Correction: This post initially identified Tom Udall as a senator from Colorado. His cousin Mark Udall is a Democratic senator from Colorado. Tom Udall represents New Mexico. We regret the error.
Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., has offered up legislation that would effectively eliminate the filibuster by removing the 60-vote requirement to end floor debate. The move is an attempt to avoid procedural roadblocks that forced Democrats to moderate their legislative proposals throughout 2009 and 2010. But if the Senate rule changes Udall has proposed go through, Republicans may be the biggest beneficiaries. James Taranto explains:
The chief beneficiary of the abolition of the legislative filibuster, however, would be whichever party controls the House. Given their strong showings last year in elections for governor and state legislatures, which control congressional redistricting, this is likelier than not to be the Republicans for some time.
Further, a Republican Senate majority just two years hence is a realistic prospect. It would require a pickup of four seats, or three if the GOP wins the White House. Of the 33 Senate seats up in 2012, only 10 are currently held by Republicans. Of the 23 Democratic seats up, five are from states that John McCain carried. If the Republicans win the presidency and a bare Senate majority in 2012, the Democrats will sorely miss the filibuster in 2013.
Does that mean the Republicans would be wise to join the Dems in their effort to abolish the filibuster? Not necessarily. In 2009-10, a filibuster-free Senate would have produced not only a version of ObamaCare that was both more left-wing and more politically and legally defensible, but also, in all likelihood, a cap-and-trade law restricting energy use, the so-called Disclose Act limiting political speech, and some sort of amnesty for illegal immigrants.
Now and then, the Democrats do manage to take the presidency and majorities in both houses of Congress. It happened in 1976, 1992 and 2008. Assuming it's a once-every-16-years occurrence, Republicans might want to defend the filibuster for fear of what the 119th Congress might do in 2025-26.
Debate over the filibuster is always rife with double standards; as majorities shift, folks who once lauded the deliberative nature of the Senate start whining that it's broken. But might the GOP in this case play ball with "reform" proposals given all they stand to gain in the short- and medium-term? Or is Taranto's warning in the latter paragraph enough to dissuade anyone to the right of Harry Reid from backing "filibuster reform"?
(Corrected to accurately reflect Sen. Udall's home state.)
