He thinks either the majority needs to come up with 60 votes to overcome a filibuster or the minority to come up with 41 votes to sustain it at some point in the process, effectively preserving the chamber’s supermajority requirement. And he acknowledged the touchy status of the filibuster in his own party.
“Jiminy Christmas, buddy. That’s why I even hate to say anything to you,” Manchin said in a Tuesday interview.
“I want to make it very clear to everybody: There’s no way that I would vote to prevent the minority from having input into the process in the Senate. That means protecting the filibuster,” he added. “It must be a process to get to that 60-vote threshold.”
Statistically speaking, so far the Senate GOP has not filibustered anything this year. That’s likely to change as soon as Schumer starts putting House-passed legislation on the floor that lacks the 10 Republicans needed to move forward.
Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said that Democratic senators are “fed up” with the idea that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell gets veto power over Washington’s agenda but that they will test Republicans with votes on the coming weeks before pursuing any changes: “We need some floor experience first.”
At the same time, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) is continuing his years-long push for filibuster reform and said he’s talked to every Senate Democrat, including Manchin, about his ideas.
“There is a tremendous sense in the caucus that Mitch McConnell has profoundly abused the 60-vote motion to close debate,” Merkley said on Tuesday evening.
But Manchin said that before Democrats start talking about finding a way around their math problem, he wants to see an effort at bipartisanship. Notably, he’s said he would prefer to see an infrastructure bill — President Joe Biden’s next major spending priority — passed with Republican support, not using the budget reconciliation process to permit passage with a simple Senate majority.
“I haven’t seen an effort by our leadership to go sit down and work with them. No one’s making any effort at all. They just assume it’s going to be holy warfare,” Manchin said.
He said his comments on Sunday were given too much hype: “They must have read a lot more into that than just saying: ‘Let’s look at any way we can to preserve the filibuster.'”
Despite Manchin’s seemingly unshakable position, there’s an undeniable swell among Senate Democrats to do away with the Senate’s supermajority requirement to pass most bills. Among those publicly advocating changes to the filibuster in recent days are Amy Klobuchar and Tina Smith of Minnesota and Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada.
And now that they’ve approved a $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief bill, Senate Democrats are weighing their next move with their slim majority. Many progressive bills passed by the House, like election reform, police reform or new LGBTQ protections, do not have the support in the Senate at the moment to become law.
Schumer is likely to put those bills up for votes anyway to demonstrate that Republicans oppose the policy shifts, he said in an interview over the weekend. That public display of insufficient GOP buy-in for changes could be the first step toward building a case that the filibuster needs overhauling in order to enact the rest of Biden’s agenda.
“We’re going to figure out a way. It’s a passion of mine to get [election reform] done, when you see what they’re doing in the states to change voting rights,” Schumer said. “Everything’s on the table. We have to. What is not an option is not getting bold things done.”
Manchin and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) are the most open opponents of changing the filibuster, though several other centrist Democratic senators have reservations. Biden himself also has not endorsed changing the filibuster, although the White House’s Monday response did not rule out a shift toward rules reform.
Republicans are not confident that Democratic traditionalists can be the dam to hold back a sweeping change of the Senate’s rules.
“I’m not holding my breath that they’re going to save us or the Senate,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) of Manchin and Sinema. “There’s going to be an incredible amount of pressure on them.”
Sinema, in fact, would prefer to overwrite previous filibuster changes to reinstate the 60-vote requirement for nominations that Democrats first eased in 2013 and Republicans removed for Supreme Court picks in 2017. Manchin opposed those moves, and Democrats only changed the rules in 2013 after the GOP blocked a series of nominees — votes that helped build support in the Democratic caucus to make a fundamental shift to the Senate.
“My position on the filibuster has been steady my entire career,” Sinema said in a February interview. “I would always oppose efforts to eliminate the filibuster.”
If Sinema is open to more modest reforms, she hasn’t said so yet. She said in a recent letter to a constituent that she supports the 60-vote threshold for “all Senate actions.”
The talking filibuster essentially would require the minority party to hold the floor while objecting to a bill, with a supermajority of 60 votes required for the majority party to overrule it. The majority party could also wait for exhaustion to kick in and, whenever minority senators could no longer hold the floor, overpower the filibuster with a simple 51-vote majority. 46 Senate Democrats supported it in 2011, including Manchin, though many senators’ views have changed since then.
Manchin’s support for a 60-vote threshold to continue, then, would eliminate the central reform envisioned by a classic talking filibuster. Former Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) proposed decreasing the number of votes needed to overrule the talking filibuster, depending on how long the obstruction goes on.
Democrats might be able to change the filibuster rules in 2023, provided they pick up Senate seats with anti-filibuster candidates such as Pennsylvania Lt. Gov. John Fetterman. But waiting is a risk as well: Democrats hold majorities in both chambers now, and losing even the House during the midterms would make a filibuster overhaul irrelevant.
So despite the considerable obstacles to changing the rules, the Democratic caucus’ filibuster critics continued to make their case.
“McConnell is determined to exploit the filibuster and fight progress on the most urgent crises facing our nation,” Cortez Masto said Tuesday in endorsing a talking filibuster requirement. “He should have to stand on the Senate floor and be transparent about his obstruction.”