The Case of the Disappearing Filibuster
Or, how to make the Senate look normal. By Luke Pickrell
Here’s how four sources reported Wednesday’s filibustering of a bill that would have expanded access to in vitro fertilization (IVF).
The New York Times: “Senate Republicans on Tuesday blocked an election-season bid by Democrats to advance legislation that would guarantee federal protections and insurance coverage for in vitro fertilization treatments, the second time in three months that the GOP has thwarted the broadly popular measure.”
NPR: “The procedural vote required 60 votes to advance the bill, but it failed 51-44.”
ABC: “The Senate failed for a second time on Tuesday to advance an in vitro fertilization (IVF) protection bill by a vote of 51-44. The legislation needed 60 votes to advance.”
Rolling Stone: “This is the second time the GOP Senate has dodged the widely popular legislation.”
“If you're not careful,” quipped Malcolm X, “the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.” Wise words. I’d only add that if you’re not careful, the newspapers will make you think the Senate is normal.
It’s not.
Many countries have unicameral legislatures. Few holdout nations with bicameral legislatures have upper houses as malapportioned as ours. Thanks to population shifts and the “great compromise” that gave each state two senators regardless of population (a rule that can’t be amended through Article V), states representing less than 20 percent of the population can produce a Senate majority. And of that handful of countries with a malapportioned Senate, no country gives their upper house a veto except the US, where 41 senators representing as little as 11 percent of the population can kill any bill they don’t like, including those providing access to IVF.
Suddenly, a sixty-vote threshold seems worth discussing. Hell, the Senate in general is worth talking about. No wonder a growing number of people, including UC Berkeley Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, want the Senate gone. It’s an undemocratic abomination!
Yet, not a peep from the media. Why does legislation need 60 votes to advance? Why is 51 to 44 a failure? — a question anyone with basic math skills might ask. What institutional rules allowed the Senate to “dodge” a “widely popular” bill? How many people are represented by each senator? What happened the last time this bill was proposed?
Who cares!
What did the Democratic Party have to say about the vote? A bunch of silly quips about Trump’s intelligence. “I doubt that Donald Trump even knows what the acronym I.V.F. stands for,” voiced Senator Tammy Duckworth. A lot of finger-pointing at, you guessed it, Donald Trump. “Despite the incoherent, delusional, and frankly embarrassing ramblings that came out of his mouth last week, he is the reason that I.V.F. is at risk in the first place,” continued Duckworth.
For the millionth time, the Democrats did not question how a popular bill could win a majority of votes and still fail. If an IVF bill can’t get through the Senate despite being supported by most Americans, then (shocker) the Senate is clearly the most significant threat to IVF. It’s not rocket science. However, those who respect the Constitution and think America is a democracy will never be able to put two and two together.
I’ll repeat myself. If the Democrats were interested in democracy, they would discuss the Constitution and its most undemocratic component, the Senate. Healthcare, global warming, wages, the Electoral College, guns, the police. Name any critical issue; if the Democrats don’t mention the Senate, they aren’t doing justice to the problem. Worse, they’re serving as a fig leaf for the undemocratic Constitution.
On Wednesday, I attended an online event hosted by the Debt Collective. When asked about an ideal world, I said it would contain democratic institutions capable of materializing the policies most Americans want, including debt abolition. I used IVF filibustering as an example of how undemocratic institutions impede popular policies, and at least one person nodded when I called out the Senate.
These are small moments, but ones I think are important.