U.S. Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M. (Photo by Heath Haussamen)
U.S. Sen. Tom Udall’s efforts to change the Senate’s rules with a majority vote died Tuesday night as the clock ran out on the artificially extended first day of the session.
Udall, D-N.M., says his fight to reform rules will continue.
“We have forced this overdue conversation on fixing the Senate. The fight will go on,” he said in a message posted on Twitter.
Udall also said, through a spokesperson, that reform has always been a multi-year effort.
“Reform is not for the short-winded,” he said.
Udall has been talking for months about changing the Senate’s rules on filibusters and other issues using a provision that allows rule changes on the opening day of the session with a simple majority vote. After the opening day, changing the rules requires a two-thirds vote.
When it became clear on Jan. 5, the opening day of the session, that Udall and Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., didn’t have the votes to change rules, the opening day was extended until Tuesday to give them more time.
It didn’t help. The New York Times explains why in a blunt op-ed:
“Senate aides say several Democrats are afraid the new rules will put them at a disadvantage should their party fall to a minority. That misses a much more important point. The rules need to be changed not to cripple one party or the other but to improve the efficiency of the Senate no matter who is in power. There is no excuse for even routine budgets and spending bills to languish for lack of 60 votes.”
Less-sweeping changes possible
The Times and Huffington Post are both reporting that less sweeping rules changes are possible. From the Post:
“In place of more sweeping action, lawmakers will push a set of smaller reforms, including an end to secret holds and a reduction in the number of judicial and executive-branch nominations requiring confirmation. Those measures could get votes as early as Thursday, and would be considered either as rules changes (which would require 67 votes for passage) or standing orders (which would have a 60-vote threshold.).
“The parties may also reach an informal agreement under which Republicans would filibuster less in exchange for Democrats allowing them to offer more amendments.”
The Times was highly critical of the situation, but still expressed hope for real change.
“Senate Democrats now have a rare opportunity to reduce the abuse of the filibuster and increase the chances that the people’s work actually gets done. Instead, they are close to an agreement on a watered-down package of changes that will have only a modest effect on the chamber’s gridlock.”
“…there is still a chance for the Senate to adopt real rules, allowing majority votes to prevail in most circumstances and reserving delaying tactics for unusual cases. Without this reform, the Senate will remain dysfunctional.”