Faced with what they're calling a "broken" system, a band of Senate Democratic newcomers are vowing to change the way the world's greatest deliberative body does business. These "young turks" -- "young" being relative in a body in which 60 is considered middle-aged -- are pushing to revamp the decades-old rules that govern the Senate.
Their targets include long-held senatorial courtesies such as the "hold" and the seniority system that awards chairmen's gavels solely on tenure. Ultimately, some want to modify or eliminate the most potent of all senatorial weapons: the filibuster.
Some of the older Senators don't like it:
Calling the newcomers' approach "grossly misguided," Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.), who is 92 and the longest-serving lawmaker in the history of Congress, said the Senate is designed to protect the rights of all, not just those who won the last election.
"Extended deliberation and debate -- when employed judiciously -- protect every senator, and the interest of their constituency, and are essential to the protection of the liberties of a free people," Byrd, who was first elected in 1958, wrote in a letter to colleagues last month.
Somehow, these objections from Robert Byrd--who is actually favoring filibuster reform even as he objects to it--are not persuading younger Senators. Democratic Senators who first entered the senate after the 2006 or 2008 elections are holding meetings, as a group, on how to change the rules. While we don't know who has attended, and what has been discussed at, these meetings, freshman Maryland Senator Ben Cardin confirms the meetings have frequently taken place:
"I think the Senate needs to operate more fairly and efficiently than it does today," said Sen. Ben Cardin (Md.), a Democrat elected in 2006.
"We've had frequent discussions between our two classes as to ways we think we can add to traditions of the Senate and make sure we get our work done," said Cardin.
Among Senators not included in the most recent update to the filibuster reform vote count, at least Ben Cardin, Debbie Stabenow, and Mark Warner appear to be involved in these discussions. That pushes the number of Senators publicly favoring, or at least considering, some sort of filibuster reform to at least 25, and as many as 30. The full details of the count can be seen in the extended entry.
At this point, at long as Democrats maintain control of the Senate in 2011, the question no longer seems to be "if" there will be procedural reform, but what sort of reform will happen. Even though I have only been about to find 30 public statements in favor of reform, there are probably a lot more than 25-30 Democratic Senators in the reform camp, given the following four factors:
All potential Democratic Majority Leaders (Durbin, Reid and Schumer) have endorsed "some sort" of reform (although Durbin favors a 51-vote Senate);
Freshman Dems are frequently meeting to try and hash out some sort of reform but only 10 of the 22 freshman have made it known publicly that they are involved in these discussions;
Even those opposed to eliminating the filibuster, such as Feingold and Byrd, are still in favor of ending the "painless" filibuster and forcing talk-a-thons;
There really isn't any public group of Democratic Senators coherently arguing against changing Senate procedural rules. The question isn't if reform will happen, but rather what shape reform will take.
Note: While Evan Bayh also favors some sort of filibuster reform, he is retiring and the opportunity for reform comes on the first day the Senate is in session in 2011. On that day, only 50 votes, plus the Vice-President, are required to change Senate rules. Right now, depending on the outcome of the 2010 elections, among Senators who will be around in 2011, there are at least 25, and as many as 30, in favor of some sort of reform.
