This year, America turns 250 years old, and it deserves a birthday present. It is time for the Senate to shake off the dust and bring back the talking filibuster.
Most of us have seen "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington." We watched riveted as the junior senator, after hours and hours of grueling but adamant monologue on the Senate floor, fights desperately for what he believes in, cost what it may physically, mentally, and emotionally. And yet in the end, his herculean effort, his willingness to sacrifice publicly for what he believed in, to defend his position no matter the cost—because he actually believed in it—was the key to unlocking his success; for as the film closes, he claims victory through the sheer willingness to give so much for what is most important.
This was just a movie (and a wonderful one), but in real life, the talking filibuster also has a dramatic past. "Filibuster" is derived from the Spanish word filibustero, meaning "plunderer" or "pirate." The term first appeared in the 1850s, a slur against senators who were "stealing" the Senate's time by using lengthy speeches to delay legislation. Real swashbucklers, but in suits and ties, whose swords are their speeches.
From its first use in 1789 in debate over where the new nation's capital should be (in which Pennsylvania Sen. William Maclay wrote in his diary that the "design of the Virginians . . . was to talk away the time, so that we could not get the bill passed") to the months-long struggle against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the filibuster has proved itself to be a pillar of the Senate's greatness, for one major reason: it forces the senators to actually fight for what they believe in.
After the civil rights filibuster era, the Senate quietly decided it did not want to work so hard or debate so publicly. It lowered the cloture threshold (cloture being just a fancy word for consensus needed for a bill to pass) to 60 votes in 1975 and then subsequently gutted it even further by allowing the Senate to work on other business while a filibuster nominally proceeded, meaning senators no longer had to be present on the floor — they just had to threaten to be. Basically, if a bill wasn't guaranteed 60 votes, it would be dead on arrival. This is still the case.
The American people pay the salaries of senators. We elect them to debate ideas, to advance the ideals that we stand for. As recently cited by the president in the State of the Union Address, support for the policies to protect election integrity, such as those included in the SAVE America Act, is in the 80th percentile, spanning political parties and demographics.
These policies would require photo ID to vote, ensure that only American citizens decide American elections, and improve the accuracy of voter rolls. These policies are common-sense and overwhelmingly popular. And yet, the Senate is silent, even as the pressure has drastically increased in the past few days.
History teaches that the American people are best served by moments of intense public debate over important policy issues. The American people want to watch senators debate legislation such as the SAVE America Act publicly, on the floor of the Senate, in front of the cameras and millions of eyes. Bring back the duties of senators to debate. Bring back substance over soundbites. Bring back the life, vigor, and drama of the Senate.
Make the Senate Great Again.
Anna Pingel is the Campaign Director for Secure Elections at the America First Policy Institute.