Dem Senator: Ending Filibuster is ‘Radical Policy’ That Will Destroy Confidence in Government

Just when Democrats thought they were off the hook pushing the Build Back Better framework into next year, here comes Arizona Sen. Kyrsten Sinema to throw the block on another party priority of pushing a federal takeover of election laws. The only problem for Democrats at the moment is that they simply don’t have enough votes to pass the Freedom to Vote Act, leading many progressives in the party to demand an end to the filibuster with a special provision for legislation that involves voting rights. That would be an awfully convenient carve-out for one specific piece of legislation championed by the party in power.

Sinema, however, says doing so would further erode public trust in the government, which is already near the bottom, and consist of a radical policy change that will further divide the country:

The Arizona moderate is making clear that she intends to keep protecting the Senate’s 60-vote requirement on most legislation and she isn’t ready to entertain changing rules to pass sweeping elections or voting legislation with a simple majority.

In a statement to POLITICO, a spokesperson said that Sinema “continues to support the Senate’s 60-vote threshold, to protect the country from repeated radical reversals in federal policy which would cement uncertainty, deepen divisions, and further erode Americans’ confidence in our government.” Since joining the Senate in 2019, Sinema’s been a fierce defender of the filibuster and warned that reversing it could lead to terrible outcomes for Democrats down the line.

In other words, Sinema is on board with the goal, but not at the expense of burning down the United States Senate to make it happen. This is a problem for Democrats with such a narrow margin of a 50/50 Senate split and Vice President Harris breaking the tie. Aside from matters involving budgetary issues, there is no way to avoid a Republican filibuster and the need for 60 votes.

That has progressives fuming since even though they control two-thirds of government, their agenda on matters like a federal takeover of elections isn’t going anywhere.

Sinema isn’t the only problem though, her pal Sen. Joe Manchin also opposes the moves necessary to change the filibuster:

Regardless, Democrats would need to use the so-called “nuclear option” to change the Senate’s rules on a simple majority vote, something Manchin and Sinema have typically opposed. After Wednesday afternoon’s meeting, Manchin said the issue is “a tough one … because what goes around comes around here. You’ve got to be very careful what you do.”

If Democrats went ahead with the “nuclear option” on the filibuster, they would soon regret it when they lose power. It’s foolish to think either party will maintain some kind of indefinite control beyond a few election cycles at most. Demographics change, redistricting occurs, members retire, there are all kinds of reasons why seats change hands, and thus the balance of power changes.

Democrats would be seething if Republicans used the simple majority vote to outlaw abortion nationwide in all 50 states, for example. Sinema and Manchin know this which is why they can’t sign on to these kinds of scorched earth policies. Furthermore, if all it takes is a simple majority, the next time a party has power, it could simply undo the previous law by 51 votes.

The Senate rules exist for a reason, and at times they irritate both parties. However, anyone looking at things for the long term knows it’s foolish to allow simple majority rule in the Senate as it would destroy any need for bipartisanship.

Democrats should be thanking Sinema and Manchin. Without them, they’d be driving off the cliff and regretting it in a very short time.