After watching the number of filibusters, or more accurately filibuster threats, skyrocket in recent years, I can recommend some changes.
As aggravating as it has been to see it so mis-used this year, I’m not one to advocate eliminating that procedural measure. It was designed to serve a purpose — that of minimizing the tyranny of the majority so that it cannot simply jam through legislation without regard to alternative views. As the political winds change over time, today’s majority may become tomorrow’s minority. But the filibuster shouldn’t be used as a weapon to provide tyranny of the minority, either. Let’s face it. The role of the minority party is to provide alternative solutions that may result in compromise, not simply to stomp their feet and say no to everything the majority attempts.
Neither am I in favor of reducing to a bare majority the number of votes needed to invoke cloture and cut off debate. That would short-circuit its intended purpose.
Here’s what I propose:
- If a party or a person decides to filibuster, they should be required to conduct an actual filibuster, not simply threaten one. I can’t help but think that the burden of conducting an actual filibuster would reduce their number closer to their historical averages.
- The 60 vote threshold could be reduced to 55. That would still give the minority party the ability to slow the process, but it would limit the effectiveness of abusing the tactic.
- A third mechanism merits further discussion to identify any unintended negative consequences. The current system puts the onus on the majority to invoke cloture and end debate. Bruce Bartlett, who served in both the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, has proposed that for every bill, a specified number of hours of debate, say 40 hours, would be guaranteed. Should any member request, an additional 10 hours would be granted by unanimous consent or by a vote of 40 senators. The agreement to additional hours could be repeated as many times as senators could muster 40 votes or unanimous consent. That reverses the burden and places it on the minority in order to keep debate open while still preserving their right to slow the process. It might also prevent the majority from having to be beholden to a small number of senators to invoke cloture, thus limiting their ability to shape a bill to the needs or desires of a particular state.
What do you think? Would this preserve the ability of the minority to slow legislation? Would it reduce the number of filibusters and filibuster threats? Would it help to remove the gridlock that currently exists while reducing the power of individual senators in the majority party to extract concessions or to shape legislation to suit their particular needs while ignoring or subverting the will of the rest of the body?