The Hill newspaper trumpeted in an article this morning that filibuster reform lacks the votes to pass in the next Senate. Filibuster reform, in this case, is about eliminating the filibuster and going to majority rule. The article mentioned five Democrats who are against, four who are wary, and another one who is against lowering the filibuster number but is for changing rules on the motion to debate:
The lack of support among a handful of Senate Democratic incumbents is a major blow to the effort to change the upper chamber’s rules.
Democratic leaders in both the House and Senate are pushing for filibuster reform at the start of the new Congress next year.
Five Senate Democrats have said they will not support a lowering of the 60-vote bar necessary to pass legislation.
Another four lawmakers say they are wary about such a change and would be hesitant to support it.
A 10th Democrat, Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), said he would support changing the rule on filibusters of motions to begin debate on legislation, but not necessarily the 60-vote threshold needed to bring up a final vote on bills.
A close look at the ten suggests an opening for filibuster reform and bringing the Senate to majority rule:
Five Against
- Ben Nelson - Against
- Dianne Feinstein - "probably not" going to support it
- Mark Pryor - "Inclination is no"
- Daniel Akaka - "I think we should retain the same system we have"
- Jon Tester - Work Together More.
Four Wary
- Max Baucus - "Need to think about it"
- Mary Landrieu - "We need to be careful about it"
- Jay Rockefeller
- Russ Feingold
Other Filibuster Reform needed
- Carl Levin:
A 10th Democrat, Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), said he would support changing the rule on filibusters of motions to begin debate on legislation, but not necessarily the 60-vote threshold needed to bring up a final vote on bills.
From reading the article, it doesn't seem like an open and shut case like what the article's title - Filibuster Reform is Short of Needed Votes - suggested. Ben Nelson is the only one who doesn't care about the Democratic agenda on that list. Sen. Feinstein left a slight opening but the most likely outcome is she supports other forms of filibuster reform.
But I think the others could still be convinced because their remarks gave the indication that they want room to maneuver on this issue. For example, Akaka is a team player and I doubt he'll go against the Dem leadership on this. Tester just said boilerplate comments about Ds and Rs working together.
On Levin, there was no direct quote from him and the article only said "not necessarily in support" which suggests an opening. Baucus, Landrieu, and Rockefeller didn't want to say one way or the other.
Feingold, though, said earlier that he wants to bring back a real filibuster and warned that had there been a 51 vote Senate in previous times, the Republicans would have done more damage. Still, what would he say about the possibility of Republicans eliminating the filibuster in a hypothetical future Republican Senate?
If I were betting man, I would say that the most likely outcome for the next Senate is a tweaking of the filibuster to eliminate it on motions to debate and a forcing of the minority to stage actual filibusters on the Senate floor. However, if the Dems could limit their losses to avoid the Ben Nelsons as the "deciders" on this issue, I think a 55 vote Senate or even a 51 vote Senate is a definite possibility. It seems the newer Senators are more eager to change the Senate rules compared to older Senators who have been there a long time.