This past week, the legendary Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) passed away. The soft-spoken Democratic Senate Leader was also tough as nails – when he was a boxer in his youth, his nickname was “the honey badger.”
Bill Dauster, former deputy chief of staff to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, eulogizes, Remembering Sen. Harry Reid, Soft-Spoken Man of Consequence (excerpt):
Harry Reid was the most consequential Senate leader since Lyndon Johnson. In large part because of his hard work, 31 million Americans now live longer, healthier, less pain-wracked lives because they have health insurance through the Affordable Care Act. In large part because of Harry Reid’s work on the American Recovery Act, the Great Recession of 2007 to 2009 did not become a second Great Depression. In large part because of Harry Reid, millions of Americans have protection from fraudsters under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.
As consequential as those laws were, Harry Reid may well be most consequential because he made the Senate more democratic. For 35 years, congressional procedure has been my trade, so I’ve seen how Speaker Newt Gingrich and Leader Mitch McConnell consolidated power in the leadership and finely tuned the art of obstruction. Give them credit: They do not believe that government should help working people, so they were happy to block it from doing so as often as they could.
But Harry Reid did not settle for business as usual. When Leader McConnell violated Senate norms to preemptively block appointments by America’s first African American President, Harry Reid did not just resign himself to the all-too-common belief that that’s just the way the Senate is. He worked the Democratic Caucus, telephone call after telephone call, meeting after meeting, until he could do something about it. And in November 2013, he got rid of the filibuster for judicial nominations.
Note: Senate Confirms Biden’s 40th Judge, Tying a Reagan-Era Record; also, Biden Is On Pace To Get 100 Judges Confirmed In 2022.
As a result, nominations are now confirmed by a majority vote. And before too long, I believe, majority vote will be the rule for everything in the Senate. When the Senate ultimately takes that next step to become more democratic, we will have Harry Reid to thank for it.
Chris Walker writes, One of Harry Reid’s Last Wishes Was to End the Filibuster (excerpt):
In marking his passing, many observers took note of Reid’s recent stance against the filibuster, with the former Minority House Leader advocating for its abolition.
[Reid] had come around on the issue of the filibuster, arguing for its end.
“The Senate is now a place where the most pressing issues facing our country are disregarded, along with the will of the American people overwhelmingly calling for action,” Reid wrote in an opinion piece for The New York Times in August 2019. “The future of our country is sacrificed at the altar of the filibuster.”
“If the Senate cannot address the most important issues of our time, then it is time for the chamber itself to change, as it has done in the past,” Reid added.
In September 2021, Reid wrote another op-ed, this time appealing to Nevadans in the Las Vegas Sun. Reid described the Senate as “a legislative graveyard where the minority rules and bills that we as a country desperately need go to die.”
Reid said that legislation with popular support — including the PRO Act, the Equality Act, voting rights and abortion protections recognized in Roe v. Wade — were all blocked due to the filibuster.
“The sanctity of the Senate is not the filibuster,” Reid said. “The sanctity of the Senate — in government as a whole — is the power it holds to better the lives of and protect the rights of the American people. We need to get the Senate working again.”
In noting Reid’s passing, many commentators on social media said that eliminating the filibuster, once and for all, would be the best way to honor him.
Jason Easley adds, The Senate Must Honor The Late Harry Reid By Abolishing The Filibuster (excerpt):
Senate Democrats Must Listen To Harry Reid And Change The Filibuster
Current Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer called Reid his mentor, and Schumer has been following Reid’s playbook in his efforts to change the filibuster.
The filibuster change that Reid accomplished in 2013 was a long slow process that took more than a year of effort. Reid himself said that he should have changed more of the filibuster, but in 2013, he thought that the Republicans would eventually return to normal. Instead, they became more radicalized and obsessed with obstruction and gridlock.
Democrats in the Senate have an opportunity to honor Harry Reid in a lasting way. Senate Democrats can abolish the filibuster so that every time a person can go to the polls and vote, it will be a small tribute to the legacy of Sen. Reid.
When the planet cools, or action can finally be taken against gun violence in the Senate, it will be because Democratic Senators gave Harry Reid a lasting legacy in the Senate.
Democrats could even name the filibuster rule after Reid.
Harry Reid called for the filibuster to be abolished, and Senate Democrats should do exactly that in his name.
Chris Walker notes:
Although moderate Democrats, like Senators Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Arizona), stand in the way of reforming or eliminating the filibuster, many polls have demonstrated that voters support reforming or completely getting rid of the rule, especially if it would help lawmakers pass important pieces of legislation. Even President Joe Biden believes that the filibuster should, at a minimum, be changed to require senators to actually stand and speak for it to be implemented.
It is past time for the obstructionist Sens. Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Arizona), appeasers and enablers of the enemies of democracy and a tyranny of the minority, to stand down and end the filibuster for fundamental voting rights legislation – the Freedom to Vote Act was co-authored by Joe Manchin – in order to save American democracy from creeping GQP authoritarian fascism.
The Hill reported, Democrats set for showdown over filibuster, voting rights (excerpt):
Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) is vowing to bring the fight to a head in January.
“The Senate will consider voting rights legislation, as early as the first week back. … If Senate Republicans continue to abuse the filibuster and prevent the body from considering this bill, the Senate will then consider changes to any rules which prevent us from debating and reaching final conclusion on important legislation,” Schumer wrote in a letter to the caucus.
But forcing a vote could highlight division within the caucus, where both Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) support the 60-vote threshold. Democrats need both of them to ultimately vote to change the rules.
Voting rights legislation and potential changes to the Senate’s legislative filibuster are linked because Republicans have used the 60-vote hurdle to block bills that would overhaul federal elections or strengthen the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
Democrats are having behind-the-scenes talks to try to come up with ways to change the Senate’s rules to break the logjam and a group of Democrats — including Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Jon Tester (D-Mont.) and Angus King (I-Maine), who caucuses with the party — was tapped by Schumer to lead the discussions and come up with options.
“We’ve got to get this done. … We are having a robust conversation,” said Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), who has publicly and privately pushed his colleagues to be more aggressive in coming up with a plan to pass voting rights legislation.
Kaine added that “there’s ideas on the table now that people are attracted to.”
“We’re looking at reforms to restore the Senate. It’s not just filibuster reforms,” he added.
Democrats haven’t settled on a plan, but instead are discussing a range of options aimed at winning over the 50 votes needed to invoke the “nuclear option” and change the Senate’s rules with a simple majority.
[O]ne option, backed by some in the caucus, would be to revert to a talking filibuster where opponents to a bill could delay it for as long as they could hold the floor, but that legislation would then only need 51 votes to clear the Senate.
Another would create a carveout from the 60-vote requirement for voting rights or election legislation. Though that would leave the hurdle in place for other legislation, Republicans warn that it would pave the way for the legislative filibuster to be neutered altogether.
The carveout idea has picked up support from within the Democratic caucus.
Smaller options include changing the number of votes from 60 “yes” votes needed to break a filibuster to 41 “no” votes needed to sustain it. Supporters argue that it would put the onus on senators blocking the bill, rather than on supporters who want to advance a piece of legislation.
Senators have also discussed getting rid of the 60-vote hurdle to start debate on a piece of legislation combined with a deal that guarantees a certain number of amendment votes for both sides.
That is unlikely to satisfy reform advocates because it would leave in place the 60-vote hurdle needed to end debate on legislation and ultimately move it to a final vote. But it would make it easier to debate bills in the Senate, where opponents are currently able to prevent a bill from being brought up, and gets around a current rule that allows any senator to block amendment votes unless leadership is willing to eat up days of time.
[T]hough Manchin has talked with a group of GOP senators about ideas including getting rid of the 60-vote hurdle needed to start debate combined with a guarantee on amendment votes, Republicans are unlikely to support any rules change that gets rid of the 60-vote hurdle needed to end debate on the bill.
That means Democrats will need to use the “nuclear option” to change the legislative filibuster on their own.
But they don’t yet have the votes to do that, and it’s not clear how they get there on the two changes — a talking filibuster or a carveout — that would be needed for Democrats to be able to pass voting rights legislation on their own.
Both Manchin and Sinema have made clear recently that they remain adamant in their support for the 60-vote hurdle.
“If you can make the Senate work better, the rules are something we’ve changed over the years; 232 years, there’s been rule changes. But there’s never been a change with the filibuster, the rights of the minority,” Manchin said during a “Fox News Sunday” interview Dec. 19.
Sinema has also been skeptical of a carveout for voting legislation, raising concerns about what types of legislation a Republican majority could enact under the same rules change.
In addition to talking to Republicans, Manchin has been in talks with Kaine, King and Tester. Though Manchin hasn’t publicly committed to supporting any change, and continues to say that rules reforms need to be bipartisan, senators believe that they are making progress with the key holdout.
“He’s ain’t there yet, but he’s open,” Tester said about Manchin, noting that they had given language on potential changes.
Manchin added during the Fox News interview that he had made “no commitments” on what changes he could potentially support.
“I am working on trying to make the Senate work better, bringing bills to the floor, amending them, having debates, understanding, being transparent to the public, what you agree or disagree,” he said.
Sinema, meanwhile, is calling for a public debate in the Senate on the rules, a similar position she staked out during a July Washington Post op-ed.
Riiight, just debate it, with no commitment to changing her position to end the filibuster rule. It is disingenuous to claim that she supports voting rights legislation, but then will not do the one thing everyone knows is necessary to pass voting rights legislation. She is not really for voting rights if she will not do what is necessary to pass voting rights. Don’t piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining.
Failing to change the Senate’s rules and pass voting rights legislation would be a significant blow to both the White House — which has signaled its a top priority — and outside civil rights and progressive groups, which see passing legislation as fundamental to protecting democracy.
Schumer, during an interview with the “Joe Madison Show,” urged advocates to keep up the pressure heading toward the Senate action—including on his own members.
“Keep up the drumbeat,” Schumer said. “We need all the anger and the protests, etc., that have occurred here.”
“So now we’re in the final stages,” he added, “and we’re asking people to keep up the pressure.”
The Senate returns to work this week. Call Senator Sinema’s office and demand that she end her obstruction of the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. End the Senate filibuster for fundamental voting rights – this is what the Jim Crow relic Senate filibuster rule has always been used to obstruct. These voting rights bills must pass now.
Voting rights advocates are marching in Phoenix on January 15 – the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s actual birthday – and in Washington D.C. on January 17, the federal holiday for King’s birthday. For more information, see deliverforvotingrights.com, and #DeliverForVotingRights on Twitter.
The Senate needs to get this done. Getting it done by the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday would honor all of the generations of Americans who have fought and died for the freedom to vote, and give Americans cause to celebrate this Martin Luther King holiday. And we just might save American democracy in the process.
I was replying to troll boi Kavanagh, reply indent didn’t work.
We’re expecting it and it doesn’t matter.
You suck at making threats.
It’s undemocratic for both sides.
That you don’t get this informs the reader that you have reading comprehension issues.
So I take it then that you’re not worried about Republican retaliation in 3 years should the Republicans control the legislature and the presidency.
Fortunately, I think more than just two Democrat senators all worried about that, so it’s a moot point.
As I have said many times, if Republicans take back control of the Senate, the very first thing they will do is get rid of the filibuster rule so that they can pass the “enabling acts” of their GQP authoritarian tyranny of the minority. This is a given. Two Democratic senators who fail to understand this just demonstrates their simplicity, or perhaps complicity.
The Hill reports, “60 groups urge Senate Democrats to reform filibuster for voting rights”, https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/587961-60-groups-urge-senate-dems-to-reform-filibuster-for-voting-rights?rl=1
Sixty organizations sent a letter, which was exclusively obtained by The Hill ahead of its release, to Senate Democrats on Monday, arguing that a December debt ceiling fight showed how the 60-vote legislative filibuster could be circumvented.
Link to letter: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SNF2G8N4uvc72juWQXpBY7uoCticALiQaSfQp_Joo-M/edit
“Just as we needed to extend the debt limit to avoid economic calamity, we need to pass federal democracy and voting legislation to safeguard our democracy,” the groups wrote in the letter, which was spearheaded by pro-reform group Fix Our Senate.
[T]he coalition of progressive groups added in their letter on Monday that while McConnell supported a one-time loophole around the legislative filibuster for raising the debt ceiling, Republicans “remain committed to abusing the filibuster to obstruct democracy legislation, such as electoral college reforms, and voting rights legislation, such as the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and the Freedom to Vote Act.”
The letter comes as Schumer is expected to bring up voting rights legislation this month and, if it’s blocked by Republicans, trigger a vote on changing the legislative filibuster, which requires 60 votes for most legislation to pass the Senate.
In addition, “800+ Faith Leaders Tell Biden, Dems Voting Rights Must Be ‘Number One Priority’ in 2022”, https://www.commondreams.org/news/2021/12/23/800-faith-leaders-tell-biden-dems-voting-rights-must-be-number-one-priority-2022
Citing “extraordinary challenges” to American democracy in 2021, over 800 faith leaders on Wednesday urged President Joe Biden and the U.S. Senate to make passage of comprehensive voting rights legislation their “number one priority” for the coming year.
In a letter to Biden and senators, the faith leaders said that events such as the deadly January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol by a right-wing mob and the “over 30 anti-voting bills pushed through state legislatures” this year in a Republican bid to silence marginalized communities underscore the need for “prompt, substantive federal action.”
“During the Civil Rights era, prominent leaders were driven by their faith to fight for equality,” the authors wrote. “This is why we continue the push for voting rights today—our faith teaches us that each one of us deserves dignity and freedom.”
“We cannot be clearer: You must act now to protect every American’s freedom to vote without interference and with confidence that their ballot will be counted and honored,” the clergy members implored. “Passing comprehensive voting rights legislation must be the number one priority of the administration and Congress.”
“Nothing—including the filibuster—should stand in the way of passing the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, both of which have already passed the House and await Senate action and leadership,” they added.
Link to Letter: https://deliverforvotingrights.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/152/Faith-Letter-MLK-Day.pdf
The faith leaders vowed to “continue to sound the alarm” until the two voting rights bills are passed.
“On Martin Luther King Jr. Day in January, we will accompany Martin Luther King III, Andrea King, Yolanda Renee King, and voting rights advocates across the country to honor Dr. King’s legacy by calling for Congress and the president to restore and expand access to the ballot for all voters,” they wrote in the letter. “It’s time to stop lamenting the state of our democracy and take action to address it.”
“As Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. so valiantly said in his Give Us the Ballot address, ‘The denial of this sacred right is a tragic betrayal of the highest mandates of our democratic tradition,'” the faith leaders said. “That is why this Martin Luther King Day, we will not accept empty promises. Congress must serve the nation and future generations by immediately passing voting rights legislation.”
I know JK ignores history when it suits him to support some predetermined irrationality.
Hamilton in Federalist 22, doesn’t support the two Arizona prima donna’s (JK and KS) positions.
“To give a minority a negative upon the majority (which is always the case where more than a majority is requisite to a decision), is, in its tendency, to subject the sense of the greater number to that of the lesser. … The necessity of unanimity in public bodies, or of something approaching towards it, has been founded upon a supposition that it would contribute to security. But its real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of the government, and to substitute the pleasure, caprice, or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent, or corrupt junto, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority. In those emergencies of a nation, in which the goodness or badness, the weakness or strength of its government, is of the greatest importance, there is commonly a necessity for action.”
The last time the Democrats ended the filibuster for low-level court appointments the payback was ending the filibuster for US Supreme Court appointments and the Republicans got three justices through. With the possibility there that Republicans will control not only both chambers of the legislature but also the presidency in a few years, do you really want to start playing “tit for tat” with the filibuster?
For the past 200 years the filibuster has given an extraordinary amount of power to the party out of power in the US federal government. Many people think that that is a reasonable and fair thing. I don’t think any other country in the world gives so much deference to the party out of power. Ending the filibuster when Harry Reid did it was a bad idea and it’s still a bad idea.
Well Lil’ Johnny, since we know your party has no honor, your threats of repercussions are impotent.
Your party will end the filibuster two seconds after you get a majority and you know it.
So, STFU, you disingenuous useless troll boi, and go find a quiet spot to pound sand.
Reminder to please donate in Representative John Kavanagh’s name to one of these fine organizations:
raicestexas.org – Providing free and low cost legal assistance to immigrants
aclu.org – Defending the Bill of Rights for over 100 years
plannedparenthood.org – Providing healthcare services for women and men for over 100 years
Remember to donate In Honor of Arizona State Representative John Kavanagh.
Johnny, are you deliberately leaving pertinent circumstances unsaid or are you just pig-ignorant? Your Lord, Mitch McConnell, wasn’t allowing any of President Obama’s judicial nominations to pass due to his egregious abuse of the filibuster. So Harry Reid had the filibuster eliminated for lower level (below Supreme Court) nominations as thanks to Lord McConnell, the Federal Judiciary was extremely understaffed which created a large backlog of cases, severely impeding the judiciary’s mission.
Your categorizing McConnell taking the final step of eliminating the filibuster for Supreme Court nominations (after stealing a seat by not even giving nominee Merrick Garland a hearing) as “payback” perfectly encapsulates you and your party’s approach to governing. Apparently petty payback & denying the loyal opposition a “win” is more important than doing the right & honorable thing. Oh, if you clowns take back the Senate, :Lord McConnell will get rid of the filibuster in a heartbeat. Because getting, keeping and maintain power is all you Repugs stand for.
Now go back & crawl under your (I’m sure well appointed) rock. Or bridge, your choice, Johnny Boy.
We all know that you are historically ignorant. The filibuster, in its current iteration with a two-thirds cloture vote, has only been around since 1917, not 200 years. The cloture vote threshold was lowered to 60 in 1975.
Between 1917 and 1970, senators filed fewer than 60 motions to break a filibuster. The vast majority of these involved civil rights and voting rights bills during the Jim Crow era. Between 2009 and 2015 (the Mitch McConnell “total obstruction” era) alone, they filed more than 500. McConnell required cloture on virtually every act of business in the Senate, breaking the Senate as a functioning institution.
This is why Harry Reid created a carve out for judicial nominations. At the time, the federal judiciary was sounding the alarm of a “judicial crisis” of not having enough judges to do the work of the federal courts, due to Mitch McConnell’s partisan sabotage of the third branch of government.
Molly Reynolds, a senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution, in her 2017 book “Exceptions to the Rule: The Politics of Filibuster Limitations in the U.S. Senate,” https://www.amazon.com/Exceptions-Rule-Politics-Filibuster-Limitations/dp/0815729960, collected 161 examples of the Senate establishing work-arounds to the ordinary 60-vote requirement to push past a filibuster.
Just last month, the Senate adopted another work-around to pass the debt ceiling increase to prevent Republicans from defaulting on the U.S. debt with a filibuster and causing an economic catastrophe out of partisan sabotage of the government in their ongoing insurrection.
The exceptions swallow the rule for things that the Senate wants to pass. The Senate clearly should do away with the filibuster for the foundation of democratic governments around the world: securing the fundamental right to vote.
As someone who has served for far too long in a state legislature for all the damage you have done, you should be aware that all 50 state governments do not repeat the Senate’s mistake of a filibuster rule (nor do any other democratic governments in the world). Only a handful of states require more than a simple majority vote for some limited matters.
During your time in the Arizona legislature in the Republican majority, you have never once demonstrated any concern for the Democratic minority rights. The Republican majority routinely excludes the Democratic minority from budget negotiations, cuts off debate and amendments, and steamrolls bills the Republican leadership wants passed. I have seen you do this in committees you have chaired. So don’t come crying crocodile tears about the minority rights of insurrectionist Senate Republicans here, you damn hypocrite.
You are quite the cheap shot artist. The filibuster has been around since the beginning. The only way I am a historically wrong is if the readers don’t ignore your insertion of the weasel words “in its current iteration.”