The announcement Tuesday from Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, I-Ariz., that she won’t be running for re-election this year makes her the second vocal defender of the filibuster who’ll no longer be around to prevent any reforms to the antiquated maneuver. Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., who has stood with Sinema in being a roadblock to filibuster reform, announced he won’t be running for re-election in November.
On top of those announced departures, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., a staunch obstructionist who has praised Sinema’s defense of the filibuster, will no longer be leading the Senate GOP. Depending on which party controls Washington come January, these three decisions could lead to a sea change in how the Senate operates.
Depending on which party controls Washington come January, these three decisions could lead to a sea change in how the Senate operates.
Sinema, Manchin and McConnell have used sentimental terms like “respect for the Senate and its traditions” in opposing filibuster reform. But they have their own reasons for their opposition. Sinema, who believes that her appeal as a “moderate” requires bucking her colleagues, knows that her preferred form of dealmaking would take a nosedive if Democrats could legislate without the hindrance of getting 60 votes. The filibuster has given Manchin, a conservative Democrat from a deep red state, cover to avoid tough votes that his more liberal colleagues would have him take. McConnell leads a party whose goals don’t require passing major new laws and knows that changing the filibuster would vastly benefit Senate Democrats, who actually want to legislate.
Given the Republicans’ slim majority in the House and Democrats’ control of the Senate, a Joe Biden win in November could result in Democrats’ controlling both chambers and the White House. That would mean Democrats get a second chance to pass some of the legislation that Manchin’s and Sinema’s fidelity to the filibuster helped block during Biden’s first two years in office, like a massive voting rights package to shore up democratic safeguards and an effort to codify abortion rights. Importantly, Rep. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., who’s running to replace Sinema, is an advocate of filibuster reform.
Even without a trifecta, should the GOP retain control of the House and Democrats hold on to the Senate, at minimum, the chance for shifting to a so-called talking filibuster goes up if Manchin and Sinema aren’t around. Under a proposal championed by reformers, it would take only a simple majority, or half plus one, to end debate unless a senator in the minority is holding control of the floor, usually through a lengthy speech. Currently, most bills require 60 senators’ support to overcome potential filibusters, despite needing only majorities to be passed into law.
But whether a total abolition of the filibuster becomes a major issue again will depend on who’s serving as president — not down Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House but in the Senate. If it’s Vice President Kamala Harris, that would mean Biden remains in office and is able to veto any stray conservative legislation that might slip through. It also means she would provide Democrats with a majority in the event of an evenly split Senate and would be able to cast any tiebreaking vote on possible changes to the filibuster rule, something she said in 2022 she “cannot wait to do.”
Whether a total abolition of the filibuster becomes a major issue again will depend on who’s serving as president — not down Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House but in the Senate.
But if former President Donald Trump is sworn in again next year, even if he lacks the backing of a GOP-controlled Senate, Democrats might be hesitant to touch the filibuster to safeguard against his wildly authoritarian agenda. And given the likelihood that Trump would renew his demand that the legislative filibuster go the same way as the filibuster against judicial nominees, whoever serves as McConnell’s replacement will have outsized influence over the caucus’ direction.
Sen. John Thune of South Dakota, who, as GOP whip, is McConnell’s deputy, has made it very clear that he is dead set against abolishing the legislative filibuster. His main opponent, former No. 2 Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, has been less vocal on the matter but hasn’t given much of an indication that he’d back even minor reforms to the cloture rule. But on the off chance Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., or another MAGA-aligned candidate triumphs, that sort of long-term vision that McConnell used may fall by the wayside in favor of short-term gains for the GOP and earning Trump’s favor.
The political considerations at play here, though, shouldn’t outweigh the principles at stake. The filibuster isn’t a tool that fosters bipartisanship, as Sinema, Manchin, McConnell and others have claimed. The filibuster does nothing to disprove the clear evidence that Republicans are interested in compromise and bipartisanship only if it requires Democrats to move further to the right for nothing in return. Nor is it a necessary shield to protect the rights of the minority party. It is a relic of a bygone era that is meant to promote divisions, a supra-constitutional attack on the idea of majority rule. It has more often been the impediment to good governance than a bulwark against bad laws.
If the fear of MAGA-inspired bills’ passing the Senate is the only reason Democrats cling to the filibuster’s defense, I’d ask them: How do you square the Trumpian derision of norms and willingness to act outside the rule of law with the idea that the filibuster, a literal tool of oppression that exists only because the Senate wills it to, is going to save you?
