If Democrats can't destroy the filibuster, can they at least lower the threshold for passing legislation to 55 votes? The idea has been floated by two prominent political columnists in recent days — Greg Sargent, a progressive writer for The Washington Post, and Ross Douthat, a conservative at The New York Times.
Sargent quoted Ira Shapiro, former counsel to the late Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), who once supported lowering the filibuster from 67 votes to its current 60-vote threshold that has become standard for most Senate bills. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) could conceivably follow in his predecessor's steps by leading the charge to lower the standard by another five votes.
The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
Douthat agreed. "It adapts the filibuster in a reasonable way to our age of heightened polarization, maintaining protections for the minority, while making some deals that used to be possible available again," he wrote Sunday.
It sounds like a good idea, certainly better than leaving the current 60-vote rule in place. The problem is that it probably wouldn't work.
For one thing, Manchin has stated repeatedly that he won't vote to eliminate or weaken the filibuster — and did so again just a week ago in a newspaper op-ed. There's no two ways about it: Lowering the standard to 55 votes would weaken the filibuster. That's the whole point. It's difficult to see how Manchin could go along without breaking what appears to be an ironclad promise.
Even if he did, the Senate is still split 50-50 between Democrats and Republicans. And with few exceptions, Republicans are dedicated to denying Democrats anything that might appear to be a bipartisan victory. Perhaps one of the parties can muster a 55-vote vote majority during the next election cycle or two, but for now even a weakened filibuster would be too big an obstacle for Democrats to surmount in most cases. For now, then, the goal of un-paralyzing the Senate is probably just fantasy.
-
France targets Shein over weapons, sex dollsSpeed Read Shein was given 48 hours to scrub the items from their website
-
Trump tariffs face stiff scrutiny at Supreme CourtSpeed Read Even some of the Court’s conservative justices appeared skeptical
-
FAA to cut air travel as record shutdown rolls onSpeed Read Up to 40 airports will be affected
-
The longest US government shutdown in historyThe Explainer Federal employees and low-income households have been particularly affected by ‘partisan standoffs’ in Washington
-
Has Zohran Mamdani shown the Democrats how to win again?Today’s Big Question New York City mayoral election touted as victory for left-wing populists but moderate centrist wins elsewhere present more complex path for Democratic Party
-
Nick Fuentes’ Groyper antisemitism is splitting the rightTalking Points Interview with Tucker Carlson draws conservative backlash
-
Is Mike Johnson rendering the House ‘irrelevant’?Talking Points Speaker has put the House on indefinite hiatus
-
Will Republicans kill the filibuster to end the shutdown?Talking Points GOP officials contemplate the ‘nuclear option’
-
Millions turn out for anti-Trump ‘No Kings’ ralliesSpeed Read An estimated 7 million people participated, 2 million more than at the first ‘No Kings’ protest in June
-
Are inflatable costumes and naked bike rides helping or hurting ICE protests?Talking Points Trump administration efforts to portray Portland and Chicago as dystopian war zones have been met with dancing frogs, bare butts and a growing movement to mock MAGA doomsaying
-
Do Republicans have a health care plan?Today's Big Question The shutdown hinges on the answer
