We have been hearing a lot about the filibuster here lately out of both political camps.
When most Americans hear the word “filibuster,” they picture marathon speeches designed to obstruct a vote in Congress. They may have a perception of it as a dirty trick to undermine the regular order. Perhaps this is why many don’t bat an eye when they hear both Kamala Harris and Donald Trump floating the idea of ending the Senate filibuster should they become president. Yet these proposals should concern every American, because the filibuster is one of the last remaining tools to force bipartisan governance in Washington.
Modern filibusters don’t require long speeches. They are silent procedural tools to extend debate on bills indefinitely, thus preventing votes. Under the current rules, 60 votes are needed in the 100-person Senate to overcome a filibuster and force a bill to the floor. With modern majorities so razor thin, this requires members of both parties to work together and agree on bills.
Harris and Trump are both open to removing the filibuster should they win the governing trifecta in November–control of the House, Senate, and White House. In such a case, the filibuster would be the only obstacle in the way of single-party rule.
Harris recently told an interviewer, “I think we should eliminate the filibuster for Roe,” meaning create a carveout for the single issue of abortion rights. But don’t be fooled. Once a party creates an exception, it’s only a matter of time before it creates another. And another.
Sen. Joe Manchin argued as much when he refused to endorse Harris over her position. “I’ve been very, very, very clear on how strongly I believe that when you go down that slippery path, you don’t just do it for one issue,” he said. Previously, Manchin has said that if Democrats do away with the filibuster it would be “the saddest day in the history of the United States of America.”
Others agree. When it was reported earlier this year that Trump may push for the filibuster’s elimination, Sens. Thom Tillis and James Lankford, both Republicans, came out in opposition.
In 2017, a bipartisan group of more than 60 senators wrote a letter to their party leaders in support of the filibuster, arguing, “We are mindful of the unique role the Senate plays in the
legislative process, and we are steadfastly committed to ensuring that this great American institution continues to serve as the world’s greatest deliberative body.”
Indeed, the filibuster is part of what distinguishes the Senate from the U.S. House, where majority rule is absolute. It safeguards the upper chamber from the whiplash that is common when party control of the House flips, which creates a constant cycle of subjugation and revenge for the winning party.
This is also why members of Harris and Trump’s own parties have come out against their plans: any successful effort to remove the filibuster for your side also removes it for the other. And when the tables turn, as they inevitably do, there will be payback.
Related Articles
New poll shows how close Rep. Yadira Caraveo’s race against Gabe Evans is, with plenty of undecided voters
U.S. Postal Service workers rally in Denver to send message they are ready for mail-in ballots in the 2024 presidential election
Opinion: Proposition KK is worth making your way down the ballot to support Colorado victims
Watch live: J.D. Vance, Tim Walz in the vice presidential debate tonight
Election 2024: How to watch the vice presidential debate
If this becomes the case in the Senate, it will not only undermine the stability of the upper chamber but also further deepen and entrench our national divides at the worst possible time.
It’s easy to understand why abolishing the filibuster is so tempting today in our age of gridlock, when the losing side seems so determined to stop the winner from succeeding. But in truth, tools like the filibuster are at their most important in moments like these. Compromise and consensus are our only way forward. This tool forces both sides to come to the middle to do the work of the American people.
Our nation will emerge from this election bruised and exhausted. If one or the other party does win the “trifecta” of House, Senate, and White House control, it won’t be by much, and it won’t be a mandate for single-party rule. We live in a 50/50 country, and protections for the political minority exist for a reason.
When confronted with the decision of whether to eliminate the filibuster, the winning side should ask itself: What if the shoe were on the other foot? Because one day, it will be.
Roger Hutson is a co-chair of No Labels Colorado, a board member of Colorado Concern, and the CEO of HRM Resources IV, LLC.
Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.