Biden’s One Chance to Stop Republican Voter Suppression – Updated
A Bit of History
Senator’s being gentlemen as thought by Aaron Burr led to the removal of the Previous Question Motion.
The House and Senate rulebooks in 1789 were nearly identical with each having a rule book including what is known as the “Previous Question” motion. The House kept their motion and the Senate eliminated it. The Motion empowers a simple majority to cut off debate. The Senate has no such rule in its books to do so.
What happened to the Senate’s rule?
In 1805, Vice President Aaron Burr was presiding over the Senate after being indicted for the murder of Alexander Hamilton. He offered this advice saying something like this:
You are a great deliberative body and a truly great Senate would have a cleaner rule book. The Senate’s is a mess. You have lots of rules doing the same thing.
Burr singled out the Previous Question Motion as an example. Today, we know that a simple majority in the House can use the rule to cut off debate. The Senate in 1806 dropped the motion from the Senate rule book.
Which brings us to where we are today, one party led by one man is abusing the power it has in the Senate and blocking its function. McConnell has threated the Senate.
Biden Has One Shot to Stop Republicans’ Voter Suppression Crusade; Vanity Fair Hive, Eric Lutz, March 16, 2021
Earlier this month, Joe Biden signed an executive order to ensure that Americans’ right to vote is “protected and defended”—a move that came as Republicans across the country intensify their attacks on the voting rights of Black Americans and other marginalized groups, who already face systemic barriers.
“We’ve seen an unprecedented insurrection in our Capitol and a brutal attack on our democracy on January 6—a never-before-seen effort to ignore, undermine, and undo the will of the people,” Biden said in a video statement. “It’s been followed by an all-out assault on the right to vote in state legislatures all across the country,” he continued, citing the hundreds of bills that have been introduced in 43 states to dramatically roll back voting rights. “We cannot let them succeed.”
But Biden could find himself helping Republicans do just that if he doesn’t change his position on the Senate filibuster. Led by progressives, a growing chorus of Democrats have been calling to abolish or at least modify the filibuster to make it harder for Mitch McConnell and the GOP minority to obstruct their agenda. Those demands have taken on a greater sense of urgency amid Republican disenfranchisement efforts. With state lawmakers across the country using Donald Trump’s bogus election fraud claims to push wildly restrictive voting laws, and the Supreme Court, to which he appointed three justices, potentially on the cusp of dealing another blow to the Voting Rights Act, Democrats and activists have rallied behind HR1, a sweeping bill to secure elections, expand voting access, and restore the pro-democracy law named for the late John Lewis. It passed the House March 3.
“At a time when Americans across the political spectrum are demanding real change and accountability from their elected officials, it’s more important than ever to deliver on the promise of HR1 and restore faith in our democracy,”
Representative John Sarbanes, who introduced the bill, said upon its passage.
“We have no time to waste.”
The bill stands less of a chance in the Senate, at least under the current rules. That’s because it would need the support of at least 10 members of the very party seeking to limit voting, thanks to the filibuster. Democrats, from progressives to moderates like Amy Klobuchar, are calling for the barrier, which was once used to quash civil rights, to be lifted. Even the conservative Democrat Joe Manchin, who ardently opposes eliminating the filibuster entirely, has suggested reforming it to make it more difficult to use. But Biden has resisted changing the rule, maintaining that an “opportunity” remains to “work on a bipartisan basis” with Republicans—the implication, of course, being that nixing the filibuster would be giving up on the possibility of unity and compromise.
“The president’s preference is not to get rid of the filibuster,”
White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki told reporters March 8.
“His preference is not to make changes to the filibuster rules,” Psaki continued. “He believes that, with the current structure, that he can work with Democrats and Republicans to get work and business done.”
To his credit, Biden has, in his first 50 days in office, been able to amass an impressive number of accomplishments—some with bipartisan support. But the most significant ones, including his $1.9 trillion COVID relief package, came in spite of, not because of, the efforts of Republicans, and talk of bipartisanship on issues like voting rights assumes a degree of good faith that simply isn’t there. It’s fine and perhaps even good that the president hasn’t given up on working across the aisle. But there’s optimism and there’s naivety, and to assume members of the party of Trump will cross over and stand against disenfranchisement efforts that will likely benefit them is to put the hard-fought rights of Black Americans and others who helped Democrats take the White House and Congress at risk.
“We’re headed for a showdown between the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and the filibuster—a relic of Jim Crow,”
Congressman Joaquin Castro told Politico.
With Democrats increasingly lining up behind filibuster elimination or reform, it’s possible that Biden will come around, at least to prevent civil rights legislation like HR1 from being thwarted by the tool, as top Biden ally Jim Clyburn recently suggested. It won’t be easy for Biden, a creature of the Senate with a reverence for its traditions and dealmaking. But at the end of the day, he may have to decide what he cares about more—the preservation of the longstanding but flawed rule that his opponents will exploit to derail him, or the constitutional rights of the same Americans who voted last fall to protect it.
Update to McConnell’s threats. Jose Biden and ABC Newscast with George Stephanopoulos :
With McConnell coming out against controlling the filibuster with threats in future Senates, President Joe Biden has taken up a new position on the filibuster in his conversation with
Stephanopoulos: asks of Biden: “Aren’t you going to have to choose between preserving the filibuster, and advancing your agenda?”
Biden: “Yes, but here’s the choice: I don’t think that you have to eliminate the filibuster, you have to do it what it used to be when I first got to the Senate back in the old days, you had to stand up and command the floor, you had to keep talking.”
Stephanopulos: “So you’re for that reform? You’re for bringing back the talking filibuster?”
Biden stated: “I am. That’s what it was supposed to be. It’s getting to the point where, you know, democracy is having a hard time functioning.
The Democrats have two years to get things done with or without Republican help. Hopefully, they can capitalize on Republican and McConnell’s unwillingness to work with Democrats.
This is getting interesting as Democrats are willing to take on Republicans for once and do something about the filibuster which has been a long time in coming. It remains to be seen if citizens will back Biden and Demoocrats stance now and in 2022.
Outdated on posting?
No, its current even with Biden “finally” agreeing today to limit the filibuster. I am going to add an update today Ken. That post is from yesterday’s Vanity Fair which I just received this morning. Thank you.
After Mitch Threatens Dems, Joe Biden Goes Public With Support For Filibuster Reform I saw this at noonish.
Outdated on posting?
a bit of history:
Mr. Speaker!: The Life and Times of Thomas B. Reed The Man Who Broke the Filibuster [Grant, James]
“The last decades of the nineteenth century were a volatile era of rampantly corrupt politics. It was a time of both stupendous growth and financial panic, of land bubbles and passionate and sometimes violent populist protests. Votes were openly bought and sold in a Congress paralyzed by the abuse of the House filibuster by members who refused to respond to roll call even when present, depriving the body of a quorum. Reed put an end to this stalemate, empowered the Republicans, and changed the House of Representatives for all time.”
it’s a bit unsettling when a person claims the testimony of history and begins by accusing the vice-president of murder… for shooting a man who was shooting at him. of course, history is written by the winners… in this case Thomas Jefferson, who, as you may remember, represented the interests of the slave owners. speaking of history, you should read what John Adams thought of Alexander Hamilton. I don’t think you’ll find it in the opera.
in 1806 Burr was no longer in the Senate.
In 1805 Burr was vice president and had no vote in the Senate.
But he had influence, in spite of being indicted in a state where the alleged murder did not occur.
Getting rid of the prior question rule did not establish a filibuster rule. Burr’s argument was, apparently, that the prior question rule was not needed because the Constitution already called for questions to be decided by simple majority.
Burr was the only founding father to speak up for the rights of women. He worked to defend the rights of blacks in New York. He got around New York’s “property requirement” for voting by selling non property owners dollar shares in property… enabling them to vote. He established a bank that competed with the bank favored by Hamilton. He built a water line to supply clean water to New York… a line that was used for forty years before being replaced by better technology.
At that time questions of honor were frequently decided by duel.
Jefferson had reason to fear Burr as a politician, not as a traitor or murderer.
so it is unclear why Burr is here being called a murderer and blamed for the filibuster.
And the rest of the story:
As taken from Brookings “The History of the Filibuster”
Sarah A. BinderThursday, April 22, 2010
still can’t see what Burr has to do with the filibuster. indicted for murder or not. Burr had a long career as a lawyer in New York after Jefferson tried to get him hanged for treason. i don’t know for sure, but i think Hamilton’s father in law was a power in new york, which might explain the indictment, but it seems never to have been followed up.
miseries in history?
coberly:
I knew this from a couple of years ago in discussions with others as to why McConnell could hold the Senate hostage. Google it some more.
While the comments here are interesting, they are a bit distracting to the real, right now, urgency of filibuster reform. See: NYT Editorial Board Opinion, “For Democracy to Stay, the Filibuster Must Go” [https://tinyurl.com/xdewvwrv] and “Democrats’ Only Chance to Stop the GOP Assault on Voting Rights”, The Atlantic [ https://tinyurl.com/8t3dd6kb ].
As dangerous as it could be in the hands of Republicans, filibuster reform is the only hope for democracy at this very narrow moment in time (until 2022, just a little over 19 months until midterms). It’s the only way that Joe and Democrats can show the public the “right” way. Joe was able to show the public the way out of COVID via the Rescue plan passed solely with Democratic votes — not one Republican. All other good and critically needed measures to address major issues will die in the Senate if they have to have 60 votes.
Filibuster reform is essential. I think some sort of a talking filibuster with an end point by majority vote is the answer. I think it will satisfy Joe Manchin; not sure about Kyrsten Sinema. However, I would suggest an immediate “carve out” exception for “Voting Rights” legislation now pending in the Senate and then some sort of development of a workable replacement; talking version or something else.
Although Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) now claims a change would ruin the integrity of what was once considered “the world’s greatest deliberative body,” both parties have changed this Senate rule before when it suited their political ambitions at the time. As the rule has been chipped away, misused, twisted and distorted in recent years, it’s time for a major change. As it currently stands it is one of the most destructive and divisive components of Congressional decision-making. It has led to an untenable and undemocratic trend of roller coaster governance by Executive Order. It is not a Constitutional requirement; it is simply a Senate rule that may be changed by a simple majority vote of the Senate.
Time is of the essence, particularly on “Voting Rights” as Republicans are trying to destroy them on a state by state basis. Some form of House-passed HR 1 and the new Voting Rights Act must be passed immediately. HR 1 calls for sweeping election reforms. See: What’s in HR 1 — https://tinyurl.com/2c25x5t4 . The Voting Rights Advancement Act responds to current conditions in voting today by restoring the full protections of the original, bipartisan Voting Rights Act of 1965, which was last reauthorized by Congress in 2006, but gutted by the Supreme Court in 2013 (Shelby County decision, https://tinyurl.com/cw4tkztw ).
Republican and conservative critics will argue that the new voting rights legislative are unconstitutional, however there is a great article that was published as an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal by Trevor Potter or the Campaign Legal Center, on February 24, 2021, entitled, “H.R.1 Isn’t at All an Unconstitutional Bill [ https://tinyurl.com/nus3zy7d ].The article indicates, “As a former chairman of the Federal Election Commission, I know the Constitution explicitly grants Congress the power “at any time” to “make or alter” the regulation of the “time, place and manner” of federal elections. The broad grant of Congressional authority is contained in Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution and was recently noted by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Rucho redistricting case. In addition, the 14th and 15th Amendments give Congress the power to eliminate racial discrimination in voting and the democratic process, such as restricting or creating barriers to voting, partisan gerrymandering and felony disenfranchisement.”
Gotta do and gotta do it quick. Time is short. Joe & Democrats only have a short time to show America that there is a better way…!!! Oh yeah, BTW… As Thomas Jefferson pointed out way back in 1809, “Where the law of the majority ceases to be acknowledged, there government ends . . .”
Good Morning J.P.:
You write what we are thinking, holding our breath waiting for this to pass so as to get on with the business of being the other half of the Congress and no longer being held hostage by one man. Why are there no Mr. Smiths amongst Senate Republicans who will rail against the threat and fear of being run out of Congress by a minority and McConnell? If there is no one person with the courage as an individual, I believe they all should go. The Republicans are no longer a political party and exist as a demagoguery of political opportunists misleading their constituents.
Oh, I agree the time is short and coberly and I are mincing words instead of pushing for action. Biden learned the lessons of 2008-2010. We need to move on and leave McConnell and the others behind.
But it’s all right now
I learned my lesson well
You see, you can’t please everyone
So you got to please yourself
J.P.
i really don’t think I am the one holding up filibuster reform. so much so that i was not arguing with run or anyone about reform… i admitted that i had come around to agreeing with it in either this thread or another one nearby. instead, i was asking why Aaron Burr was being dragged into it, along with a charge of murder. I think it is fair to raise a side question from time to time if you see a tendency toward intellectual confusion or swallowing political lies… because they will hurt us more in the long run than whatever one small coberly thinks about the filibuster.
but just to be clear to all: i think the danger to the democrats of “losing” the filibuster is now much less than the danger of keeping it. i did mention a book about how the filibuster was tamed in the House, for those interested in history.