Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Big democracy reforms can't happen unless the Senate fixes its huge anti-democratic flaw

Opinion

Sen. Krysten Sinema

Krysten Sinema is one of two Democrats standing in the way of long-overdue Senate reforms, writes Golden.

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Golden is the author of "Unlock Congress" (Why Not Books, 2015) and a senior fellow at the Adlai Stevenson Center on Democracy. He is a member of The Fulcrum's editorial advisory board.


It's almost dead. And when we finally kill it off for good, it will be an epic day for our country.

I'm not talking about the Republican Party. Its survival will be up to its voters, or former voters.

And I'm not talking about the political death of the defendant whom the Senate just acquitted. Now that the trial is over, there's even more reason to ignore him.

I'm referring to the biggest blockage in our government, the one defect that has been holding us back from fixing the rest of the system's problems. For our system is rigged — just not in the ways you've become accustomed to hearing about from the world's loudest perch.

So, you may ask: What is it? When are you gonna name the thing?

First let me describe it — and the other big fixes it's holding up. If I were to take nearly the entire diagnosis in my book and distill it into 75 words, it would boil down to this:

American voters are ill-served and unfairly represented in Congress because of an electoral system that does two things. It allows officeholders to rig legislative races through the partisan drawing of maps ("gerrymandering") and by prohibiting candidates from running in general elections as independents after they've lost a primary. And it encourages officeholders to raise billions to keep their seats, resulting in behavior and decision-making that is probably corrupt and unrepresentative of the majority of Americans' preferences.

Now, before we get to the big "kill," two great developments have come to pass in the years since I started writing about this stuff.

First, reformers across the country have earned big wins to improve our system. A real movement has been quietly growing — from anti-corruption measures to money disclosure requirements to independent districting commissions and other fixes. One of the leading advocates of this charge, RepresentUs, is actually making reform cool.

Second, the For The People Act has been introduced again in Congress. It's called HR 1 in the House and S 1 in the Senate. The bill proposes two solutions straight out of my book, and would also confront voting rights. It's provisions include:

  • Requiring states to convene independent commissions to draw congressional maps.
  • Requiring disclosure of "dark money" contributions, setting up a small-donor matching system to empower candidates without wealthy networks, and strengthening the Federal Election Commission's oversight of so-called super PACs.
  • Enacting new reforms to remove barriers to voting and mandating paper ballots so that elections can be audited to ensure accuracy.

Now, I can make Boy Scout arguments all day for improving our democracy, but the fact is there are clear political consequences from HR 1 passing — and the GOP knows it. Perhaps none would be bigger than reducing Republicans' current power to gerrymander districts in order to win back the House — which would happen even if the national vote was split down the middle.

Yet for the first time in 12 years, Democrats now have political control on Capitol Hill and in the White House. All things being equal, this is their moment.

But all things are not equal. And now it's time to melodramatically unveil that monstrous blockage that must be killed -- the dam preventing our government from doing the big things most of us want. It's a pair of dumb Senate rules born accidentally 215 years ago, requiring 60 votes to pass most legislation — instead of the simple majority specifically outlined in our Constitution.

These rules are called "filibuster" and "cloture." And they both need to die.

Simply put, the Democrats now hold 50 seats in the Senate, not enough to pass S 1 and upgrade our representative democracy so long as the GOP stands unified against it. Without 60 votes, that bill will never be more than a piece of paper.

When I first made my case to kill the filibuster, it was not popularly shared. Senators waxed lovingly of the "bipartisanship" the rules produced and extolled the rights of the minority. I wasn't buying it. Constitutional scholar Emmet Bondurant and I perforated the senators' smokescreen on this site a year ago .

In 2017, GOP Leader Mitch McConnell reversed years of his own statements and got the Senate to eliminate the filibuster for Supreme Court nominations, allowing President Trump to add three polarizing conservative justices. It was entirely predictable. McConnell plays hardball, and it's how he installed a new ideological majority on the bench that will live for decades.

Now will the Democrats do the same? Will they "go nuclear" and kill the filibuster on the one remaining thing it can thwart — the passage of laws?

We don't know. But we do know it's possible. Over the last year, some of the party's biggest stars have come aboard and publicly spoken out in favor of nuking it: Barack Obama, Elizabeth Warren, Stacey Abrams, Pete Buttigieg and a fast-growing list of national opinion leaders.

They all make the same argument: We cannot buckle to GOP obstruction forever. Enough.

Standing in the way of the filibuster's final death are two Democratic senators from more conservative states, West Virginia's Joe Manchin and Arizona's Kyrsten Sinema. They have vowed not to vote for its elimination for the next two years. Yet pressure has a way of moving politicians.

Perhaps Obama said it best in last year's eulogy for John Lewis, who fought for voting rights his entire life and helped to shape HR 1. As Obama talked about the imperative of outlawing gerrymandering and restoring voting protections that have been gutted, he declared:

"If all this takes eliminating the filibuster, another Jim Crow relic, in order to secure the God-given rights of every American, then that's what we should do."

Amen.

Are you listening, senators? Do you want to get big things done? You have the power to make it happen. All you have to do is use it.


Read More

Constitutional Barriers to Nationalizing Elections
US Capitol
US Capitol

Constitutional Barriers to Nationalizing Elections

In the run-up to the midterms, President Trump continues to call for nationalizing congressional elections. He has sought to initiate the process through executive orders, such as one proposing to set “a ballot receipt deadline of Election Day for all methods of voting.” The words and spirit of the United States Constitution—the bedrock textualism and originalism of conservative constitutional interpretation—say he can’t nationalize elections.

Unlike some consequential constitutional questions, it’s not a close call.

Keep ReadingShow less
Unpacking War Powers in the U.S.-Iran Conflict: Who Decides When America Goes to War?

Smoke billows after overnight airstrikes on oil depots on March 8, 2026 in Tehran, Iran.

(Photo by Majid Saeedi/Getty Images)

Unpacking War Powers in the U.S.-Iran Conflict: Who Decides When America Goes to War?

What Is The War Powers Resolution of 1973?

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 is a law enacted by Congress that limits the U.S. president’s ability to wage or escalate military operations overseas. Passed on November 7, 1973 amid the Vietnam War, the War Powers Resolution reasserts Congress’ constitutional power “to declare war” and “to raise and support Armies.” A key provision of the War Powers Resolution requires the president to submit a report to Congress within 48 hours of military deployment in the absence of an official declaration of war by Congress detailing:

  • The circumstances requiring U.S. forces;
  • The constitutional or legislative justification for the president’s actions;
  • The estimated duration of U.S. involvement in the hostilities.

If Congress does not formally declare war or enact special authorization for continuation of the U.S’ involvement in a conflict within 60 days of the report’s submission, the president must withdraw U.S. troops from the hostilities. If Congress does declare war, the president is instructed under the War Powers Resolution to report to Congress periodically on the status of the hostilities no less than once every 6 months.

Keep ReadingShow less
Protestors holding signs, including one that says "let the people vote."

Attendees hold signs advocating for voting rights and against the SAVE America Act at a rally to outside the U.S. Capitol on March 18, 2026 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, Heather Diehl

SAVE America Act Debate Begins; Mullin for DHS Hearing

Both chambers of Congress are in session this week and next. The House will probably function about like it has been - lots of votes (often by voice) on uncontroversial bills; many fewer votes on Republican priority bills. Lots of hearings this week and a few legislator updates.

Committee Meetings

Both chambers have a busy week with 64 total committee meetings scheduled.

Keep ReadingShow less
Who Decides Whether America Goes to War?

A woman sifts through the rubble in her house in the Beryanak District after it was damaged by missile attacks two days before, on March 15, 2026, in Tehran, Iran.

(Photo by Majid Saeedi/Getty Images)

Who Decides Whether America Goes to War?

Because taking our country into war has the potential, if not the likelihood, even in modernwarfare, of costing the bodies and lives of American soldiers as well as disrupting the economy, this is an important question.

The Constitution is the guide to answering this question. The Constitution clearly states that Congress has the power to declare war. The President does not have that power.

Keep ReadingShow less