Democrats ponder Plan B strategy to circumvent voting-rights filibuster

[mzmolly]

Senate Democrats are scrambling for a Plan B to pass voting rights legislation after Sens. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) announced last week that they would not vote to change the Senate’s filibuster rule despite the pleading of President Biden.

Now some Democrats are discussing a novel approach to circumventing a Republican filibuster that may allow voting rights legislation to pass with 51 votes without changing the Senate’s rules.

These Democrats, including Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), are exploring the possibility of forcing Senate Republicans to actually hold the floor with speeches and procedural motions.

They hope that the Republican opposition may tire itself out after a few days or weeks and that Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) may be able to then call for a simple-majority vote on final passage and skip the formal procedural vote — known as cloture — on ending debate.

More at: THE HILL

[a kennedy]

1. I just want this damn bill, and I don't mean it's a damn bill I mean all the shit Dems have to go

through to get this most important bill passed. 🤬 🤬 🤬 I just want it passed.

[mzmolly]

2. Me

too. It's worth fighting for, however we have to do it.

[everyonematters]

3. They would still have to get Sinema and Manchin to agree with that.

[SoCalDavidS]

6. Minor Detail

I'm sure they can waste another few months making us think there is a possibility for success, when clearly there is none.

[brooklynite]

7. No indication that they oppose a speaking filibuster...

[Amishman]

14. Not yet, but the goalposts are on well oiled rails

I think a stand alone child tax credit bill would be a better use of time right now given the realities around passing much of anything else. There are at least a few Pubs teasing being open to it. The more competition for being votes 49 and 50, the less leverage each senator has

[dsc]

17. actually in the case of Manchin at least and Sinema in her speech

yes they do oppose any rule change to the filibuster that doesn't get 67 votes, including, one presumes, that one.

[wnylib]

8. Or a few renegade Republicans. Or,

have some no show Republicans.

[viva la]

12. not that Sinema and Manchin care about being consistent in their arguments-

But if they care about "tradition"-- traditionally to filibuster, you had to hold the floor by talking. That's because the theoretical point here was to make sure the minority view got spoken and heard.

They should have no problem then making the Republicans say why they are against the bill.

If the filibuster were to have any real effect on "compromise," it would be better to let the opponents say why they oppose it in a talking filibuster, and then if there can be compromises made to address any of those issues ("Okay, we'll drop the national holiday bit for a while&quot , that can be hashed out behind the scenes.

Most important, though, is that the talking filibuster will allow the Republicans who are openly racist to show it, and those who still bear a bit of shame about racism to confront their own opposition to voting rights and present it to the nation, and maybe.

[mzmolly]

13. Wouldn't the VP

break a tie? As such, I think we'd just need one more Senator. Republican or DINO.

[SoCalDavidS]

4. MORE Dog & Pony Show

Simply waiting for Plan B to end in failure as well.

Thankfully, there are still another 24 letters in the alphabet to keep us intrigued at all the possibilities for success.

[PortTack]

5. Anyone who says President Biden and the Dems aren't trying, have bad messaging

WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN??!!!!

[viva la]

9. Forcing a "talking filibuster" worked for the Civil Rights Bill of 1957

But the opponents then didn't 'tag-team"-- Strom Thurmond talked the whole time.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 faced a two-month filibuster, mostly by Democrats! (These are the southern Democrats who then switched to the Republican party. However, it must be pointed out that a southern Democrat-- LBJ-- was the president who staked his career on getting this passed.)

Senator Russell:
"We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would tend to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our [Southern] states."

Notice how these historic filibusters are so often about... denying the right to vote and participate in other civil activities. Why would that be? Why would "minority rule" so often be used in this beloved Senate process?
Because, of course-- that's why the segregationists created the filibuster in the first place. Like the Electoral College, this has its origins in racism.

[mzmolly]

15. Good infomation

thank you!

Yes. It's odd we're still catering to the segregationists and the Electoral College given the history.

[viva la]

18. Very odd!

Very American, alas.

[tritsofme]

10. The upshot of this would be judicial confirmations grinding to a halt during this time.

As the Senate could not consider any other business.

While the path to success would remain extremely muddled, and precious floor time ticks away.

I actually recall reading commentary in 2017 from Republicans pushing this same strategy to defeat a filibuster, but for many of the reasons mentioned in this article, they ultimately didn’t go for it.

[mzmolly]

16. True.

But I can't imagine a more worthy cause to fight for.

[Takket]

11. Nope. Manchin Sinema won't support any change to the filibuster

Unless the rethugs support it too. Talking filibuster, requiring a vote to CONTINUE a filibuster rather than shut it down, both great ideas they will not even entertain.