This Newsday article (I haven't found any others on this issue) suggests that Dems will filibuster. They have more than 40 votes and they say that's all they need.
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usmarr233864599jun23,0,6288168.story?coll=ny-natio
nalnews-headlines
What exactly would the procedure be in filibustering the amendment? Would no vote be taken at all?
If they're doing this because they want to spare vulnerable Democrats from having to vote on a no-win issue, I can understand, but I think that not voting would give them cause them more problems because it drags the issue out, the topic hangs over their heads during the entire convention and into the fall. The Republicans and the media decry "obstructionism" yet again, and the public may have a knee-jerk reaction to favor the amendment because they feel due process is being held up (this is what happened with the filibustering of judicial nominees, although in that case I totally understood the Dems' rationale).
Part of me wants them to have the vote, to see how many Republicans will vote against this. Filibustering will give the Republicans an easy out and reunify a very fractuce Senate GOP, giving them a club to whack Democrats over the head with time and again. That can't be good going into November. Do you think that they realized only 1 or 2 Republicans were going to vote against the amendment, and that's why they're filibustering, so that individual Democratic senators would not get the blame for their vote? The thing is that most of the senators up this year wouldn't take a serious hit if they voted "no". Since Wyden, Lincoln and Reid have non-entity competitors, and Feingold and Murray seem to be in decent shape and live in quasi-liberal states, the only one is Daschle. If this is all for Daschle, then he'd better steel himself for more of the obstructionist yammering.