There is probably no issue that I’ve been struggling with more these days than the issue of the filibuster. Democrats have spent years abusing the filibuster, using it to suit their own ends, and then nuking it when Republicans use the same tactic against them. Democrats will inevitably nuke the filibuster for good the next chance they get, so why not beat them to the punch and make some real progress? Well, we may be closer to a turning point with the filibuster now.
On Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) announced that Republican senators plan to force Democrats to hold a talking filibuster to give the SAVE Act a chance at a vote. A talking filibuster would require Democrats to actively hold the Senate floor for hours to block the legislation.
“We got some members, as you know, who’ve expressed an interested in that so we’re going to have a conversation about it but there weren’t any commitments made, no,” Thune said. “There are a lot of implications and ramifications to that, that I think our conference would need to have a conversation about. Obviously, it ties up the floor indefinitely so it means you’re not doing other things. There’s always an opportunity cost.”
ICYMI: Even CNN Admits the Truth about Voter ID Laws
That may be the case, but I’m very much okay with this idea. In fact, back in October, I suggested this very idea when Trump was pushing the Senate GOP to nuke the filibuster outright. Let’s face it: requiring 60 votes to end debate in the Senate is the key reason there is so much gridlock, and reforming our elections to make them more secure is too important to let die because of partisan obstruction.
According to a report from The Hill, there is support for this idea.
Reps. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) and Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) received assurances from President Trump that Senate Republicans would strongly consider forcing Democrats to actively hold the Senate floor for hours on end if they attempt to block the SAVE Act, which would tighten rules for voter registration around the country.
Yes, this would have risks, but what other alternative do we have? Democrats flip-flop on the filibuster like pros. Democrats have a well-documented history of treating the filibuster like a light switch, flipping it on and off depending on whether it suits their political needs. Remember when they weaponized it during George W. Bush’s presidency to block his judicial nominees? That was totally fine, according to the Democrats. But the second Republicans turned around and used the same tactic during the Obama years, suddenly the filibuster became an “anti-democratic” tool and a “racist relic” of Jim Crow.
I’ve generally been uncomfortable with the idea of Republicans nuking the filibuster, even though we all know Democrats will do so the next chance they get. The standing filibuster is different. It doesn’t eliminate the 60-vote threshold. It just forces senators to work for it, to actually defend their obstruction in public, on the Senate floor, for however long it takes. If Democrats want to block election integrity legislation, let them explain why on live television for days on end.
This is the moment Republicans have been waiting for. The question is whether they’ll have the courage to seize it.
