On Sunday, Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV), a longtime advocate of obstruction, signaled that he may, however, be open to obstruction reforms that make it easier for Democrats to move forward on their legislative agenda.
In a series of television interviews, Manchin emphasized his support for the obstruction rule, which effectively imposes a 60-vote limit on most legislative actions in the Senate. But he said Meet the press presenter Chuck Todd that “if you want to do [filibustering] a little bit more painful – make them stand and talk – I’m willing to see it any way we can. “
He also reiterated the same point elsewhere on Sunday, telling Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday what “[the filibuster] it must be painful if you want to use it. “
Joe Manchin tells Chris Wallace that while he supports the obstruction, he thinks it “must be painful” if senators want to use it pic.twitter.com/7g3t6Vys32
– Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) March 7, 2021
This may not seem like a big deal, but it is: as a politician reporter, Andrew Desiderio pointed on Sunday’s Twitter, what Manchin seems to be describing is a setback to “talking obstruction”, which would likely represent a much more surmountable obstacle for the narrow Democratic majority in the Senate.
Wow – Manchin signals an opening for an obstruction overhaul.
What he is referring to here is the “talking obstruction”, through which a member of the minority party can obstruct while remaining on the ground. As soon as he gives in, there will be a vote at the limit of the simple majority. https://t.co/YkzdcSTXOX
– Andrew Desiderio (@AndrewDesiderio) March 7, 2021
As Desiderio explained, under a “talking obstruction”, any “member of the minority party can obstruct, as long as he / she remains on the ground.” But as soon as a member finishes speaking, the obstruction would end and “there would be a vote with a simple majority limit” of 50 votes, instead of the existing 60 vote limit needed to end an obstruction.
It is a big change, because currently there is no real obstruction necessary for obstruction in the Senate, at least not in the conventional sense. As Vox explained in 2015, modern obstruction does not require a senator to speak for hours to delay a bill.
Instead, today’s obstruction is a direct move to reject unanimous consent to a bill that the minority can painlessly pursue: According to former Vox writer Ezra Klein, “Today’s obstructions simply paralyze the Senate until the majority finds 60 votes to proceed or gives up and moves on to another deal. “
However, if that rule were changed – say, back to the old talking obstructionist – the obstructors could only paralyze the Senate until the minority had exhausted members willing to hold on to the floor.
Support for the speaking obstructionist is also not a new position for Manchin, as Desiderio points out: In 2011, Manchin supported a similar and unsuccessful measure that would have “required that senators who want to obstruct a bill really take the floor and make comments”.
As it stands, the obstruction does not affect all Senate businesses – court nominations, for example, are subject only to a simple 50-vote majority, as are cabinet nominations – but it limits most legislation. The only notable exception to this rule is the budget reconciliation process, which Democrats are about to use to approve a $ 1.9 trillion stimulus package this week. But reconciliation is also a mysterious and limited process that would be incompatible with many Democratic priorities under current Congressional rules.
Despite being exactly what imposes a 60-vote limit on many Senate deals, the obstruction itself is not subject to the same limit. If the current majority of the Democratic bench in the Senate – with its 50 votes, plus Vice President Kamala Harris as a tiebreaker – wanted to eliminate the obstruction altogether, it could do so.
This will not happen unless Manchin and other moderates have a dramatic shift in opinion – but Manchin’s comments are a reminder that Democrats can still use their majority to find a way around the obstruction if their members are unwilling to close it immediately.
Obstructive changes could pave the way for a bold Democratic legislative agenda
Obviously, Manchin’s comments on Sunday are not a definite commitment to do anything about the obstruction – but it is still extremely good news for Democrats, who look like they will soon face a series of futile struggles to win more than 10 Republican votes to priorities such as voting rights and raising the minimum wage.
Specifically, Manchin’s change in tone, while mild, comes as Senate Democrats prepare for a fight over a package of voting rights recently approved by the House of Representatives, and as high-profile party leaders begin to emerge. support in getting rid of the obstruction.
In an interview this week, for example, Mayor Jim Clyburn told the Guardian that “there is no way, under the sun, in 2021, to allow the obstruction to be used to deny the right to vote.”
“Here we are talking about the Voting Rights Act [late Rep. John Lewis] have you worked so hard and this is named after you and will they obstruct you to death? ”Clyburn said. “This will not happen.”
As a member of the House, not the Senate, Clyburn himself has no say in the fate of the obstruction, but he is still an influential and long-time leader in Congress. And he’s not the only one to stand up for change: last week, several Senate Democrats indicated that they would also be open to abolishing obstruction to pave the way for priorities such as the right to vote.
Principal ️Other main. In addition to being of a decisive state, Stabenow is the Democratic leader of the Senate in fourth place and president of the DPCC, the political and messaging arm of the caucus. She is generally seen as a very intelligent and experienced senator by her colleagues. https://t.co/N2bnjAIz89
– Adam Jentleson (@AJentleson) March 6, 2021
Despite some movement within the Democratic bench, the path to removing obstruction – or even reform – is still not exactly clear. Democrats would need all 50 members of their majority for this to happen, and Manchin’s comments on Sunday confirm that he is still in the “not tough” field on abolishing obstruction, as well as Arizona Senator Krysten Sinema, who has aggressively defended an obstruction position defender.
If the Democratic majority in the Senate does deciding to act, however, there are many things they could do before they blow up the obstruction forever. As Ian Millhiser of Vox wrote last month, with just 50 votes and Harris to break the tie, Democrats can limit which projects are subject to obstruction, make it more difficult to obstruct a project in the first place, or reduce the Senate clotting threshold.
On Meet the press On Sunday, Manchin indicated some willingness to consider this first option, in addition to a talking obstructionist, telling Todd that he could be open to a “reconciliation” approach to passing bills if Democrats encounter repeated refusals by ” Republican friends “of Manchin from working together.
According to some Democrats, like Clyburn, changing the obstruction is vital for the future not only of the Biden government’s legislative agenda, but for the Democratic Party’s ability to compete in future elections.
“If Manchin and Sinema like to be the majority,” Clyburn told the Guardian, “they better find a way around the obstruction when it comes to voting and civil rights.”