COLUMN: End the gridlock by ending the filibuster
Two weeks ago there was a brilliant opinion piece in the Statesman explaining how the Republican takeover of the House of Representatives will lead to gridlock and stagnation. The issue I have, however, is that this is not how things have to be. I believe that there is a way to end the gridlock between the Republican and Democrats.
Next year, the Senate will reconvene with 53 Democrats and 47 Republicans. Even though Democrats control the majority in the Senate, Republicans are poised to force the government to a dead stop through the use of the filibuster.
The filibuster is a parliamentary procedure that prevents a bill or motion to be voted upon by extending debate indefinitely. An example would be the recent health care bill. The Republicans used a filibuster to delay the bill for months, causing the Democrats to compromise heavily – such as dropping the public insurance option – and leaving a bill that didn’t satisfy anyone.
But there’s been a growing voice in the Senate to end the filibuster. Using the so-called “Constitutional Option,” also known as the “Nuclear Option,” a simple majority in the Senate can change the rules to eliminate the filibuster outright.
The right of the Senate to change their rules comes from Article I, Section V of the Constitution, which states that “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings.” Based on the Supreme Court ruling United States v. Ballin (1892), changes to Senate rules need only a simple majority – 51 votes.
This is how we eliminate the filibuster. The Democrats next session will open discussion to change the Senate rules. The proposal to eliminate the filibuster will be then put on the table for debate. The Republicans cannot filibuster this proposal because in order to fulfill their constitutional duties, the Senate must be able to, well, determine their own rules. If the Republicans try to do so anyways, the chair can rule against the filibuster and move on to allow a majority vote to amending the rules. Only then can the filibuster be eliminated once and for all.
The Constitutional Option is not a new proposal and has been used by both parties before. Richard Nixon – Republican – and Robert Byrd – Democrat – both argued in favor of this option. In 1917 the threat of using the Constitutional Option forced the compromise to allow cloture, the ability to end a filibuster, to exist. In 1975 the threat again lead to changing cloture from two-thirds of the Senate (67 Votes) to three-fifths of the Senate (60 Votes).
The filibuster is a tool that can be used for both good and evil. It has allowed the minority power to prevent the majority power from going rogue. It has traditionally been used to keep people in check and even the threat of a filibuster forces the majority to compromise with the minority. But lately with the amount of hyper-partisanship in Washington, the filibuster has been used not to ensure the minority voice but as a tool for obstruction.
I believe that the filibuster must be eliminated once and for all. Not because the Democrats currently hold the Senate, but because I believe that the government is able to produce better legislation with only a majority vote. Without the insane requirement of a supermajority – 60 Votes – senators can focus more on passing quality legislation. Not just focusing solely on passing legislation at all. Because both parties will end up controlling the Senate sometime in the future, there is balance.
But the window of opportunity for ending the filibuster is narrow. Proponents of the Constitutional Option and experts agree. They, as well as I, believe that changes to the rules can only occur at the beginning of a session. If the rules change in the middle, I believe that is highly abusive of the majority party and should not be allowed.
With the next two years of government looking like gridlock and stagnation, I believe ending the filibuster is a productive step. We must eliminate partisan procedural rules used now only for obstructing the will of the majority party. If we do not, the next two years will be just as bitter as the last two.
If you want more in-depth analysis about the midterm election, political science professors Dr. Cann and Dr. Lyons will be holding an election briefing Wednesday in Old Main 121 at 3:30 p.m. They will explain what happened last week and what we as students should expect. This would be a great opportunity to begin stepping into Politics as well as an opportunity to meet me and shake my hand.
Justin Hinh is a sophomore in political science. He can be reached at justintsn10@gmail.com