8

As I'm sure many people know, the Senate is currently in negotiations for a power sharing agreement in a 50/50 body. The main sticking point being a commitment over the filibuster. As I understand it, until the agreement is reached, committees remain under Republican control (i.e. they have more seats on committees).

Is there any mechanism that forces the Senate to reach an agreement? Could, hypothetically, the Republicans refuse to ratify an agreement, and remain in control of the committees, or is there some incentive to prevent that?

4
  • 1
    The tie breaking vote from the VP? – Joe W Jan 22 at 19:01
  • My understanding is that isn't used for the power agreement, and also not used in committees. – DoubtingThomas3005 Jan 22 at 19:01
  • 1
    My understanding is that is the only thing that can force something as debate and compromise are a critical part of both chambers of congress. – Joe W Jan 22 at 19:08
  • Misread your comment. Yeah, I'm not sure there is any other mechanism in place. – DoubtingThomas3005 Jan 22 at 19:14
10

The issue under discussion is the Organizing Resolution, which details the rules, membership, and budgets of committees, among other things. The Organizing Resolution is a "simple resolution" which technically requires only a bare majority to pass, which the Democrats possess thanks to the Vice President's tie-breaking vote. The reason Senator Schumer is discussing a power-sharing agreement with Senator McConnell, besides fairness and the fact that this is how it's been done before, is that simple resolutions can be filibustered, which means that 60 votes are required in practice to pass the Organizing Resolution.

If Senators McConnell and Schumer can't come to an agreement, there are only 3 possible options:

  1. Continue to operate under the previous Organizing Resolution, which gives Republicans control of committees
  2. Pursue a backroom deal with 10 Republicans to defy their minority leader and support an Organizing Resolution based on the 2001 bipartisan agreement
  3. Abolish the filibuster using the so-called "nuclear option" and then pass the Organizing Resolution by simple majority vote.

In an opinion piece in The Week, Ryan Cooper discusses this third possibility:

The obvious solution here would be to call McConnell's bluff and simply get rid of the filibuster now. ... As Akhil Reed Amar argues at length in Duke Law Journal, it is both legal and constitutional for Democrats to invoke Rule 20, which outlines how questions of procedure are adjudicated, to amend the rules and delete the filibuster through a simple majority vote. Then they pass the Organizing Resolution with that same majority.

Most likely, the Senate will come to a compromise on this, that protects the filibuster enough for Senator McConnell, while leaving the door open for it's repeal in the face of Republican obstruction to prevent a Democratic revolt. But if they can't find a compromise, then the nuclear option is really the only way to move forward.

2
  • If they can just be filibustered, what's special now? No party has had an outright 60+ votes in the Senate in decades. Why haven't filibusters on organizing resolutions been a recurring thing, then? – zibadawa timmy Jan 23 at 16:37
  • 2
    McConnell has decided to make this time different and not agree to follow previous norms of a bipartisan organizing resolution. – Viktor Jan 25 at 9:54

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .