• Home
  • Opinion
  • Quizzes
  • Redistricting
  • Sections
  • About Us
  • Voting
  • Events
  • Civic Ed
  • Campaign Finance
  • Directory
  • Election Dissection
  • Fact Check
  • Glossary
  • Independent Voter News
  • News
  • Analysis
  • Subscriptions
  • Log in
Leveraging Our Differences
  • news & opinion
    • Big Picture
      • Civic Ed
      • Ethics
      • Leadership
      • Leveraging big ideas
      • Media
    • Business & Democracy
      • Corporate Responsibility
      • Impact Investment
      • Innovation & Incubation
      • Small Businesses
      • Stakeholder Capitalism
    • Elections
      • Campaign Finance
      • Independent Voter News
      • Redistricting
      • Voting
    • Government
      • Balance of Power
      • Budgeting
      • Congress
      • Judicial
      • Local
      • State
      • White House
    • Justice
      • Accountability
      • Anti-corruption
      • Budget equity
    • Columns
      • Beyond Right and Left
      • Civic Soul
      • Congress at a Crossroads
      • Cross-Partisan Visions
      • Democracy Pie
      • Our Freedom
  • Pop Culture
      • American Heroes
      • Ask Joe
      • Celebrity News
      • Comedy
      • Dance, Theatre & Film
      • Diversity, Inclusion & Belonging
      • Faithful & Mindful Living
      • Music, Poetry & Arts
      • Sports
      • Technology
      • Your Take
      • American Heroes
      • Ask Joe
      • Celebrity News
      • Comedy
      • Dance, Theatre & Film
      • Diversity, Inclusion & Belonging
      • Faithful & Mindful Living
      • Music, Poetry & Arts
      • Sports
      • Technology
      • Your Take
  • events
  • About
      • Mission
      • Advisory Board
      • Staff
      • Contact Us
Sign Up
  1. Home>
  2. filibuster>

The filibuster is unbearable, odious and infuriating. We better not get rid of it.

Pete Weichlein
January 17, 2022
Mitch McConnell, filibuster

Senate Minority Leader is correct when he says the filibuster serves the framer's design of slowing the legislative process.

Chip Somodevila/Getty Images

Weichlein is the CEO of FMC: The Former Members of Congress Association.

President Biden and Senate Democrats have a special gift in mind for what would have been the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s 93rd birthday: declaring hyperpartisanship an insurmountable reality and capitulating accordingly.

Specifically, in order to advance voting rights legislation, Democrats are on the brink of eliminating the Senate filibuster, a 60-vote threshold for moving legislation forward, to make it possible to pass bills with a simple majority of 51 votes. It strikes me as both ironic and cynical that this craven surrender to partisanship is attached to King, a leader who never flinched when faced with adversity.


Most certainly, Congress is called upon to protect every citizen’s ability to cast a vote, and a healthy debate can — and should — be had on the many provisions contained in the Freedom to Vote Act as well as the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. In an earlier column, I argued that there should be no difference between a Texas voter’s ability to participate in a national election and a voter from Massachusetts or California. With several hundred election-focused bills making their way through state legislatures across the country, this clearly is a time when Congress and the courts need to pay close attention to voting rights and need to step in to protect this most fundamental component of participatory democracy.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

This, however, is a different debate. The filibuster debate is about admitting defeat to our hyperpartisan times and abandoning forever the notion that the Senate is “the world’s greatest deliberative body.”

The filibuster protects the minority party and moves bills forward for a vote only if at least 60 Senators agree. It forces the Senate to actually debate the issues shaping our country’s future instead of simply relying on 50+1 as the winning formula. The filibuster is frustrating, much abused (thank you, Ted Cruz, for ruining “Green Eggs and Ham” for generations to come) and stifles the majority’s ability to bring about big change quickly. It also is what makes the Senate different from the House. The Senate was specifically designed as the slower, more insulated chamber that, thanks to six-year terms, was not going to simply ride popular waves when considering legislative action. In addition, it frankly is one of the last safeguards against extremist legislators from either side of the aisle pushing through laws that the vast majority of the country would oppose.

None of the above is any judgment on the necessity or merit of voting rights legislation. But if Biden and Senate Democrats carve out yet another exemption to the filibuster for this specific issue, then the Senate, as envisioned by the Founding Fathers, will cease to exist. As the Senate makes clear on its own website: “To the framers themselves, Madison explained that the Senate would be a necessary fence against the fickleness and passion that tended to influence the attitudes of the general public and members of the House of Representatives. George Washington is said to have told Jefferson that the framers created the Senate to cool House legislation, just as a saucer was used to cool hot tea.” In other words, the Senate puts the breaks on the House, and via the filibuster no simple majority can dictate the path forward.

One would think Democrats learned this lesson by now: In 2013, frustrated by Republican filibusters during the Obama administration, Democrats eliminated the filibuster for Cabinet appointments and judicial nominations other than the Supreme Court. The result? When Republicans took back the Senate, hundreds of federal judges were confirmed by a simple majority during the Trump administration. And the simple majority threshold was extended to Supreme Court nominees, enabling Sen. Mitch McConnell to confirm three highly conservative justices on the court without the need to find nominees who could garner significant Democratic buy-in.

Majority Leader Chuck Schumer is absolutely correct that protecting every citizen’s right to vote is a fundamental responsibility of government in a free and democratic society. And Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is absolutely correct when he said in March 2020 that the filibuster serves the framer’s design to require prudent deliberation by the Senate, so that cooperation results in federal laws broad enough to earn the lasting consent of the governed. The onus is on the two of them to avoid the “nuclear option” of replacing the filibuster with a simple majority. One needs to come to the table willing to forgo the power of the majority; the other one needs to allow his conference to negotiate in good faith. That is called political leadership, and King’s memory would be much better served.

From Your Site Articles
  • Voting rights advocates say filibuster reform is possible - The Fulcrum ›
  • Democrats pressured to choose voting rights or filibuster - The Fulcrum ›
  • Conservatives should be clamoring for filibuster reform - The Fulcrum ›
Related Articles Around the Web
  • Why Preserving the Legislative Filibuster Is Critical for ... ›
  • Keep the filibuster. It could save progressive legislation in the future ... ›
  • Keep the Filibuster, There Are Better Ways to Reform | Time ›
  • Arguments for and against the filibuster, 2021 - Ballotpedia ›
filibuster

Join an Upcoming Event

Homelessness Conversation

Living Room Conversations
Jun 07, 2023 at 3:00 pm MDT
Read More

STAR Voting California Monthly Meeting

Equal Vote
Jun 07, 2023 at 6:00 pm PDT
Read More

Civic Synergy Leadership Program

Civic Synergy
Jun 07, 2023 at 7:00 pm EDT
Read More

Civic Synergy Leadership Program

Civic Synergy
Jun 08, 2023 at 7:00 pm EDT
Read More

Tribalism 101: Next Door Strangers Conversation

Living Room Conversations
Jun 12, 2023 at 8:00 pm MDT
Read More

Democracy Happy Hour

Fix Democracy First
Jun 14, 2023 at 5:00 pm PDT
Read More
View All Events

Want to write
for The Fulcrum?

If you have something to say about ways to protect or repair our American democracy, we want to hear from you.

Submit
Get some Leverage Sign up for The Fulcrum Newsletter
Confirm that you are not a bot.
×
Follow
Contributors

Why does a man wearing earrings drive Christians crazy?

Paul Swearengin

DeSantis' sitcom world

Lawrence Goldstone

Hypocrisy of pro-lifers being anti-LGBTQIA

Steve Corbin

A dangerous loss of trust

William Natbony

Shifting the narrative on homelessness in America

David L. Nevins

Reform in 2023: Leadership worth celebrating

Layla Zaidane
latest News

Blowback: A warning to save democracy from the next Trump

David L. Nevins
10h

Measuring the cost of neglecting individual duty

Kevin Frazier
10h

How America gets to a new center

Dave Anderson
05 June

Why are we building a new party in California?

Lucie Repova
05 June

Ask Joe: Two sides of a story

Joe Weston
02 June

Podcast: Saving democracy from & with AI

Our Staff
01 June
Videos

Video: The Buffalo shooting, how far have we come on race?

Our Staff

Video: Daughters and Sons

David L. Nevins

Video: Why music? Why now?

David L. Nevins

Video: Honoring Memorial Day

Our Staff

Video: #ListenFirst Friday YOUnify & CPL

Our Staff

Video: What is the toll of racial violence on Black lives?

Our Staff
Podcasts

Podcast: Saving democracy from & with AI

Our Staff
01 June

Podcast: AI revolution: Disaster or great leap forward?

Our Staff
25 May

Podcast: Can we fix America's financial crises?

Our Staff
23 May

Podcast: Gen Z's fight for democracy

Our Staff
22 May
Recommended
Blowback: A warning to save democracy from the next Trump

Blowback: A warning to save democracy from the next Trump

Big Picture
Measuring the cost of neglecting individual duty

Measuring the cost of neglecting individual duty

Voting
Video: The Buffalo shooting, how far have we come on race?

Video: The Buffalo shooting, how far have we come on race?

Video: Daughters and Sons

Video: Daughters and Sons

Big Picture
How America gets to a new center

How America gets to a new center

Elections
Why are we building a new party in California?

Why are we building a new party in California?

Voting