There are two major benefits that would come from the Merkley-Udall Senate Rule reform proposal:
Filibuster reform. Biggest thing here is to shift the onus to maintain a filibuster onto the 41+ minority and away from the model of requiring 60 affirmative cloture votes to limit debate. But also very significant here would be making the motion to proceed non-debatable and ending secret holds. Much has been written about this, I think these are positive improvements and while I would rather just see the Senate move to actual overt majority rule, this is a significant improvement and would have led to a much better 2008-2010 for progressives.
Majority changing the rules at all. Like FDL, I think it would be very important for the Senate to pass changes to the Senate rules on a straight majority on the first day of the new Congress. It remains one of the most baffling self-delusions that the Senate and most Americans accept the fiction that it takes 60 votes to end a filibuster or 67 to change the rules. I have tried to make the point that the 2005 "nuclear option" fiasco proves that the majority can in fact rule the Senate if they so choose, but it is a tough slog. Changing the rules on a straight majority would be a big step forward in forcing everyone to dispel this cherished fable of the "cooling saucer."
I need your help. Which states can be governed by a simple majority? If the current US Senate rules are so great, you'd expect them to be replicated in lots of States right? And if any state does dare entrust its governance to the tyranny of the bi-cameral legislature, with their penchant for spending less on redistribution, well we should expect those states to be doing very poorly right, what with all the crazy laws and socialism they will have.
It turns out this is surprisingly hard to answer. The National Conference of State Legislatures produces items like this and this which highlight the complexity of this topic. I started out reading various State senate rules but states like California, with its two-thirds budget requirement mean that majority rule isn't as simple as the absence of a filibuster.
Inside I will try and lay out an approach to answer this.
Amy Goodman was broadcasting from California this week, and did several segments on the UC fee hikes, student protests and surrounding politics. I wrote about some of this yesterday in my diary, "California's higher education crisis: "Shock Doctrine" in action". This is a followup. On Amy interviewed Goerge Lakoff, and one thing they discussed was his ballot proposition for the 2010 ballot called the California Democracy Act::
All legislative action on revenue and budget must be determined by a majority vote.
What a concept! Majority rule! Here's how the segment with Amy began, where he lays out the basic background:
AMY GOODMAN: We turn now to the budget crisis here in California. The state faces a projected deficit of $21 billion, according to a new report from the state's budget analyst. The prospect for further cuts loom.
I'm joined now from Berkeley, California by a man who says the real cause of the state's fiscal problems is its "dysfunctional system of government." George Lakoff, an author, progressive activist, professor of cognitive science and linguistics at University of California, Berkeley, he has sent the attorney general a ballot proposition for the 2010 ballot that he says can end the gridlock in the state legislature. It's called the California Democracy Act and reads, quote, "All legislative action on revenue and budget must be determined by a majority vote." It changes two words in the state's constitution, turning "two-thirds" to "majority" in two places. It would roll back the two-thirds majority needed to pass a budget and, Lakoff argues, end the gridlock created by minority rule in the state.
George Lakoff, joining us now from the University of California, Berkeley, I welcome you to Democracy Now! Lay out what your proposal is, Professor Lakoff.
GEORGE LAKOFF: It's a pleasure to be here, Amy.
The proposal is very simple: namely, end minority rule by simply having the majority decide on economic-day-to-day economic issues. That's what this says. It says, on revenue and budget, let the majority in the legislature, you know, decide these things, just as happens in forty-seven other states. California is the only state in the union that is completely-that has minority rule in the legislature on both issues.
AMY GOODMAN: How did it happen? What is the history of this?
GEORGE LAKOFF: The history was, back in the '30s there was a two-thirds rule on the budget put in. And then in Prop 13 back in the 1970s, over thirty years ago, there was a hidden part of Prop 13. Most people thought Prop 13 was primarily about, and only about, property taxes. And that said that you needed a two-thirds rule locally to raise property taxes. And what was hidden in there was the idea that you needed two-thirds rule to raise any taxes in the entire state. And that meant that the legislature was basically under minority rule, that one-third plus one, 34 percent, could thwart the majority on any major economic issue simply by saying no until the majority gave in.
AS far as the UC system is concerned, the result has been that as funding has been cut back in tough times, fees have increased. Then when the economy recovers, the fees stay in place, and public funding is never restored. There are multiple causes for this, but clearly a major factor is that even a majority of the state legislature can't easily act effectively--which means that people aren't even inclined to try lobbying them. And thus the rot of anti-democratic politics spreads throughout the system. A brief rundown of how that has played out from a diary at "Remaking the Univeristy", "Doomsday Medicine"
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox