While Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) remains firm in being opposed to any filibuster changes that aren't bipartisan, that hasn't stopped Democrats from trying to push through these changes all the same. They're even reportedly prioritizing voting legislation--which would require changes to the filibuster in order to pass--over Biden's reconciliation spending bill. In his report for The Hill earlier on Wednesday, Jordain Carney already referred to discussions about changes to Senate rules "a frantic, last-ditch effort." Those talks look even more hopeful after fellow moderate Democrat, Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) has weighed in.
Burgess Everett for POLITICO was among the first to report on the senator's stance, in that "Sinema pops Democrats' filibuster trial balloon on voting rights."
Sinema's stance is pretty basic, and easily summed up in two sentences with Everett's opening paragraph. "Kyrsten Sinema supports the elections reform bill that Democrats are considering a year-end push to pass. She doesn't support a shortcut around the filibuster to get it done," he wrote.
She and Manchin were among those Democratic senators who met to discuss changes to the filibuster, with others including Sens. Jon Tester (MT) and Tim Kaine (VA). One of the two Independents who caucuses with Democrats, Sen. Angus King (ME), was also part of the conversation.
Everett's reporting also included statements from a Sinema spokesperson as well:
In a statement to POLITICO, a spokesperson said that Sinema “continues to support the Senate's 60-vote threshold, to protect the country from repeated radical reversals in federal policy which would cement uncertainty, deepen divisions, and further erode Americans’ confidence in our government.” Since joining the Senate in 2019, Sinema’s been a fierce defender of the filibuster and warned that reversing it could lead to terrible outcomes for Democrats down the line.
Sinema continues to support the Freedom to Vote Act, which was negotiated with Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), as well as the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, even as she raises questions about how to pass those bills in an evenly divided Senate. Democratic senators have mostly focused on lobbying Manchin to try and sway him to pass elections legislation with a simple majority, but Sinema isn’t there yet either.
“Senator Sinema has asked those who want to weaken or eliminate the filibuster to pass voting rights legislation which she supports if it would be good for our country to do so,” said her spokesperson John LaBombard. He warned that legislation could be “rescinded in a few years and replaced by a nationwide voter-ID law, nationwide restrictions on vote-by-mail, or other voting restrictions currently passing in some states extended nationwide.”
...
Sinema's spokesperson said she "believes that the right to vote and faith in our electoral process are critical to the health of our democracy." And though she’s open to discussions about the Senate rules, she still wants to hear a more comprehensive debate on the Senate floor.
“It is time for the Senate to publicly debate its rules, including the filibuster, so senators and all Americans can hear and fully consider such ideas, concerns, and consequences,” LaBombard said. “If there are proposals to make the Senate work better for everyday Americans without risking repeated radical reversals in federal policy, Senator Sinema is eager to hear such ideas and — as always — is willing to engage in good-faith discussions with her colleagues."
Recommended
However, while Sinema and Manchin may be dashing hopes of several Democrats to get rid of the filibuster, that doesn't mean they're not hellbent on circumventing the rules to their benefit. As Everett wrote:
Importantly, Democrats are no longer trying to scrap the filibuster altogether given Manchin's and Sinema's opposition to that step. Instead, they're pivoting to an attempt to sway the duo to support a rules change that could enable legislation curbing gerrymandering and restoring the Voting Rights Act to evade the 60-vote requirement.
The leading options that Manchin and Sinema's colleagues hope to sway them on are installing the talking filibuster, which would force the minority to hold the floor and continuously put up at least 41 votes to block legislation, or creating a filibuster exception specific to the issue of elections and voting.
Regardless, Democrats would need to use the so-called "nuclear option" to change the Senate's rules on a simple majority vote, something Manchin and Sinema have typically opposed. After Wednesday afternoon's meeting, Manchin said the issue is "a tough one ... because what goes around comes around here. You’ve got to be very careful what you do."
Indeed, Manchin's warning is a noteworthy one, and shows he's learned a lesson from history. Despite warnings from then Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) to not do so, then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) got rid of the filibuster for confirming certain federal judicial nominees, who only needed a simple majority then. Upon Republicans taking control of the Senate, McConnell responded by putting in place that change so that nominees for the U.S. Supreme Court also only needed a simple majority.
Sinema has also expressed concerns before that pro-life senators could pass legislation regulating or restricting abortion with just a simple majority of votes.
Some possible ideas for changing but not getting rid of the filibuster include a talking filibuster, as mentioned by Everett.
In his subsequent reporting about Sinema's stance, Carney also mentioned other ideas:
Among the ideas being discussed by the group of negotiators is requiring 41 "no" votes instead of 60 "yes" votes, exempting certain bills from the filibuster requirement or switching to a talking filibuster. That would let opponents delay a bill for as long as they could hold the floor but ultimately only require bills to get a simple majority to then pass.
It's worth noting that the voting legislation Democrats are so desperate to pass still amounts to a federal takeover of elections, just as HR 1, the For the People Act, would have, as explained by Jason Snead, the executive director of Honest Elections Project Action.
“With their massive social spending bill stalled, the Democrats have decided to try yet again to ram through their unpopular federal takeover of elections. The Democrats’ election agenda is about cementing their political power at the expense of public confidence in elections," Snead warned." Bills like H.R. 1 and H.R. 4 are partisan power grabs meant to dismantle state voter ID laws and other commonsense safeguards that and have strong bipartisan support throughout the country. Their efforts invite chaos and uncertainty into the election system and put public confidence in democracy at risk. This unconstitutional bill is an attack on our system of elections and deserves to be defeated resoundingly in the Senate."
Everett's piece also included comments from other Democrats in support of changing the filibuster, such as Sen. John Hickenlooper (D-CO), who noted that "if we can change the process on the debt ceiling, then surely we can do the same to protect our democracy."
Per Everett's tweets, Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-GA) has also made such a call.
He's of course correct that the Senate COULD pass a bill to give a voting bill that exemption, but it wouldn't get GOP support.
— Burgess Everett (@burgessev) December 14, 2021
So to get that rules change for voting/elections would be via the nuclear option -- not typical legislation and its 60-vote threshold.
"We could not imagine changing the rules. Until last week, we did exactly that," Warnock says. "This is a step ... we haven't been able to take to save our broken democracy ... we changed the rules to protect the full faith and credit of the United States government"
— Burgess Everett (@burgessev) December 14, 2021
Last week the Senate, thanks to Republican support and a deal from by McConnell, indeed voted to allow Democrats to raise the debt ceiling with only a majority. In addition to raising the debt ceiling, which Congress voted to do by $2.5 trillion, such a move leads to a slippery slope and such comments like those from Hickenlooper and Warnock.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member