Exploring the filibuster

Ezra Klein has been looking at the filibuster. Here's his Sunday Washington Post column. And he recently interviewed Senator Jeff Merkley who is looking at ways to rein in use of the filibuster:

Discussions are really at the starting point. To give you a sense of some of the ideas, though, one question we're asking is how do you get two-thirds of the body to agree to change the rules when there's immediate pressure for the minority to protect themselves? Your rule changes could kick in in 6 to 8 years. Or you could have rule changes that are designed to trigger when the two sides are more or less even. So when there's a 55-45 majority, it wouldn't kick in, but it would at 52-48. Or think about with nominations. We're really paralyzing the executive branch. This may be a conversation that doesn't ripen for awhile, but each time I mention to a senator that we're doing this, they say thank goodness.

And another with Senator Tom Harkin who shares some of the history of why the Senate adopted the filibuster in the first place:

It was done to allow senators to get back to Washington. In those days, it could take a week or two for senators to get back from different states. The filibuster ensured a small group couldn't go into session before the others could get here.

Also, legislators wanted time to get word out to the populace so they could pressure their representatives. It was a means of protecting the minority who couldn't be here and getting some time for people to know what we're doing. Both of those reasons have gone by the wayside. With travel, people can get here in a few hours, and with television and radio and internet, people know very quickly whats going on here.

And a third with UCLA professor Barbara Sinclair who not only has written about the rise of the use of the filibuster over the last two decades but also describes how use of the filibuster has changed after reforms were made in the 70s:

This goes way, way back. During all those years that the Southern Democrats were blocking civil rights legislation, every Congress began with liberal Democrats trying to change the filibuster rule and not getting anywhere. You do get a change in 1975, but part of why that was possible was the big Civil Rights stuff was off the table.

Technically, the rules made cutting off debate easier, because now it only required 60 votes rather than 67. But in reality, you had to do it more often. There was less restraint. The underlying cause is that the Senate -- our whole political system, really -- changed, and opened up in many ways. There were all kinds of ways that you could become a really big player through being partially outer-directed -- aiming yourself at the media and interest groups and the like. It was less necessary to simply be on really good terms with the most senior members of the Senate.

Finally, the group People for the American Way reports that not only has use of the filibuster hit an all-time high this year, but that 89% of the time, use of the filibuster simply served as a delaying tactic. And because halting progress on one bill will likely also delay other bills, the filibuster is being used even on non-controversial legislation simply to prevent moving on to other matters. In one case--a vote to extend unemployment benefits--the filibuster was used even though the final vote was 97-0.