The Hill:
Sens. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) re-introduced a bill Harkin first unveiled in 1995 that would set a gradually lowering threshold to shut off debate on legislation, starting at 60 votes and lowering to 51 over a period of time.
Interesting? Yes. Why? Because Republican filibuster abuse is annoying.
Likely to succeed? No. Well, not by itself. Why?
Such a change to Senate rules would require 67 votes — an impossible threshold to reach, given the chamber’s make-up and divisiveness.
So what's the point, then?
For one thing, consistency. Harkin introduced a similar bill in 1995, when Democrats were in the minority. So there's a certain responsibility, perhaps, to reintroduce it now that they're in the majority.
For another, it helps to have something available with which to fill the void if the day of reckoning ever really comes for the filibuster. And those of you who've followed at least a bit of the developing storyline of late, you know that that day may not be all that far off. At the beginning of a new Congress, which we'll see next January, Senate precedent suggests the procedural environment enables rules changes to be adopted by a simple majority vote. Actually, in terms of pure power politics, there's no real reason to wait for the start of a new Congress, in the sense that the decision of a majority of the Senate regarding its own rules of procedure are almost certainly unreviewable by any other authority. But that's a story for another day.
The more immediate point is that come January, the opportunity to set things up arises, so long as someone stands up in the new Senate and insists that a change can and should be made. And Tom Udall has committed to doing just that. Whether or not there are 50 votes to go along with him is another matter, but one people will be working on between now and then.
The way things have gone with this magical window of opportunity in the past -- at least, when it's been used successfully -- is that once the process is thrown wide open and Senators can see the writing on the wall, people begin looking for compromise. A successful invocation of this beginning-of-a-new-Congress procedure leaves the Senate staring into the abyss. The filibuster can be eliminated entirely, or the Senate can agree by simple majority vote to some alternative cloture procedure. First they agreed to adopt the basic cloture procedure (requiring a 2/3 vote at the time). Later, they agreed to lower that threshold to 3/5. The next time, it could perhaps be a proposal like that from Sens. Harkin and Shaheen that becomes the compromise. Or, or course, it could end up being something else. But if Senators know this day is coming and come to believe the necessary votes are there, they're going to want to have alternatives to the current Rule XXII available, and the ones that get the widest play before game day just might stand the best chance of becoming the new standard. So that's why the Harkin-Shaheen proposal matters, even if it can't pass now.
Of course, there is one other matter, which is the approval of leadership. Technically, a leadership actively hostile to such a change can make if very difficult if not impossible for a reform-minded Senator to even be recognized on the floor for the purposes of stating his objection to the continuance of the rules. So what are we to make of this?
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) on Thursday dismissed an effort by some Democrats to eliminate the filibuster, saying the chamber's procedures were designed to prevent the majority party from unilaterally changing the rules.
Well, not too much, given that Reid was referring to the Harkin-Shaheen bill, and remarking that it would take 67 votes to adopt such a change. Which it would, of course, under normal circumstances. But what about the Udall proposal?
In his answer to reporters' questions, Reid indicated he did not believe Udall's approach was correct. He said "the rule change" would take 67 votes, reaffirming his previous position in 2005, when Reid fiercely defended the minority's right to filibuster and argued that the Senate was bound by its past rules until the supermajority acted to change them.
Oh. I see.
Luckily for reform supporters, Reid's not the final authority on the question. But he sure can make things difficult if he insists on standing in the way.
Now, if there aren't 51 votes to be cobbled together for this thing, it won't matter whether Reid stands in the way or not. And if there aren't, well then, he won't have any reason to. But if there are, then that's another story. And in that story, the smart play is to stand aside and see what happens, because in that environment, you don't want to be on the wrong side of a determined 51 votes, and as Majority Leader, you certainly don't want to be on the wrong side of what would presumably be an overwhelming majority of your own caucus.
So with that in mind, I'd say that Harry Reid is saying more or less exactly what Harry Reid needs to say about cloture reform right now.
Come January, it's not likely that Harry Reid's personal opinion will be driving things. The vote count alone will set the pace. And if cloture reform is something you want to see happen, it'll be your job between now and then to make sure your Senators -- whomever they may be in January 2011 -- know that in no uncertain terms.