So Senate Democrats just want to do away with the filibuster, huh?
Not quite. But some Senate Democrats, including Majority Leader Harry Reid, say they'd like to change the rules in an attempt to speed up the flow of business in the Senate. Many liberals have taken to decrying a tyranny of the minority, and after two years of resisting serious changes, Reid is now talking them up.
Why are they so upset about this, anyway?
There are many long versions, and James Fallows has indefatigably catalogued the increasing dysfunction of Congress's upper house. For the shortest explanation, take a look at this chart, various versions of which have circulated:
That shows how frequently the Senate has been gummed up in recent years. Reid calculates that he's faced nearly 400 filibusters in his six years as majority leader. The problem, as critics see it, is that ever more matters are put to filibuster. It's not just bills — it's even the question of whether to open debate on bills. In effect, a supermajority of 60 votes is now required to pass any bill that's at all controversial; that's led to mindbending headlines like "Senate defeats Democrats' measure to kill off 'Big Oil' tax breaks, 51-47." Reformers say it's patently absurd; if the Framers had intended for all legislation to require a supermajority, they would have indicated it.
And the result isn't just gridlock on bills. It also means that key posts subject to Senate confirmation go unfilled. Many Obama judicial nominees have been blocked from up-or-down votes — not because there are specific objections to them, but because Senate Republicans refuse to allow votes or even debate on the nominations. Democrats did the same to nominees during the Bush administration. Naturally enough, both parties are upset because they want their own nominees confirmed to lifetime appointments on the federal bench, but the holdups are leading to overworked judges, dependence on judges in their ninth and tenth decades, and a failure to provide speedy trials. Outside of the judicial system, the board of governors of the Federal Reserve has been short members for much of the time it has grappled with the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.
How do the reformers want to fix it if they're not going to get rid of the filibuster altogether?
There are a range of proposals. The most extreme, put forward by Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, would effectively end the filibuster, allowing a simple majority to pass legislation — lthough no one, including Harkin, seems to think that has much chance of happening. Sens. Tom Udall and Jeff Merkley have been ringleaders for senators who prefer more modest reforms. Here are a few of the major possibilities:
• Banning Filibusters on the Motion to Proceed: Before a bill can be opened to debate and then voted on, it has to be brought to debate through a motion to proceed. Currently, that vote, along with the eventual ballot, is subject to filibuster. Reformers want to end that. Republicans blame their reliance on the tactic on Reid's refusal to allow them to offer amendments to bills. As a result, a compromise deal might make it easier for the minority to offer amendments while making it harder for them to filibuster.
• Bringing Back the Talking Filibuster: Filibuster wonks often lament that the common man's image of the filibuster is the one from Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, of a legislator talking at length to defend deeply held principles. That actually never happens anymore; in practice, the minority announces that it intends to filibuster and that's the end of the matter. In at least one case, a senator allegedly "phoned in" a filibuster while away from Washington. (Occasionally, a senator reenacts the old method; Vermont independent Bernie Sanders won plaudits, but lost the battle, with a December 2010 filibuster.) Reformers want to force anyone who wants to filibuster to actually speak for hours in the grand phonebook-reading tradition of Fighting Bob LaFollette, Strom Thurmond, and Robert Byrd.