Both Trump and Harris called for 'filibuster reform,’ but it would be a huge mistake
Vice President Kamala Harris made waves last month when she endorsed creating a “carve-out” from the filibuster to codify Roe v. Wade nationwide. The vice president’s comments follow calls by other Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), to create a filibuster carve-out for voting rights legislation.
Former President Donald Trump has also endorsed curtailing the legislative filibuster. Back in 2018, he told Senate Republicans to get rid of the filibuster while they had the majority, predicting Senate Democrats would try to do so next time they got control.
Trump was proved right in 2021, after Democrats won the White House and both houses of Congress. Senate Democrats launched an effort to create an “exception” to filibuster so they could pass the same voting rights bill Schumer and his allies are pushing today. They were stymied by Sens. Kyrsten Sinema (Ariz.) and Joe Manchin (W.Va.), the two lone Senate Democrats who refused to go along. Notably, Sinema and Manchin are both retiring at the end of this Congress.
With both parties’ presidential nominees on record supporting narrowing or eliminating the legislative filibuster entirely, it’s a strong bet that whatever the outcome of November’s election, there will be significant pressure next year to change the filibuster.
It would be a mistake.
Many voters think of the filibuster as a tactic for obstruction, a way for a committed minority to stymie the will of the majority. Although that may be true in some circumstances, when understood properly the filibuster is actually a tool for compromise.
As a practical matter, the filibuster requires 60 votes in the Senate to pass most major pieces of legislation. Except in those rare instances when one party captures a supermajority of seats, that means the party in control must work with the other side to get things done. That in turn has the salutary effect of moderating positions and forcing consideration of opposing views. The fact that a bill can’t get 60 votes doesn’t mean it’s dead forever. It means it needs to change if it’s going to have a hope of ultimately passing.
Both sides understand this. Drafting and negotiation take place in the shadow of the 60-vote threshold. Senators know that some bills are never going anywhere and are intended purely for “messaging.” But other bills — the ones whose goal is ultimately to become law — are drafted with an eye toward obtaining at least some votes from the other side.
History bears this out. Both parties have used filibusters, or the threat of filibusters, to win concessions from the Senate majority and shape legislation on its way to ultimately becoming law.
In 2015, for example, when Senate Democrats were in the minority, they used a filibuster threat to obtain additional amendment votes on the Every Student Succeeds Act, the most significant federal education reform in a generation. The availability of the filibuster didn’t stop the bill. Rather, it forced compromises that increased the breadth of support and ultimately improved the final product. This example illustrates one very important use of the legislative filibuster that rarely gets much attention. It gives the minority the ability to force amendment votes even on bills that are likely to pass.
Another example was the 2020 COVID relief package, known as the CARES Act. Once again, Senate Democrats in the minority used the filibuster to force the Senate Republican majority to include some of their priorities in the final bill, which ultimately passed 96-0.
Senate Republicans, too, have used the filibuster to shape, not stop, legislation. The 2021 bipartisan infrastructure package provides an example. After the bill failed to surmount the 60-vote threshold the first time around, Democrats and Republicans entered into intense negotiations, with a revised version ultimately obtaining 18 Republican votes to move forward. The bill later passed easily.
Indeed, senators of both parties have conducted filibusters on the broadest range of social and economic issues, questions of foreign policy and national security, and energy and environmental policy, among numerous others.
That’s a healthy thing. Bare majorities should not be deciding questions of fundamental change for our country. The goal should be to pass broadly popular legislation, not the most extreme policy that can get through with the narrowest possible vote. The filibuster requires senators to pursue the former approach, at least if they want their bills to become law.
It’s unfortunate that both parties’ presidential nominees have cast aside this lesson. Admittedly, the temptation to do so is understandable. The last you want to do when you’re in charge is negotiate with an obstreperous minority, and both candidates are looking to a future where they hope to be the one calling the shots.
But a true long-term view recognizes that political conditions change and no majority is permanent. A rule that hinders you today protects you tomorrow. The filibuster forces compromise, and in a nation as large and diverse as ours, that’s a good thing.
Calls to create filibuster “carve-outs” are no less wrongheaded than calls to eliminate the filibuster entirely. Creating “exceptions” for certain issue areas inevitably will lead to the complete elimination of the filibuster. Some senators will demand exceptions for gun legislation, others for border security. There is simply no principled line to draw between issues that deserve filibuster exceptions and those that don’t. No majority that wants to pass a bill will be restrained once the precedent for creating carve-outs is set.
The filibuster is an essential, compromise-forcing Senate institution that has helped check the extremes on both sides for decades. Getting rid of it would be a profound mistake. Even if our two major party presidential nominees don’t recognize that, voters should.
So when you cast your vote for Senate this November, pay attention to what the candidates have said about the filibuster. Pay attention to whether they would preserve — or gut — this key part of our political system. And choose candidates who recognize the value of promoting compromise, including through retaining the legislative filibuster.
Gordon Smith served in the U.S. Senate from 1997 to 2009. Martin B. Gold is the author of “Senate Procedure and Practice.” Both are board members of the Orrin G. Hatch Foundation.
Date: | |
Tag: | Donald Trump |
Topics
-
Top stories - CBS News
Harris, Trump spending would both boost the U.S. debt. Here's how much.
Trump's fiscal plans would raise the federal debt by more than twice Harris' proposals, new nonpartisan analysis finds.1 hour ago - Donald Trump -
Politics - The Hill
Harris campaign adviser: Trump would be 'off the rails' in second term
A senior adviser to Vice President Harris’s presidential campaign said on Sunday that former President Trump would be “off the rails” in a second term in office. “This is going to be somebody who ...7 hours ago - Donald Trump -
Business - Inc.
Both Trump’s and Harris’s Economic Policies Will Add Billions to National Debt
Despite many clashing differences, both candidates economic plans would likely bloat the ballooning $35.7 trillion U.S. debt by another 10 to 20 percent, a study finds.2 hours ago -
Top stories - ABC News
Analysis suggests deficit could increase under Harris, but would surge under Trump
No one is likely to be happy with projected higher deficits new analysis finds.5 hours ago - Donald Trump -
Top stories - CBS News
Trump economic plan would add more national debt than Harris' plan, analysis finds
A report from the nonpartisan nonprofit Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget found that both Kamala Harris and Donald Trump would add to the national debt with their economic plans. But the ...4 hours ago - Donald Trump -
Politics - The Hill
Trump agenda would add twice as much to national debt as Harris's: Budget group
A new estimate finds that former President Trump’s tax and spending plans could add twice as much to the national debt as those brought by Vice President Harris, amounting to more than $7 trillion ...4 hours ago - Donald Trump -
Politics - Politico
‘A perfect storm of stunning failure’: Senate probe finds huge Secret Service errors at Trump rally
September 25 - Donald Trump -
Top stories - NBC News
Ron DeSantis is refusing to take Harris' call on Hurricane Helene
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is not taking calls from Vice President Kamala Harris about storm recovery just over a week after Hurricane Helene hammered parts of his state.1 hour ago -
Business - MarketWatch
Why Trump’s tariffs would hit poor and middle-class Americans hardest
A new report estimates middle-class families would pay an extra $3,370 per year for imported goods.2 hours ago
More from The Hill
-
Politics - The Hill
Costco gold bars are selling out as prices for the precious metal break records: survey
Move over, gas and hot dogs. Costco shoppers are snatching up the store's 1-ounce gold bars despite the market's lofty price for the precious metal.13 minutes ago -
Politics - The Hill
FTC antitrust case against Amazon moves forward, several state claims dismissed
The Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) antitrust case against Amazon will move forward, but several state claims against the e-commerce giant were dismissed, according to a newly unsealed ruling. In ...15 minutes ago -
Politics - The Hill
Supreme Court asked to consider Oklahoma religious charter school's case
Oklahoma’s charter school board says it has asked the Supreme Court to reverse a decision ruling the nation’s first publicly funded religious charter school unconstitutional. The board’s petition ...20 minutes ago -
Politics - The Hill
Florida meteorologist chokes up talking about Hurricane Milton
A south Florida meteorologist got emotional as he described the severity of Hurricane Milton, a Category 5 storm raging through the Gulf of Mexico on Monday that is expected to make landfall in the ...20 minutes ago - Florida -
Politics - The Hill
Benefits of Trump tax plans skewed toward wealthy: Analysis
A new analysis of tax proposals put forward by former President Trump has found they would amount to tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and tax increases for the majority of households. The ...28 minutes ago - Donald Trump