The Filibuster Must Go -- Now

 This is cheating (a little). I wrote an article for our local League of Women Voters Pasadena Area about the filibuster and it seemed reasonable to share it here. In Republican hands over the past 12 years, the filibuster has become simply an obstructionist tactic that prevents legislation from being enacted and delays or preempts presidential appointments from occurring. I firmly believe this anachronism must be euthanized now. Here is the article:

The Filibuster -- Good or Bad?

Filibuster - an action such as a prolonged speech that obstructs progress in a legislative assembly while not technically contravening the required procedures. 

Cloture - the only procedure by which the Senate can vote to place a time limit on consideration of a bill or other matter, and therefore end a filibuster.

The word filibuster does not appear in the Constitution. The word was originally from the Dutch vrijbueter (freebooter), with contributions from Spanish and French. The genesis of the filibuster is arcane and the history voluminous. Filibusters were uncommon in the 19th century. In 1917, the Senate created rule XXII which allowed cloture to bring a matter to a vote. Between 1917 and 1975 cloture required only a supermajority (two thirds) of Senators who were “present and voting”. Present and voting was defined as being in or near the Senate chamber. This meant that cloture could be invoked by a small number of Senators (e.g., two out of three who were present and voting). This was changed in 1975 to three-fifths of all Senators, none of whom needed to be in Washington to count. Cloture thus became very difficult to invoke with that rule and made the simple threat of a filibuster enough to stall legislation. 

Filibusters increased after 1951 as Southern Senators worked to block civil rights legislation. Strom Thurmond infamously conducted the longest filibuster on record, 24 hours and 18 minutes, in opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1957. This was not what the Framers intended when they wrote the Constitution. James Madison and the other Framers viewed the Senate as a body that would debate measures in meaningful ways, rather than reading from the Bible or recipe books. When the membership of the Senate was smaller and communications slower, the idea made sense. But the rise of political parties in the early 19th century and the splits over policy resulting from the Civil War and Reconstruction, as well as more recent political polarization have enabled a minority party to drive the federal legislative agenda. The simple threat of a filibuster is now enough to kill prospective legislation and nominations; tweets and emails suffice to sink important agendas. The Senate today is anti-majoritarian.

Is the filibuster good or bad? Mostly, it is a mistake that was allowed to grow for partisan purposes over two centuries. Those who believe the filibuster resembles anything like Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington are mistaken. Republicans, currently the minority in the Senate, have threatened that elimination of the filibuster will be paid back in full if and when they regain a Senate majority. The reality is that there have been 20+ years of legislative gridlock, in large part due to the threat of filibusters. There is so much to be done to move our nation forward that requires passing laws: voting rights, solving inequality, dealing with 400 years of racism, healthcare, and climate change. The answer is not abolishing the filibuster but deciding that a minority that wants to preserve it must endure pain. Senators should have to stand and deliver their objections, on their feet, yielding the floor only because of fatigue or calls of nature. Senate work may grind to a halt but honest debate, not obstruction by the minority, was why the Framers created the Senate. The filibuster as it stands impairs governance. 

References:

1. We Already Got Rid of the Filibuster Once Before - The Atlantic

2. The History of the Filibuster (brookings.edu)

3. The Senate Filibuster Is a Monument to White Supremacy - The Atlantic

—Thad Zajdowicz, Book Corner Co-Editor