WASHINGTON – When Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia opened the door this week to make it more “painful” to block legislation, some Democrats saw an opportunity to change the game to remake the Senate and remove a major obstacle to a progressive agenda.
It was a revealing change for Manchin, the most outspoken Democratic advocate of obstruction – an apparent sign of party consensus that the rule can be relaxed, if not abolished. Some progressives say that his idea would open the door to the approval of ambitious projects to strengthen voting rights and arms control, which have emptied the Chamber and are heading for a fatal collapse with the Senate’s 60 vote limit.
“It is very significant,” said Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., The main antagonist of the obstruction, in an interview. “There was a tremendous change in the Democratic caucus, saying, ‘We were elected to solve problems, not to apologize because [Senate Republican leader Mitch] McConnell stopped us. This excuse is not going to work, nor should it. “
Merkley said he has measured senators’ interest in a “talking obstruction” supported by Manchin. The idea is to test the obstruction of the senators, forcing them to speak to prevent the legislation – the West Virginian alluded to actor Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith goes to Washington.
Such a change would put an end to the obstruction as it currently exists, while still allowing a particular minority to lower or sink the accounts. It would also allow a resolute majority to outlast them.
Democrats have 50 votes in the Senate and would need all board members to change the rules. But as Republicans are quick to warn them, they can live to regret the new precedent.
“Majorities come and go. But the essence of the Senate is obstruction in the legislative calendar. Change that and you will change the Senate – and America – forever,” McConnell told reporters, rejecting any changes to the rule. “The status quo on this issue is exactly where we are supposed to be.”
As McConnell noted, Manchin and Senator Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., Were the two Democrats who spoke out against the end of the obstruction during a debate in January about their future. But they also did not rule out making changes to it.
Manchin made it clear on Sunday at NBC’s Meet The Press and Wednesday on Fox News that he is not asking for new exemptions from obstruction on some issues, saying, “I will never abandon my belief that the minority should have an opinion.”
But he said that there should be a higher barrier to obstruct.
“People have to make sure they are willing to show it – it would be great, don’t you think, if someone was there telling you why they are opposing it?” Manchin said on Fox News.
This week, Senator Bob Casey, D-Pa., And Senator Catherine Cortez Masto, D-Nev., Also endorsed a spoken obstruction. Others have said they are open to ending the obstruction entirely, including Senator Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., Who has a moderate reputation.
The issue of voting rights will be an important test of Democrats’ willingness to maintain obstruction as state legislatures led by Republicans across the country, including Georgia, are mobilizing to pass a wave of restrictive electoral laws that, say experts, will disproportionately hamper Democrats’ access to voting.
“Voting rights preserve all other rights. It is not just a legislative issue alongside others. It is the basis on which we are sent here to defend the case of the American people,” said Sen. Raphael Warnock, D-Ga. , whose victory in January in the historically red state put Democrats in the majority. “It is urgent. And therefore, I think that all options must be on the table, under the terms of the Senate rules.”
Speaking of obstruction: how would it work?
The details of any changes to the rules would be critical, said Merkley.
According to the current rules established in 1975, the onus is on the majority to find 60 votes to advance legislation; if 41 or more senators vote against it, the bill stops and there is nothing the majority can do. Merkley calls this a “no-show, no-effort, quiet and invisible” blockade.
A talking obstructionist would turn that burden around, demanding that a group of 41 senators hold the floor and take turns to speak incessantly – to expose their complaints to the legislation being considered.
In the end, Merkley explained, one of two things will happen: the majority party will lose heart and withdraw the bill, or the number of senators present will drop below 41 and allow the majority to advance the bill with a three-fifths majority. .
Manchin’s comments were made in a week when Republicans came together in opposition to President Joe Biden’s $ 1.9 trillion Covid-19 aid package, despite its high popularity, which left some Democrats pessimistic about shutting down big bipartisan agreements on issues such as immigration and infrastructure.
“This has been a crucial week,” said Adam Jentleson, a former Democratic Senate aide and author of the book “Kill Switch”, which argues that the obstruction is hurting American democracy. “Manchin’s comments were certainly encouraging, but the most important thing may be the fact that no Republicans voted for the American Rescue Plan. I think that shows the need for reform more than anything else.”
While Democrats revel in the brilliance of the Covid-19 stimulus victory, they face a difficult choice as to what lies ahead, as obstruction is in the way of Biden’s agenda, such as raising the minimum wage, fighting change climate change, criminal justice review and strengthening Obamacare with public option. The Covid-19 bill could circumvent the obstruction because it is budgetary; most other accounts do not qualify.
Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer, DN.Y. said this week that he would call for the vote on two bills passed by the House with the aim of closing loopholes in the background check rules for arms purchases, “and we’ll see where everyone is “.
When asked by NBC News whether a talking obstruction is the way to go, if his priorities don’t reach 60 votes, Schumer countered.
But he kept the door open, suggesting that failure is not an option.
“All I can say is that we need big, bold action. And we have to find the best way to get it,” said Schumer in an interview. “If Republicans work with us, great. But we have to do that. Period.”