This is exceptionally important to me ~ not only the rules surrounding filibusters but those surrounding 'holds' as well ~ I very much want 'secret' holds to end ~ if you have a problem with something, have the cojones to own up to it ~ I also very much want the reason for any hold to be required to relate to whatever/whoever is being held ~ no more holds on, say, judicial candidates until some senator gets what she/he wants in a totally unrelated matter ~ this rules reform is ultra important to remove the 'dys' from a functioning Senate ~ and I understand there is a very small window of time when the new Congress comes back in a couple of weeks for rules changes to be passed by a simple majority ~ Sooz

THE DRIVE FOR SENATE REFORM PICKS UP STEAM.... For quite a while, senators hoping to change their dysfunctional institution have generally been part of a small, almost quixotic, group. The issue of reforming the Senate's easily-abused, often-archaic rules just hasn't been high-profile enough to generate widespread enthusiasm.

But the salience of Senate reform appears to be growing. This week's developments within the Democratic caucus were a huge step in the right direction.

The only Democratic senator to withhold his signature from the letter was Connecticut's Chris Dodd, who isn't coming back next year anyway.

The unanimity matters a great deal. There have been a handful of senators working behind the scenes on reform efforts for months, with the bulk of the work being done by newer, younger members like Merkley, Udall, Bennet, Warner, and McCaskill. (The exception is Iowa's Tom Harkin, who's been a leader on this for many years.)

But this week's letter was signed by every Dem who's returning for the 112th Congress. It suggests the unprecedented obstructionism from Republicans in recent years has made it overwhelmingly clear -- this isn't how the Senate used to work, this isn't how the Senate was designed to work, and this isn't how the Senate should be expected to work.

Obviously, the details of reform make all the difference, and there's no real agreement, even among Dems, about exactly which reforms to push. It's also not clear how Democrats would pursue potential changes procedurally.

Still, it's encouraging that the issue is generating some momentum going into the new year. At least in theory, the larger dynamic might even make Republicans more amenable to change -- even if Dems found it easier to pass bills next year, there's still a very right-wing House to block measures the GOP doesn't like. And since Republicans hope/expect to win back the Senate in 2013 anyway, this may be a unique moment for bipartisan progress.

Post script: Chris Hayes had a good item on this yesterday, noting, among other things, that earlier this week, former Sens. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) and Gary Hart (D-Colo.) issued a bipartisan call for rules reform. "The most important vote of the 112th Senate will likely be its first," Chris concluded.

—Steve Benen 8:30 AM December 23, 2010

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archiv ... 027223.php

Here's more detail ~ Sooz

There is no question that the Senate is largely dysfunctional [at the expense of the public] ~ but all the talk has been about reforming the filibuster rules ~ I deeply believe the 'hold' rules desperately need reform as well ~ Sooz 

THE NEED FOR SENATE REFORM -- IN VISUAL CONTEXT.... Perhaps the best comparison I've seen when it comes abuse of the Senate's rules came from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) earlier this year.

"In baseball," Reid said March, "they used to have the spitball. It originally was used with discretion. But then the ball got wetter and wetter and wetter. So soon, they outlawed the spitball."

Right. What was once an occasional, easy-to-overlook nuisance became a major problem. Minor mischief started affecting the game on a systemic level as abuse ran rampant, necessitating action that returned some integrity to the game.

Republican abuse of institutional rules is extremely similar. The filibuster isn't exactly new, but widespread abuse of the rules is a fairly recent development. For example, there were more filibusters in the last two years than there were in the 1950s and 1960s combined. Think about that -- what once took two decades now takes two years. And it's not as if there weren't important pieces of legislation being considered in '50s and '60s.

The Senate has kept an updated table online, charting cloture votes by Congress over the last 90 years, and using three metrics: (1) cloture motions filed (when the majority begins to end a filibuster); (2) votes on cloture (when the majority tries to end a filibuster); and (3) the number of times cloture was invoked (when the majority succeeds in ending a filibuster). I'd planned to put together a killer chart on this, but last week, Brian Beutler beat me to it.

You'll notice that the Congress that ended last week did not break the record in every category -- it helped that the Democratic majority was so enormous -- but there was a record in the number of times cloture was invoked. To put the data in some perspective, cloture was invoked 63 times in the last two years, which isn't just the most ever, it's more than the sum total of instances from 1919 through 1982.

That's not a typo.

The upward trend in all three categories is just astounding, and a reminder of how far the Senate has strayed from the ways in which it was designed to work and used to work. There are still some in the political world, including many reporters, who think that the status quo is just normal operating procedure for the institution. That's not even close to being accurate.

What's more, also note that the chart doesn't tell the whole story. As Ezra Klein noted the other day, "[T]his doesn't even count all of them. It only counts those filibusters that the majority actually tried to do something about. Plenty more filibusters get threatened, but cloture doesn't get filed because the issue isn't important enough or the votes aren't present."

As interest in reforming this broken, dysfunctional system intensifies, expect to see this chart again.

—Steve Benen 11:20 AM December 28, 2010

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archiv ... 027279.php

I can't decide if Rs are perfecting the art of 'playing dumb' or if they are really natively [and pathetically] as dumb as they appear ~ Sooz

WHAT LAMAR ALEXANDER DOESN'T UNDERSTAND ABOUT SENATE REFORM.... As talks continue on how (and whether) to improve the way the Senate does business, it's inevitable that reform efforts are going to generate some pushback. That's fine, of course, since there are credible arguments raised by critics to consider.

Senate Republican Conference Chairman Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, however, continues to rely on wildly unpersuasive arguments.

This really doesn't make any sense. Putting aside the misguided take on public opinion -- does Alexander really think voters are fans of Senate obstructionist tactics? -- there are no proposals under consideration that would silence Senate voices. Hell, the notion of eliminating the filibuster and allowing the Senate to operate by majority rule isn't even on the table.

The main proposal being pushed by reform-minded Democrats has three main provisions: (1) prohibiting filibusters on motions to proceed, which prevent senators from even having a debate; (2) ending the practice of secret holds; and (3) forcing those filibustering legislation to actually stand on the floor and talk endlessly.

If Lamar Alexander believes implementing these changes "cut off" Senate members and prevent "their voices" from being heard, he's deeply confused about the nature of the debate.

On a related note, many observers have been waiting anxiously for Jan. 5 (i.e., tomorrow), with the expectation that major decisions will be made about these reform efforts. It's worth noting, then, that's extremely unlikely the issue will be resolved this week.

Stay tuned.

—Steve Benen 10:45 AM January 4, 2011

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archiv ... 027368.php

"I can't decide if Rs are perfecting the art of 'playing dumb' or if they are really natively [and pathetically] as dumb as they appear ~ Sooz"

The former... they're as dumb as a fox.

I am in favor of the filibuster rule change. Now all you have to do is threaten one. I like the idea of having to remain on the floor to sustain it. And having the 40 votes. 

I agree, monster ~ the confusion is not from the complexity of the rules ~ the confusion is intentionally created/packaged/sold for self-serving partisan reasons ~ Sooz

SENATE PROCEDURES ARE COMPLICATED -- BUT NOT THIS COMPLICATED.... The long-awaited package of Senate reforms were unveiled yesterday by Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), and Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), and will be the basis for discussions over the next three weeks. In that time, we can expect to hear a lot of misrepresentations about what's on the table.

I tend to see the proposals as worthwhile, but if we're being intellectually serious about this, the reforms are pretty tepid. The changes -- ending filibusters on motions to proceed, eliminating secret holds, etc. -- would make the chamber function more effectively, but only at the margins. I like the plan, but I also think it's a mistake to consider it a sweeping overhaul. It isn't.

So why support it? Partly because some improvements are better than none, but also because I see some value in getting the ball rolling a bit. Major institutional reforms rarely happen all at once, and the Senate is more resistant to change than most. The point would be to use Udall/Merkley as a stepping stone -- minor changes now that could help clear the way for more systemic changes later.

In the meantime, though, conservatives' willingness to mischaracterize the basics of what's on the table is already ridiculous, and it's likely to get worse. The Wall Street Journal ran a report on the Udall/Merkley plan that has no connection to reality -- it argues the proposal intends to "stamp out the filibuster" and prevent Jimmy Stewart-like "Mr. Smith" moments.

Jon Chait sets the record straight, calling the WSJ's reporting "a complete inversion of the truth."

I don't know why so many find this so hard to understand.

—Steve Benen 9:25 AM January 6, 2011

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archiv ... 027406.php