Senate Democrats have brought voting rights legislation to the floor of the Senate three times this year, and each time they've faced unanimous Republican opposition to even debating the bills. Perhaps the fourth time will be a charm in breaking the filibuster's hold on American democracy:
Sometime this fall, Senate Democrats will bring a second major voting rights legislation to the floor: the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which would restore sections of the 1965 Voting Rights Act that were gutted by the conservative Supreme Court.
If Senate Republicans filibuster the bill, as they are almost certain to do, it will be the fourth time they’ve done so with voting rights legislation — and will provoke a decision from Senate Democrats on whether to finally change the body’s antiquated filibuster rules, HuffPost has learned.
The messaging on the filibuster has changed this time around, though:
In the immediate aftermath of Senate Republicans’ third filibuster of opening debate on voting rights legislation this week, leading Democrats did not directly call for the filibuster ― a procedural rule that requires 60 votes to begin or end debate on legislation ― to be reformed to clear the bill’s path for passage by a simple majority vote. The new refrain was instead for “restoration,” something that it was hinted might only be possible by getting rid of the 60-vote requirement. [snip]
For the past decade, much of the discussion among progressive groups has framed the filibuster as something to be reformed. The theme of “restoration,” however, is intended to paint the coming debate over the filibuster as a debate over the fundamental principles of the country, not simply one about an esoteric parliamentary rule change.
Schumer framed his call to “restore the Senate” and pass voting rights by likening it to the post-Civil War period of Reconstruction, when Republicans in Congress enacted the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments on party-line votes. These amendments, which banned slavery, established birthright citizenship and equality under the law, and forbade discrimination in elections, respectively, mark what historian Eric Foner calls the “Second Founding” of the United States. The enactment of these amendments began to put into actual practice the Declaration of Independence’s assertion that “all men are created equal.” They acted as a restoration of original principles. [snip]
The restoration of some kind of talking filibuster is one of two filibuster changes, along with a carve-out specifically for voting rights legislation, that some Senate Democrats have discussed this year. A new talking filibuster would most likely look like the proposal crafted by Norm Ornstein, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, to force the filibustering senators to hold the floor with at least 41 members for as long as they can, or until they can no longer muster 41 members.
As the article notes, Senate Democrats (and the White House) are looking to find "space" for Sens. Manchin and Sinema to support a "restoration" of the Senate as it once was, before the Jim Crow filibuster rule skewed the Senate toward its current obstructionist posture.
There's no more urgent or foundational issue than protecting the voting rights that Republicans are intent on denying to people who don't vote for them. Sen. Manchin has now had the cold reality of having his compromise "Freedom to Vote" bill get filibustered into oblivion, having not been able to find 10 "good Republicans" to break the filibuster and allow even a debate. The question now is will he and Sen. Sinema finally look at protecting voting rights as a basic right of our democracy, as more important than a Jim Crow relic, or will they be forever damned as two of its undertakers?
BONUS: Colbert King writes that "no issue is more important" than protecting voting rights against the Republican disenfranchisement onslaught.
