More (Less) Senate Filibuster

 #321: I Design The Likeliest Possible Reform

............................

After posting "Science Settles It; Reforming The Filibuster" last weekend, I read Ian Millhiser's Vox article that is a comprehensive review of where 'the Filibuster' has been, and where it could conceivably go.  It highlights another collection of possible reforms to add to our Top Ten list.

But, rather than expand to a Top Twenty list, I'm making the somewhat unorthodox case that maybe the most likely reform is incremental.  That instead of abolishing what is admittedly a hold-over from the Jim Crow era, the Filibuster could be made to work.  And, after all, until 50 senators want to abolish it, we're stuck tinkering with the thing.

Central to this effort is the fact that my hobby is boardgame design (my brother and I are currently working on a 2020 US Presidential election game).  So, I have an amateur's understanding of how politics works.

Additional Reform Possibilities

After reading Millhiser's brief explanation of Senate procedure, we can identify an additional three areas that need attention: 

*  Increase The Number of Senators Required To Initiate A Filibuster: When a single Senator can cause a lengthy delay in proceedings, there's an obvious need to raise the threshold from one Senator to, say, ten.

* Make It Easier To End A Filibuster: Either reduce the number of senators needed to end a filibuster, or protect certain Senate actions from the filibuster (like confirming nominees, as happened several years ago).

* Adjust The Time It Takes To Wait Before A Particular Filibuster Is Ended: It's currently 30 hours for most votes, make it less.   Or, curtail the allotted time for debate on whether to vote.

So, here's my proposal:

Ten votes needed to petition to initiate a Filibuster.  This removes the incentive for 'lone wolf' senators to pad their career profile with unlikely objections to legislative flow.

41 senators needed to sustain a Filibuster.  This effectively decreases the 60-vote threshold because older persons are prone to unforeseen absences from the Senate floor. 

Three hours, maximum, for wait and debate on whether to end a filibuster.  In an age of instant communication, 30 hours is too much.

Then, besides these three procedural changes, two categories of legislation are made immune to the filibuster:

No filibustering Voting Rights legislation (legislation that makes voting easier).

No filibustering best-science legislation (career scientists who work for the US government make the best-science call during legislative hearings).  

And while we're at it, there's congressional review of the Supreme Court.  Increasing the number of justices on the Court is unlikely.  But eliminating the filibuster for congressional review (something Congress does, though rarely) could be 'on the table' to warn the Supreme Court not to become too radical.  So...,

No Filibustering Congressional Review of Supreme Court decisions.