Joe Manchin opens door to filibuster reform

On Sunday, Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV), a long-time defender of filibuster, signaled that he might nonetheless be open to filibuster reforms that could make it easier for Democrats to move their way forward. legislative program.

In a series of televised interviews, Manchin highlighted his support for the filibuster rule, which effectively imposes a 60-vote threshold for most legislative measures in the Senate. But he Told Meet the press animate Chuck Todd that “if you want to do [filibustering] a little more painful – make them stand there and talk – I’m ready to watch any way I can.

He also reiterated the same point elsewhere on Sunday, tell Chris Wallace sure Fox News Sunday this “[the filibuster] should be painful if you want to use it. “

It might not sound like a big deal, but it is: like Politico reporter Andrew Desiderio highlighted On Sunday on Twitter, what Manchin appears to be describing is a return to “filibustering,” which would likely pose a much more surmountable hurdle for the narrow Democratic Senate majority.

As Desiderio explains, in the context of a “filibuster”, any “member of the minority party can obstruct as long as he remains on the ground”. But once a member was done speaking, the filibuster would end, and “there would be a simple majority threshold vote” of 50 votes, instead of the current 60-vote threshold required to end. systematic obstruction.

This is a big change, because there is currently no filibuster required for filibuster in the Senate, at least not in the conventional sense. As Vox explained in 2015, modern filibuster does not force a senator to speak on the ground for hours to delay a bill.

Instead, today’s filibuster is a simple move to defeat unanimous consent on a bill that the minority can painlessly exercise: According to former Vox writer Ezra Klein, “the filibusters of ‘today simply paralyze the Senate until the majority finds 60 votes or gives up and moves on to another activity. “

If that rule were changed, however – say, reverting to the talkative obstruction of the past – the filibusters could only cripple the Senate until the minority ran out of members ready to speak.

Supporting filibuster isn’t really a new position for Manchin either, as Desiderio points out: In 2011, Manchin supported a similar, unsuccessful measure that would have “forced senators who wish to obstruct a bill to speak up and make comments.”

As it stands, filibuster does not affect all Senate activities – judicial appointments, for example, are only subject to a simple 50-vote majority, just like Cabinet appointments – but it limits most laws. The only notable exception to this rule is the budget reconciliation process, which Democrats are set to use to pass a $ 1.9 trillion stimulus package this week. But reconciliation is also an obscure and limited process that would be incompatible with many democratic priorities under the current rules of Congress.

While this is precisely what imposes a 60 vote threshold on many Senate business, filibuster itself is not subject to the same threshold. If the current Democratic Senate caucus majority – with its 50 votes, plus Vice President Kamala Harris as a tiebreaker – wanted to eliminate filibuster completely, it could do so.

It won’t, unless Manchin and other moderates have a radical change of mind – but Manchin’s comments are a reminder that Democrats could still use their majority to find a way around the filibuster if their members are not ready to end it altogether.

Barrier changes could pave the way for a bold Democratic legislative agenda

Obviously, Manchin’s comments on Sunday are not a definitive commitment to do something about filibuster – but they remain very good news for Democrats, who appear to soon face a series of futile fights to win. over 10 Republican votes for priorities. like the right to vote and an increase in the minimum wage.

Specifically, Manchin’s change in tone, though slight, comes as Senate Democrats prepare to fight for a voting rights package recently passed by the House of Representatives, and top party leaders begin to rally to the abandonment of the filibuster.

In an interview this week, for example, House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn told The Guardian that “there is no way under the sun that in 2021 we will allow the use of l systematic obstruction to deny the right to vote. “

“Here we are talking about the law on voting rights [late Rep. John Lewis] worked so hard for and it’s named in his honor and they’ll filibuster to death? Clyburn said. “It will not happen.”

As a member of the House rather than the Senate, Clyburn himself has no say in the fate of the filibuster, but he is still an influential and long-time leader in Congress. And he’s not the only one advocating for change: last week, many Senate Democrats have indicated they would also be willing to abolish filibuster to pave the way for priorities such as voting rights.

Despite some movements within the Democratic caucus, the path to eliminating filibuster – or even reform – is still not entirely clear. Democrats would need the 50-strong majority to make it happen, and Manchin’s comments on Sunday confirm he is still in the “no-nonsense” camp on abolishing filibuster, as is the senator from the United States. ‘Arizona Krysten Sinema, who obstructs position.

If the majority of the Democratic Senate Is decide to take action though, there are a lot of things they could do without breaking the obstructionism for good. As Ian Millhiser of Vox wrote last month, with just 50 votes and Harris to break the tie, Democrats could limit filibuster bills, make it harder to filibuster a bill first, or lower the closing threshold in the Senate. .

Sure Meet the press On Sunday, Manchin indicated some willingness to consider that option first, in addition to a talking filibuster, telling Todd he might be open to a ‘reconciliation’ style approach to passing bills if Democrats clash. repeated refusals by Manchin’s “republican friends” to work. together.

Changing the filibuster, according to some Democrats, such as Clyburn, is vital for the future not only of the Biden administration’s legislative agenda, but also for the Democratic Party’s ability to participate in future elections.

“If Manchin and Sinema like to be in the majority,” Clyburn told The Guardian, “they had better find a way around the filibuster on voting and civil rights.”