one of the signers (along with Steve Smith, Barbara Sinclair, Sarah Binder, Eric Schickler, and others) of a letter trying to clear up some historic inaccuracies about the Senate's use of the filibuster.  Sens. Tom Udall (D-NM) and Tom Harkin (D-IA) are reportedly circulating this letter to encourage the Democratic majority to simply do away with the filibuster, saying that Republicans' promiscuous use of the filibuster demands a corrective.  You can read the letter below.

My understanding is that Democrats could readily do away with the filibuster either by simply ruling that a simple majority can change the Senate's rules or by using some kind of stealth point of order.  Either would work and are permissible under the Constitution.  The question is whether 51 senators are actually willing to do it.


filibusterletter -

The costs of the filibuster

Sorr that I haven't had much chance to blog any of my experiences at APSA last week.  I encourage you to read Jon Bernstein's account of the filibuster panel, which can be seen on C-SPAN.  I attended some of this panel, which I found fascinating.  I particularly recommend Steve Smith's material around 13:15 in which he notes how the filibuster distorts the legislative process and output.  He holds the filibuster responsible for reducing the economic stimulus package by 20%, for the removal of the public option in health reform, for the delay of unemployment benefits extensions, for the diminution of a small business program, and other things, even while the overall passage rate of bills remains high.

I am still processing the decision to include non-academics on some of these academic panels.  I thought Ezra Klein's contributions to both the filibuster and the media panels were interesting and quite entertaining.  Brian Darling's input on the filibuster panel seemed ridiculous at times, especially when he demanded that all senators read all legislation and that cloture requirements be ratcheted back up to 67 votes.  On the other hand, I rarely experience strong emotions during academic panels, so it was kind of nice to do that once in a while here.