Democrats Discussing 2 Options To Change The Filibuster To Pass Voting Rights Laws

[UCmeNdc]

Those choices include a filibuster carve-out for voting rights or bringing back a talking filibuster.

Democrats are currently discussing two ways to change the Senate’s filibuster rules in order to pass voting rights legislation. The options under consideration include a special carve-out from filibuster rules for voting rights legislation or the implementation of a new kind of talking filibuster.

The push to enact new voting rights legislation has been on a collision course with the Senate’s filibuster rules ever since Jan. 6. Democrats won control of the Senate that day with wins announced in both Georgia Senate run-off elections, and supporters of ex-President Donald Trump attacked the U.S. Capitol in an effort to halt the counting of the electoral votes underway at the time.

Democratic control of the Senate gave the party full control of the government for the first time in a decade and the ability to pursue a Democratic agenda, including voting rights. Meanwhile, the insurrection and the election fraud lies spread by ex-President Donald Trump have inspired Republican-run states to enact new restrictions on voting.

While Democrats were already destined to introduce voting rights as the No. 1 priority for legislation in both chambers, Republican reactions to Trump’s lies have made it an urgent necessity to enshrine voting rights in legislation.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/democrats-voting-rights-filibuster_n_614e4a29e4b03dd7280b070a

[bearsfootball516]

1. Desperately needs to happen, and fast.

If they wait too long, primaries will get underway and it'll be too late to redraw districts using independent commissions.

[mopinko]

2. make them hold the floor.

i'd rather it be thrown out on the basis of how unrepresentative the senate is in the 1st place.
has it ever been used for good?
but make them do it the way it's supposed to be done. they are abusing it soooo badly to just make it a threshold for every damn bill.

i'm tempted to say they should raise the threshold for scotus picks. i know it hurts us, and in this moment in time, it would be suicide.
but i long for the good old days where you just didnt put someone up for the post that couldnt get 80-90 votes.

[Beetwasher.]

7. I would say do that first, but have the rule change

Still in your pocket. They may find the fortitude to actually hold the floor and gum up everything. At that point we change the rule.

[mopinko]

8. i doubt it. they might try, but they're too lazy to get anything actually done.

they only do it because all they have to do is raise their hand. make them stand up, even, and they wont bother. at least not on every damn bill.

[Beetwasher.]

9. You may be right, but it doesn't hurt to have

A backup plan. Which is I think why they are signaling this two prong approach. Both are plausible and perfectly legitimate.

[OnDoutside]

11. For other stuff, perhaps, but voting rights is to important to leave

to chance... you just never know what could happen. After all, they're potentially screwed if the VRA goes into law, they'll fight like the devil to defeat it. I'd like to see a straight vote and get it done.

[mopinko]

12. well sure.

but we arent gonna get shit if we dont do something.

[OnDoutside]

14. True but if it really is a choice, go directly to a carve out imo.

[Deminpenn]

15. Have you noticed that Biden's judicial picks are sailing through

with bi-partisan majorities? This is because there's no filibuster for any federal judicial appointment, so no one is playing partisan obstructionist games with qualified candidates.

Opponents of the filibuster have it entirely backwards. The filibuster is what is causing the hyper-partisanship in the Senate. Eliminating it would, imho, encourage negotiation and compromise and lessen partisanship.

[mopinko]

16. yup

it's a kink in the system that is now irresistible.
kill it, and someday down the road if we're sorry, we can bring it back. cough cough.
it's just a rule.

[Hotler]

3. I wish they were more secret about their plans. It gives repugs time to plan a counter attack.

We need to keep the repugs off balance and guessing which way stuff is going to come at them. I think Nancy should schedule votes for 3:00 AM just because.

[Beetwasher.]

5. Publicizing it is much better strategy

I for one am heartened by this report. It invigorates your allies and frankly there’s really nothing the GOP can do about it except whine impotently. If it was done in secret their criticism would have more validity; SECRET DEM PLAN!!

Publicizing 2 options also says they mean business, they are going to do this one way or another. This truly great news!

[StarfishSaver]

6. I think they're strategically putting out just the information they want the Republicans to know

Pelosi's operation is as tight as a drum - nothing leaks that she doesn't want to leak. If this information is out, I think it's because she has a reason to want it out.

[Beetwasher.]

4. Awesome, they Know the danger, hang in there folks

They are working. I know, we want it quicker, me too, but unfortunately things just don’t happen that quickly for those of us that truly believe in law and order. Things are moving.

[mopinko]

13. i think they know the troops are getting restless.

[modrepub]

10. Quite F--king Around

And do it Texas style. One person, they have to keep talking, can't lean on the table, when the person falters the vote proceeds.

In the old days, a filibuster meant the person had to actually be talking nonstop. Now they just have to say they don't want to vote.

And this is why I have little faith in the Democratic party. They won't play hard ball with sticks in the mud so they never get anything done. That's why the Republicans got control of the court system, state legislatures and such. They kept an eye on the prize and know how to accomplish what they want. Rules are for the other side.