On Why I Hate the Filibuster

The first thing many of you are probably wondering is why I'm writing this post now, instead of back in June when Wendy Davis was filibustering on the Texas State Senate floor about the anti-abortion bill before the state legislature.

I wish I had a good answer for that.  Partially, because as much as I don't like the filibuster as a tactic, it's because I think Wendy Davis is kind of a badass.  Partially, it's because this is not a non-partisan blog.  And, mostly, it's because I was making the same argument on Facebook and it never crossed my mind to make this post.

First of all, I will note that there are some minor differences between the current Ted Cruz filibuster on the U.S. Senate floor and Davis's filibuster in Texas.  One, Wendy was in Texas, so her actions impacted only the residents of Texas, while Senator Cruz's filibuster aims to impact the entire country and the federal government.  So, yknow, keep the scope of things in mind as we progress here.  Two, the Texas State Senate filibuster rules state that you can only continue to speak as long as you continue to speak on matters directly related to the bill at hand.  This stipulation does not exist for the Senate filibuster, which may proceed (even by reading the phone book) until the speaker 1) voluntarily sits down, leaves, or stops speaking or 2) the Senate reaches a 2/3 vote needed for cloture and ends the debate in spite of the filibuster.  Until then, anything and everything is fair game.

Which brings us to today.  Ted Cruz is filibustering on the Senate floor [last I heard, reading Dr. Seuss books] to delay or prevent a vote on a critical budget measure in an attempt to "defund Obamacare" and the stipulations of the Affordable Care Act which will go into effect tomorrow.

I hate the filibuster as a tactic or procedural rule -- regardless of party affiliation or the issue.

First, it prevents any real, constructive debate on the topic at hand.  Debate is, inherently, a conversation.  And a filibuster is precisely the opposite -- especially when you don't even need to be talking about the bill that's up for a vote.  It is one-sided preaching, sometimes on topic, sometimes not, which does nothing to require either side to provide evidence or support for their side of the argument.

Second, the filibuster is a direct threat to the democratic process.  Senate voting rules were designed for a simple majority.  And, pending Presidential veto, a simple majority is supposed to be all that's needed to pass something.  The filibuster, by requiring a 2/3 vote, effectively raises the threshold for substantive Senate progress to a level even harder to achieve than half-plus-one.  People complain about Congressional inefficiency, but it's even harder to make any moves in any direction when you need not only a majority, but overwhelming support for any measure.

The filibuster is a holdover from very old Parliamentary procedure.  In the early 1800s, the House of Representatives decided it was enough of a bar to productive and timely debate that they removed it in an update of the House debate rules.  It sticks around in the Senate as a fossil from an era where immediate action was both typically unnecessary and more or less impossible -- in a world which is quite the opposite.

Politically yours,
Rachel Leigh