Evan Bayh's Filibuster Reform Proposal

[Clio the Leo]

Why I’m Leaving the Senate

<snip>

In addition, the Senate should reform a practice increasingly abused by both parties, the filibuster. Historically, the filibuster was employed to ensure that momentous issues receive a full and fair hearing. Instead, it has come to serve the exact opposite purpose — to prevent the Senate from even conducting routine business.

Last fall, the Senate had to overcome two successive filibusters to pass a bill to provide millions of Americans with extended unemployment insurance. There was no opposition to the bill; it passed on a 98-0 vote. But some senators saw political advantage in drawing out debate, thus preventing the Senate from addressing other pressing matters.

Admittedly, I have participated in filibusters. If not abused, the filibuster can foster consensus-building. The minority has a right to voice legitimate concerns, but it must not employ this tactic to prevent progress on everything at a critical juncture for our country. We need to reduce the power of the minority to frustrate progress while still affording them some say.

Filibusters have proliferated because under current rules just one or two determined senators can stop the Senate from functioning. Today, the mere threat of a filibuster is enough to stop a vote; senators are rarely asked to pull all-nighters like Jimmy Stewart in “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.”

For this reason, filibusters should require 35 senators to sign a public petition and make a commitment to continually debate an issue in reality, not just in theory. Those who obstruct the Senate should pay a price in public notoriety and physical exhaustion. That would lead to a significant decline in frivolous filibusters.

Filibusters should also be limited to no more than one for any piece of legislation. Currently, the decision to begin debate on a bill can be filibustered, followed by another filibuster on each amendment, followed by yet another filibuster before a final vote. This leads to multiple legislative delays and effectively grinds the Senate to a halt.

What’s more, the number of votes needed to overcome a filibuster should be reduced to 55 from 60. During my father’s era, filibusters were commonly used to block civil rights legislation and, in 1975, the requisite number of votes was reduced to 60 from 67. The challenges facing the country today are so substantial that further delay imperils the Republic and warrants another reduction in the supermajority requirement.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/21/opinion/21bayh.html?hp

[fasttense]

1. Some good ideas there.

I think a simpler solution would be only 1 filibuster per Senator per year, no rollovers.

If a Senator could sign on to, or initiate, only one filibuster per year, he would think long and hard on what issue that rare filibuster should be used.

[LiberalFighter]

2. I could care less what Bayh has to offer. He's not willing to stick around to see it through.

[Kyril Enko]

3. Notice, if you will,

that he's making that proposal while no longer up for reelection!

[prolesunited]

4. Who cares?

Freedom is just another word for nothin' left to lose. Maybe they should all decide to not run for re-election and we could get some work done.

[zaj]

5. Would seem that this is a great project to work on *AS A SENATOR*.

Telling people what to do is the easiest thing in the world. Now do it.

[ProgressOnTheMove]

6. Something that is only intended to extend debate shouldn't stop the will of the people.