Republican "procedural filibusters" can be brought to an abrupt halt by Senate Democrats by simply ending their "dual-track" Senate debate practice. They don't even need to change Senate rules! BBI
Op-Ed Contributors
A One-Track Senate
By BARRY FRIEDMAN and ANDREW D. MARTIN
Barry Friedman is a vice dean at New York University School of Law. Andrew D. Martin is the chairman of the political science department and a professor of law at Washington University in St. Louis.
March 9, 2010
During the 1960s, the Senate was frozen by lengthy filibusters over civil rights legislation. When, in the mid-’70s, that tactic once again threatened to bring the Senate to a standstill, Robert Byrd, the West Virginia Democrat who was the majority whip, invented a dual-track system. This change in practice allowed the majority leader — with the unanimous consent of the Senate or the approval of the minority leader — to set aside whatever was being debated on the Senate floor and move immediately to another item on the agenda.
The result of tracking? No more marathon debate sessions that shut down the Senate. While one bill is being “filibustered,” business can continue on others.
Because dual-tracking is a Senate practice, not a formal rule, the majority leader, Harry Reid, could end tracking at any time. By doing so, the Democrats would transform the filibuster and recover their opportunity to govern effectively.
The new-school filibuster would preserve minority rights in the Senate, while imposing significant costs on obstructionist members, changing the calculus that causes today’s logjam. Stuck on the Senate floor, filibustering senators couldn’t meet with lobbyists or attend campaign fund-raising events; they couldn’t do much of anything, really, until their filibuster ended.
After all, filibusters historically broke when public opinion went against the Senate minority. If the Democratic leadership eliminated the dual-track system, serial, single-issue filibusters would give us an opportunity to see where the country actually stands on issues like health care reform and financial regulation — and where the Senate should stand.
Read the full article at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/10/opinion/10martin.html?_r=2
Filibuster in the United States Senate
From Wikipedia
"After a series of filibusters in the 1960s over civil rights legislation, the Senate put a "two-track system" into place in the early 1970s under the leadership of Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield and Byrd, who was at that time serving as Senate Majority Whip. Before the introduction of tracking, a filibuster would stop the Senate from moving on to any other legislative activity. Tracking allows the majority leader — with unanimous consent or the agreement by the minority leader — to have more than one bill pending on the floor as unfinished business. Under the "two-track system", the Senate can have two or more pieces of legislation pending on the floor simultaneously by designating specific periods during the day when each matter or measure will be considered."
http://www.ask.com/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate
Critique of the Senate Filibuster
By Roy Ulrich
Roy Ulrich is a researcher at Demos, a New York-based policy and advocacy organization
May 5, 2009
The extended speechifying made famous by Strom Thurmond and Huey Long before him has been replaced by what legal scholars Erwin Chemerinsky and Catherine Fisk have dubbed the "stealth" filibuster. Its genesis was the early 1970s, when it became apparent to then majority leader Mike Mansfield (D-MT) that delaying tactics such as objections to unanimous consent motions; forcing the previous day's journal to be read aloud in its entirety; suggesting the absence of a quorum; and -- of course -- extended periods of time holding the floor were causing the Senate to fall behind in doing the people's business. (Contrary to popular legend, the workload of the modern-day Senate is substantial. Most members could make a convincing argument for the proposition that they really don't have time to wait out a filibuster.) In response, Mansfield devised a "two-track" system where the mornings were devoted to filibustering and the afternoons to pressing business. With liberal Democrats taking the floor to argue against further funding of the Vietnam War and in favor of stripping right-to-work provisions out of federal labor laws, there was bipartisan support for his efforts. While this dual system may have solved Mansfield's problems over the short term, over the long term it has proved to be disastrous. An explanation for this statement is in order.
Rather than dividing mornings and afternoons between filibustered bills and other matters, over time the Senate has come to a point in time where it seldom takes up legislation unless the majority leadership has counted sixty votes. In other words, a credible threat that 41 senators won't vote for cloture is enough to keep a bill off the floor on most occasions. Boston College historian Julian Zeliger puts it this way: "Mansfield's measure, which was intended to promote efficiency, inadvertently encouraged filibusters by making them politically costless and painless."
One way for a senator to let her colleagues know that she intends to pursue a filibuster is to place a "hold" on a bill, thereby letting her colleagues know she will not accede to unanimous consent. Congressional scholar Norman Ornstein has noted that in the modern Senate holds "are routinely employed -- often anonymously -- against bills or people the senator has nothing against, but wants to take as hostages for leverage on something utterly unrelated to the hold itself."
If members actually had to hold the floor as in the days of Senators Long and Thurmond, most filibusters would end quickly. The reason is that we live in an age where this public disgust over partisan gridlock. Public airing of the old-fashioned filibuster on C-Span and elsewhere would not be something most Senators would want the public to see. In the current climate, it would be sound political strategy for Senate Majority leader Harry Reid to force the Republicans to engage in extended debate on a major issue such as health care reform. Best of all, no change in Senate rules would be required.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/roy-ulrich/a-critique-of-the-senate_b_193221.html
Reid triggers ‘nuclear option’ to change Senate rules, end repeat filibusters
By Alexander Bolton
October 6, 2011
In a shocking development Thursday evening, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) triggered a rarely used procedural option informally called the “nuclear option” to change the Senate rules.
Reid and 50 members of his caucus voted to change Senate rules unilaterally to prevent Republicans from forcing votes on uncomfortable amendments after the chamber has voted to move to final passage of a bill.
Reid’s coup passed by a vote of 51-48, leaving Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) fuming.
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/186133-reid-triggers-nuclear-option-to-change-senate-rules-and-prohibit-post-cloture-filibusters
Edit history
= new reply since forum marked as read
