The Senate might scrap the filibuster next year. Where do Bollier and Marshall stand?
Depending on who you ask, the filibuster is either an important Senate tradition that ensures bipartisan compromise or an obstacle to progress that subverts majority rule.
There’s an intensifying movement on the political left to end the Senate’s 60-vote threshold for most legislation if Democrats win back the Senate on November 3.
Barbara Bollier, the Democrat running for U.S. Senate in Kansas, has been evasive about whether she’ll support this effort if elected.
At recent campaign events, she’s joked that it’ll be a non-issue because Democrats will win 60 seats — something no election forecast projects despite the party’s favorable prospects of winning the chamber with a simple majority.
Bollier, a state senator from Mission Hills, has repeatedly noted that the Kansas Legislature does not use the filibuster rule and has expressed her desire to get Washington before she makes a decision on the issue.
“Barbara appreciates that there are strong opinions about this in Washington, but she considers this a procedural issue that will warrant more consideration after the 2020 election. She’d like an opportunity to talk to her Senate colleagues on both sides of the aisle,” Bollier spokeswoman Alexandra De Luca said in a statement.
What is the filibuster?
The term “filibuster” for delaying legislation through debate dates back to the 19th century and comes from a Dutch word for pirate. The tactic has been common throughout the history of the Senate, but the vote threshold is more recent.
In 1917, the Senate adopted a rule requiring a two-thirds majority to end debate. In 1975, the threshold was lowered to three-fifths (60 out of 100), where it currently stands.
Bill Hoagland, senior vice president of the Bipartisan Policy Center, said the founding fathers did not intend for the Senate to be a majoritarian body like the House, but to instead serve as a cooling influence on the passions of that chamber.
He said the filibuster serves this aim.
“I do believe that legislation that is bipartisan has a longer lifespan than legislation that is put together in a partisan manner,” said Hoagland, who spent decades working in the Senate, including from 2003 to 2007 as director of budget and appropriations for then-Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican.
“It does take those on the far right and far left out of the picture and gets us to a more centrist position… and I believe that in the long term the legislation produced in that manner is sustainable,” Hoagland said.
The popular image of the filibuster in many Americans’ minds comes from Jimmy Stewart’s heroic speech at the end of the 1939 film “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,” but its actual application hasn’t always been heroic.
South Carolina Sen. Strom Thurmond, a Democrat who later became a Republican, delivered a 24-hour filibuster speech against the Civil Rights Act of 1957. It failed and the law was ultimately signed by President Dwight Eisenhower.
And while the marathon speeches still happen — Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz memorably read “Green Eggs and Ham” on the Senate floor to sustain a 2013 filibuster against the Affordable Care Act’s implementation — for the most part it’s the vote threshold that defines its current use. Legislation failing to meet the 60-vote mark is a weekly occurrence.
During the first two years of President Donald Trump’s presidency, Senate Democrats were able to use the rule to block key pieces of his agenda, including funding for his proposed border wall in 2018, at a time when the party lacked control of either chamber of Congress.
If former Vice President Joe Biden is elected president and Democrats win back the Senate, Republicans could also effectively block most of his agenda with the same tactic.
Even when Democrats had a 60-vote majority early in President Barack Obama’s first term, a filibuster threat from Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman forced the party to strike the proposal for a public health care option from the Affordable Care Act.
Biden has pledged to pursue a public option.
Democratic arguments against the filibuster
Proponents of eliminating the filibuster point to the racist history of Thurmond and other southern senators who used it to block or delay civil rights legislation. They also cite the challenges of the moment.
“Every issue from health care to a clean environment to education will fall victim to the filibuster, which is corruptly used to block the will of the people,” said Adam Green, the founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, a national organization that advocates for debt free college and Medicare-for-all among other progressive policy goals.
The chamber has already eliminated the filibuster for appointments to federal agencies and courts.
In 2013, Democrats exercised the “nuclear option” to make it easier to confirm nominees to the executive branch and most federal court positions. In 2017, Republicans repaid the favor and did it to confirm Justice Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.
Republican arguments for keeping the rule
The filibuster’s defenders say that it encourages governing by consensus.
Sen. Roy Blunt, the Missouri Republican who chairs the Senate Rules Committee, said in an email that it “would be a serious mistake” to eliminate the 60-vote threshold and that Democrats would regret the decision if they move forward with the idea.
“It would change the character of the Senate by taking away the need to work across the aisle to get things done. Seldom does either party have 60 votes, so you have to work in a more collaborative and bipartisan way,” Blunt said.
Republican Rep. Roger Marshall’s Senate campaign ripped Bollier for not taking a definitive stance on the issue, contending that eliminating the rule would weaken Kansas’ influence and allow for the passage of radical legislation.
“Barbara Bollier won’t answer this question because she and her ads are bought and paid for by national Democrats. She received more money from California than Kansas, and this non-answer shows that she has more in common with their values than ours,” Marshall campaign manager Eric Pahls said in a statement.
Looking ahead to 2021
Green said he would expect a Democratic majority to end the filibuster if Republicans block popular legislation, such as a coronavirus relief bill. He said Democrats can effectively campaign on the issue if they define it as a means to achieve policy goals rather than a wonky debate about Senate procedure.
“There’s a lot of people who would like it to happen on Day 1, but my guess is it will happen around bills that Republicans block that are super popular with the public,” Green said. “If Republicans block a coronavirus bill that would give people health care and jobs, Democrats can say we gave you a chance… At the end of the day, it just comes down to the will of the people.”
Hoagland said a better solution to eliminating the filibuster is reforming it and requiring senators who exercise it to carry through with the physical debate.
“The old-fashioned filibuster, which was Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, to be honest I’d like to see that come back,” Hoagland said. “You make the senators stay and listen until somebody says OK, we’ll find a compromise here or we’ll give it up.”
This story was originally published October 22, 2020 at 5:00 AM with the headline "The Senate might scrap the filibuster next year. Where do Bollier and Marshall stand?."
