Filibuster tradition bound for transition

WASHINGTON - A rules change finally came to the U.S. Senate last week - sort of - but the bigger surprise may be that Iowa's Democrats, Republicans and even neutral observers agreed on what it could mean for the future of the institution.

The development came after Democratic leaders had threatened for months to invoke a so-called “nuclear option” and allow President Barack Obama's executive branch nominees to be confirmed by a Senate vote of a simple majority of 51 votes instead of a supermajority of 60 votes. A 60-vote threshold already is required for procedural votes and regular legislation, and Democrats had complained that Republicans had obstructed the process for too long.

The two parties agreed to an informal deal by which the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's executive nominee would be confirmed. In return, two controversial recess appointments by Obama to the National Labor Relations Board would be withdrawn and two new names would be submitted.

Senators on both sides said it was only an incremental and informal change - except for the fact that even minor change comes glacially slow to the U.S. Senate. To Democrats, Republicans and those in the middle, it also raised the possibility that such a “nuclear option” could someday be invoked for procedural votes and regular legislation.

Republicans have raised such a “slippery slope” argument for years, pointing to the simple-majority Senate vote that passed Obama's health care bill three years ago and reminding Democrats that they could be in the minority again. Democrats took over the chamber after the 2006 elections.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, noted that last week's agreement included no promises from Democrats not to make such a rules change. And he reminded reporters that the Senate purposefully was designed to protect the minority party, whereas simple-majority votes are the norm in the House.

“There's no predicting where this would end and the extent to which it applies to everything in the U.S. Senate,” Grassley said. “The Senate was set up to be a deliberative body, because it was feared that with majority rule you could change things from day to day.

“There are so many new members, particularly liberals, who have never been in the minority and don't appreciate that the Senate is the only place in our political system where minority views are protected.”

Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, has been leading the fight to reform the Senate's voting rules for nearly 20 years. For his part, he didn't deny that Democrats may do so in the coming years. Harkin is retiring after the 2014 elections, but he noted that the Senate traditionally adopts its rules for its two-year sessions in the January after preceding fall elections. That next chance is January 2015.

“The filibuster rules are anachronistic and outdated. We continue in the 21st century as if we were in the 19th century,” Harkin said. “What happened with executive branch nominees was helpful, but it was a papering-over of the issue. The fact is, the filibuster has thwarted democratic principles in the Constitution. A majority should decide things, not a supermajority.”

Harkin dismissed Grassley's “slippery slope” argument, but he did agree that the key to such a change may lie with newer, incoming senators who do not necessarily support Senate traditions.

“With the newer senators coming, I hope they won't be locked in to the old way of doing things,” he said. “This will come up again. I won't be here for that, but I hope people change these rules at the start of that next Congress.”

Timothy Hagle, a political science professor at the University of Iowa, agreed with Harkin and Grassley that newer senators will play a deciding role in what gets changed in the Senate and what stays the same.

“A majority of Democrats right now have never been in the majority, so it may seem particularly frustrating to them that they're not getting things through the Senate,” Hagle said. “They may not understand the value of having more power in the minority. Having to get 60 votes demonstrates the need to get a greater consensus on something.

“I don't even know how many Democrats would go along with it. A lot of Democrats have been in the minority and understand the value of it.”

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., used a speech to press his case for a rules change. Speaking to the Center for American Progress, Reid, similar to Harkin, avoided any promise not to pursue future rules changes and declared instead that “the Senate is broken and needs to be fixed.” He also noted that the Constitution sets no specific rules for filibusters in the Senate.

“This is really a moment in history where circumstances dictate the need for change. Remember, all we want to do is what the Constitution says we should do. Filibusters are not part of the Constitution,” Reid said. “Traditions are important …. Among those traditions is protections for the minority, and that's the way it should be. But the power of an extreme minority now threatens the very integrity of this institution.”