Is Filibuster Reform on the Horizon? With Eli Zupnick

This podcast is part of the Democracy Group. Hi, this is Adam Iken, Executive Director of Equal Citizens. It's been a while since I've hosted an episode of Another Way. I've been hard at work making sure our small Equal Citizens team has as much influence over the future of our democracy as possible. But here's the deal. The fight for the for the People act is reaching a crescendo in the Senate, and there's a ton of misinformation floating around about the bill and the prospects for getting it passed. So I'm returning to another way to bring you a small miniseries of conversations with those who are involved in the fight. The goal is to provide a sense of where things actually stand and to give you the tools to fight back against misinformation and hopelessness. Today's interview will be focused on the elephant in the room. The biggest obstacle to getting the for the People act through Congress, the filibuster. Pundits are saying there's no chance that we can reform the filibuster. But is that true? I'm joined by Ellie Zupnick, who is perfectly positioned to answer this question for us. Ellie is the spokesman for Fix Our Senate, a coalition of organizations fighting to end the filibuster. And yes, Equal Citizens is a member of the coalition. Elie came to Fix our Senate following 10 years as a staffer in the United States Senate, including six as communications director for Senator Murray, a Democrat from Washington state. So he knows the Senate. In addition to his work in the Senate, Elie has extensive campaign experience. He took time off from the Senate to serve as senior communications advisor for Senator Chris Murphy's 2012 successful election in Connecticut, as well as Representative Bruce Bailey's 2014 Senate race in Iowa. And he also ran communications for Senator Murray's successful reelection campaign in 2016. Prior to that, he was a press staffer on the 2008 Obama campaign in multiple states and worked on local races in New Jersey and Rhode Island. Ellie, it's great to have you here.

It's great to be on. Thanks for having me.

So let's start very simply. What is the filibuster and why should people care about it? Everyone throws around the term filibuster. I think a lot of our listeners today probably know what the filibuster is. But let's just start with square one. What is the filibuster?

That's a great question. So the filibuster, put simply, is the rule in the Senate that forces you to get 60 votes in order to get any legislation through the Senate, with some exceptions that we could get into. But more relevantly, perhaps it is the rule that allows 41 senators, and in today's Senate, 41 senators can represent as little as 20% of the population from stopping anything that they don't like. And that has massive implications. So you have a Senate where ultimately a bill can pass if it just has 50 votes. You only need 50 votes to pass a bill in the end. But any senator can hold up the process and force debate to continue forever until there are 60 votes to end it. And as we know, in today's polarized politics, where there's just not that much overlap anymore between parties, in fact, in the Senate and the House, there's currently no overlap. That means that tiny minorities can stop the majority from basically governing it all, from delivering on the promises they made to voters, from implementing the agenda that voters think that they put into power. And we're expecting a minority of senators can just stop that. It's worth unpacking a little bit how that can work, because I know you have an educated listenership and people who follow these issues closely, but it's complicated. So there's the filibuster, the rule. There's a filibuster as the ability for senators to continue debate for as long as they want until there's 60 votes. And then there's the way it's actually practiced. And the way it's actually practiced is so much worse than just the letter of the rule. It's Rule 22 in the Senate for those who follow these issues closely. The way it's practiced today is that senators don't have to go to the floor at all to filibuster. It's not what you may have seen on Mr. Smith goes to Washington, or it's not what you may have read about in your history books about Strom Thurmond or the great filibusters of the past. Not that great, but what the history books would call them. And it's not that way at all. Senators today can simply email the cloakroom, email their leadership office and tell them they would like to filibuster. And that means that their leadership will hold up unanimous consent. And the Senate is a body that depends on you, unanimous consent to move almost anything at all. And that means that you then need 60 votes to pass anything. It used to be used fairly rarely. It used to be used pretty much only on civil rights and voting Rights bill as a tool of Southern Democrats, mostly to block, you know, to Block progress and to maintain Jim Crow. But recently, and especially since 2009, it has become a de facto super majority requirement in the Senate, where in order for anything to be done, you need 60 votes. And the minority is always going to do everything they can to stop that.

So, so just to be super clear here, right, it's that, you know, the filibuster, it really comes down to if any senator chooses to filibuster a bill, essentially the majority that the, the group of senators that want to actually pass the bill have to get 60 votes to end debate, because otherwise the debate period, the debating period will last in perpetuity and it will never end, theoretically. I mean, essentially, that's the core of this, right, that the filibuster is about forcing the majority to get those 60 votes. And if they can't get those 60 votes, then in terms of kind of the legislative process, debate continues forever, and then the majority has to just move on because there's no legislative way or procedural way to end. And I put this in quotes, you know, our listeners can't see this debate because obviously, as you said, they're not actually debating. Right. But, but it, but from a process point of view, the debating period continues indefinitely until those 60 votes are brought together, which, again, as you said, is virtually impossible.

That's exactly right. And it's even worse than that. Those are the filibusters, you see. So those are the filibusters that when the majority brings a bill to the floor. For example, when Senate Democrats recently brought a bill to the floor to establish a January 6th commission, a bill that would investigate with a bipartisan commission, the January 6th insurrection that Republicans filibustered that bill. They didn't even allow it to begin debate. So there are multiple moments when the minority can filibuster. There is a mo. What is called a motion to proceed to begin debate on a bill. And in the Senate, that is a debatable motion. So that can be filibustered. Any debatable motion can be filibustered. So what has become the case now is something that never used to be the case is that the minority now stops the majority from even starting debate on a bill, even though if they start a debate, they can always filibuster it on the way out to end debate. But they now filibuster even getting to a debate. But that's the filibuster you see. So you see and you read about members of the minority stopping debate or stopping a bill that is brought to the floor. By the majority. But the more insidious way the filibuster manifests itself, something that you don't see are all of the bills that just never make it to the Senate floor because the majority brings bills to the Senate floor that can almost certainly, almost always, unless they're trying to make a political point, they will bring bills that can pass. One of the greatest resources or the most limited resources that the majority has in the Senate is the calendar. And time, and things take time to pass. So the filibuster, first of all, it allows the minority to slow down. Even bills that have overwhelming support. So you'll see sometimes nominations that can't be filibustered. They only take 50 votes. They still take multiple days to get across the finish line. Bills that end up getting 95 votes will sometimes take a week or two weeks to get over the finish line because the filibuster slows down each step in the process. But there are also many, many bills that never see the light of the day. Waxman Markey is a great example. Passed the house in 2009, 2010, was supposed to be taken up by the Senate, likely had 50 votes in the Senate. Democrats were wavering between 59 and 60 votes at the time. They never even brought it up because they knew it would be filibustered and they didn't have 60 votes. Same thing goes for gun safety legislation that has been filibustered before, but has been introduced year over year, not always brought up because they knew it'd be filibustered. And issue after issue that just doesn't see the light of day, it gets bottled up because they know if it comes to the floor, it'll just get killed right away with a filibuster.

Right. And so, so really, there are two problems with the filibuster. The first is, as you said, it's become so distorted that on pieces that do have, you know, broad support, unless you can get those 60 votes, you know, it's filibustered, you know, and the media declares it dead. Right. We haven't checked in on this podcast in a while, which I apologize for, but now that we're back, right, that, that when the for the People act was brought to the floor, the debating period hadn't even begun. The vote that took place on 24 June was, was a motion to proceed to debate. In other words, it was a vote to begin debate on the for the People act. And all 50 Democrats or those who caucused with the Democrats voted to proceed to Debate, but the filibuster was on the very motion to proceed to debate, not actually to pass the bill itself. It was on the motion to proceed to debate. And so that's kind of point one. And then point two is this really kind of important, like, critically important point that the filibuster just takes things that completely off of the political agenda because there's no hope at all that there's going to be 60 votes. Now, that's a broken political system. That's a broken Senate. Would you agree?

Absolutely. It was not meant to be this way, and it is not sustainable. It is fully broken right now.

And so this actually wasn't one of my questions that I wrote out. But I'm just curious, did you see this play out when you were a Senate staffer? I mean, was this just something that you wanted to hit your head against the wall? Was this, you know, is this the Senate that you thought that you. You were working in, like when you dreamed to work on the Senate? I mean, if you ever dreamed, then you didn't kind of fall into that process. I mean, was this what you envisioned the Senate to be? Or is it is even worse on the inside? Is it. Is it even more demoralizing, you know, to work in a place like the Senate where, you know, just like everyone else knows that it's broken, and even if a bill has 59 out of 100 senators supporting it, it still won't become law because of the filibuster?

Yeah, I actually, I got into the Senate at a time when it was significantly shifting. So when I got to the Senate in 2009, there was still at the beginning an expectation that there would be bipartisan work, that, that the filibuster would be used rarely, even though its use was increasing, and that bills could get done in some kind of what. What they called regular order. You bring bills to the floor, you work them through committee, you bring them to the floor, you debate them, you pass them with amendments, and if there's majority support, you get them. Finish line 2009 was really when things turned, when McConnell had, what I think is, you know, he was ahead of the game. His great innovation that McConnell realized was that when he is in the minority and the other party controls all of government, which Democrats did at that time. They had the White House, of course, with President Obama, they had the House. They had a significant majority in the Senate wasn't quite 60 at that point, until. Until a few months later when Senator Franken was sworn in after a long recount. But they had a significant majority. And McConne understood that voters knew that Democrats were in charge. They didn't look at the Congress and say, Democrats are in charge, but they can't really get their agenda done unless they get 60 votes or can get through a filibuster. They thought they elected Democrats to get things done. And McConnell realized that if he could make Democrats look bad, if he could make government dysfunctional, if he can make Congress just not work, voters weren't going to blame the minority that was causing the problem. They were going to blame the majority that they thought they were giving power to. And that was really the shift in the Senate that we saw starting in 2009, but then continuing through 2013, 2014, then through the Obama years, and then, of course, in Trump and now President Biden. We saw in 2013, 2012, 2013, that Republicans were just, as soon as they won the Senate, they weren't even letting the president confirm nominees. At that time, nominees could be filibustered. They needed 60 votes. McConnell wasn't letting President Obama staff his government. He wasn't letting him put judges on the bench. He wasn't letting him staff the National Labor Relations Board that was overseeing some of the labor shifts that. That voters wanted and that President Obama promised. And that was a moment when they realized that things in the Senate had changed. The normal way of doing things wasn't working anymore, and it wasn't. So, you know, to go back to your question, it was difficult to see. I came in expecting that the Senate would be. That they would be doing work, that they would be. President Obama won on a vision of changing government and reforming health care, getting things done for people. And I assumed that that would be something Republicans would want to work with him on because they were just trounced pretty handily. But McConnell realized, I think, and again, he was ahead of his time. That's not the way politics works anymore. The minority doesn't benefit by doing bipartisan work with the majority, except in very rare cases, maybe for local members, particular members. The minority wins back power when they can make the majority look bad. It is more like a parliamentary, parliamentary system right now than it is like a, you know, a system that we had not too long ago when we had functionally four parties. You know, we had conservative Democrats and liberal Democrats. We had conservative Republicans and liberal Republicans, and we had cross party alliances that were able to form and different alliances could come together. That is no longer the case. And McConnell realized that. And once that happened, there was no going back. Once it became that the filibuster was just the, the de facto requirement. Everything was going to be filibustered. Every bill needed 60 votes. You were not putting that toothpaste the tube. It's only gotten worse and worse since then. And that's why I think that one of the most important things we could do is, is get rid of that weapon that the minority can use. It doesn't mean that there's, that the Senate's going to turn into the House. It doesn't mean that there's not going to be bipartisanship or compromise. In fact, there may even be more bipartisanship and compromise. And we could, we can get into that if, if you'd like. But the thing that needs to happen now is this weapon that the minority can use to just obstruct everything needs to be taken away if we want to fix the Senate.

Yeah, and I should just say, right, and you've alluded to it multiple times now. But the filibuster as it's used now is not deeply steeped in history. I mean, the filibuster itself is not a product of the founding fathers. The history of the filibuster is one of this accidentally created procedure. There's a great book that recently came out called Kill Switch by Adam Gentleson that goes through this history. And so I recommend to our readers to read Kill Switch, and it gives you a real in depth look at how this, you know, Rule 22, essentially, as it's known now, was, was created and how its origins were purely accidental and how it really wasn't used throughout most of American history. And then again, you know, it really was kind of weaponized during the Jim Crow era and those who wanted to block progress on racial justice and then kind of morphed into the modern filibuster, where, as you said, it's really just a rule to require a super majority requirement to pass anything in the Senate. And it has completely broken the Senate, has broken the Senate as a deliberative, a deliberative body, broken it as a legislative body, just broken American government in many respects. But here's the question, right? So most people, I think at this point, know, at least listeners this podcast probably know the filibuster. You know, probably not a great thing. What do we know about where Americans stand on the filibuster? Do Americans want to reform the filibuster? Is there polling on this question? What have you seen? And we'll get into kind of more about what the fix our Senate coalition is doing. What it is. But again, kind of from a 30,000 foot view, where are the American people on this? Do Americans want to keep the filibuster or are the issues more what guides them?

Yeah, that's a great question. And let me hold for one second on the last point because I think it's so important, because if you listen to pundits today, if you listen to many commentators, it sometimes sounds like the filibuster was written into the Constitution or came down from Sinai on the carved into stone. That is absolutely not the case. And that is so important for people to understand that the Senate rules have changed so many times over the years. When the Senate was initially formed, it was intentionally formed to not be a super majority body. They were moving away from the Articles of Confederation that weren't working. That required a super majority that led to dysfunction and gridlock. And the Founding Fathers, very specifically the Framers, wanted to move away from that model. So that is, it is so important to make that very clear and for, for people to push back anytime they hear anything about the institution of the Senate or the need to maintain the filibuster to preserve Senate norms and traditions. It's just not the case. It's changed. You know, it changed over the years from the, from the beginning when it was just a simp require majority requirement. Then there were some accidental rule changes that you alluded to that created what was then a de facto super majority requirement that without any ability to end debate, then they instituted Rule 22 in 1917 to limit that and to begin a process of finding a way to get the Senate a bit more under control. It changed in the 70s again from 2/3 to 3/5. It changed in 2013 getting rid of the filibuster on nominations. It changed in 2017 getting rid of the filibuster on Supreme Court justices changed many, many times over the years. And for good reason. Because the Senate rules are meant to make the Senate work. You know, they're not just arbitrary rules that need to be followed for some historical reason. They are continually changing to make the Senate work. And when there are problems with the rules, there are solutions. They fix them. They don't just say we need to do better under the current rules, which some Senators and some pundits say. Now, to get to your question, I think it's a complicated question. There has been polling. I think my big takeaway from what I've seen, and I could go some of the polling that we've seen is that most Americans don't care about process. Most Americans aren't spending their day to day lives concerned about Senate rules, Senate process, procedure, nor should they be. They are focused on their jobs, their livelihoods, they're focused on their health care, they're focused on wages and national security and the issues that they care about and that impact them and their families. The filibuster is, it's an obscure rule and it is something that they, you know, we know that it impacts all of these policies and impacts the things that people care about, but it's, you know, it's a second level connection. It is not a direct connection. So when we do polling on the filibuster, we tested in a couple of different ways, but I think first and foremost it's important for people to understand this is not on top of people's minds, nor should it be. So when we tested, 36% of voters said they didn't know enough to have an opinion about reform in the filibuster. Only 20% said they understood what the filibuster is when initially asked. But I think what we took away from our polling was that as soon as you explain to people what is happening, even in the barest sense, even in the most top line version of what is happening with the filibuster and the gridlock it's causing, people immediately swing to support reform. We asked them at the end of the poll, after we gave them some messaging for and some messaging against, 30% of voters said they would say prefer the status quo compared to 70% who said that they would reform it. This was a national poll of voters. And then by a 62, 38% margin, voters believe that the filibuster as it currently stands, does more to create gridlock than compromise. So I think, you know, I was very encouraged when I saw the polls. Not because I looked at that and said this is the issue that Americans are scrambling to get rid to address, but because when you explain to people what is happening, it is something that they support. And I think the last point I'll make on this, and I have some other polling numbers I could go into if, if you're interested. But the last point I'll make on this is that, you know, I was there in 2013. I think many of your listeners probably were paying attention back then when Senator Reid changed the rules. This was something that D.C. press and even national press were covering in the week leading up to the rules change. And then there was absolutely no coverage after that. So I think the big takeaway is that people will focus in the short term on the rules changes, but over the long run and even the medium run, they will focus on the things that Senate is actually doing. So people weren't focused on how it got done. They were focused on whether it got done and what got done. And what Senator Reid realized after McConnell had the realization initially is that people want results. And if people see that the government is working, they are happy with the majority, with the party in power. If they think things are not working, they are not happy with the party in power. They're not going to get them. They're not going to be too concerned with Rule 22 or the Senate rules. They're interested in the things that actually impact their lives. So our job from fix our Senate is to make that connection a little bit clearer in the moment when we need our senators to act. So we want to make sure that people who do care about gun safety and climate change and jobs and LGBT rights and labor rights, raise the minimum wage and so many other issues understand that there and of course, voting rights and democracy, that they understand that there is a connection between those issues and a brick wall that stands in the way. And that is the filibuster. And that if they to make any progress on those issues, they have to, for now, care about the filibuster, make sure that their senators know they care about the filibuster and push for action. Not, you know, there's a few of us who are, who are going to care about making legislatures work better. I'm sure many of them listen to this podcast, but that's not the vast majority of Americans. But for right now, we want to make sure that people know that this is something they need to care about, they should care about. And we've had success. People do care about this now. People are learning more about it over the last couple months. And I think most importantly, people no longer accept as an excuse when Democrats go back to them and say, I couldn't deliver on my promise because of the filibuster. More and more people, whether it's base Democrats or even Independents, are saying that is not a good excuse. We know you can change the filibuster. It is something that we no longer find acceptable. You promised us this and that and that. And we are not going to accept inaction and gridlock. We're not going to let McConnell be in charge of the Senate when we thought you were in charge of the Senate. It. Right.

I mean, there's just such an absurdity to the idea that there's one party in the majority, but they can't do anything with that majority. It certainly doesn't seem very Democratic. And we know, and we've talked about in this podcast before, that the Senate itself is an incredibly undemocratic institution that gives way, you know, way more power to rural, less populated areas than to places that have more population. And so the idea that there's this kind of a super mature majority requirements in addition to an undemocratic Senate is really kind of, you know, an existential crisis for our democracy. Okay, all that sounds great, right? But what exactly does reform look like? What options do we have to reform the filibuster? I mean, I guess the. The obvious choice is to get rid of the filibuster. But if that's not possible, what is possible? How can we fix this, you know, Rule 22 to start passing legislation that Americans want?

That's a great question. And as you allude to, I think, or as you noted, I think the best path forward is to eliminate the filibuster, to change Rule 22 to allow cloture with a simple majority. That's not gonna happen right now. I think that will happen in the medium term. I think Senator Reid just recently said it's not a matter of if the filibuster will be eliminated, it's a matter of when. I believe Senator Reid, I think he's right. I think just this morning in a Roll Call article, Walter Shapiro, who's a. Who's a follow, someone who has followed the Senate and legislatures for a long time, he said something similar. He said he does not believe the filibuster will be around in 2025, but he's not exactly sure when that moment will come, when it is eliminated. But the reality is, right now we have two senators, Senator Manchin and Senator Sinema, who have made it very clear they will not, in the short term, eliminate the filibuster. So. So that leaves us with reform. Every Democratic senator has expressed some level of openness to reform. Even Senator Manchin, one of the most vocal defenders of the filibuster. There was audio that was recently leaked by the Intercept that had him at a fundraiser say that he was in fact open to reform. Even if he was publicly saying that he didn't want to talk about reform or was supportive of the filibuster. He expressed openness to a talking filibuster, to reducing the threshold. And I could get into what each of these reforms mean, but I guess to start off, I'll say when I think about reforms for me, the prism through which I view them is will they ultimately allow a majority to pass legislation? If the reform allows 50 votes at plus one, whether it's the Vice President or another senator, if a simple majority can ultimately, after some reasonable amount of time, negotiation, compromise, debate, deliberation, the minority has opportunities to offer their amendments. That's all good. But after some amount of time, can this bill pass with a simple majority? If the answer is yes, there's a good chance it's a decent reform. If the answer is no, then there's a good chance it could just be another tool for McConnell to delay and obstruct in the Senate.

So. So in other words, lowering the threshold to end debate to 59 is not a good reform.

I would not call that a good reform. I would not call reducing the threshold to 55 even a good reform. Sure, it's better than where it currently sits, but what that will mean in practice is that McConnell can just give out fewer passes to his members. Give out, Allow fewer people, fewer Republicans to vote. Yes, but still make sure that a bill never actually gets 55, which is something that he. He has a pretty tight grip on his caucus. We see that pretty much every day now. So I think there's a couple of different kinds of reform. I think that talking filibuster is one important reform to think about. I think when. When I think about a talking filibuster, I would want to make sure that it actually has provisions in there that allow it to end. Simply changing the rules to force a member to hold the floor who can then hand off to another member and another member wouldn't actually do anything to allow bills to pass. You need to make sure there are provisions in there that will, at some point, allow debate to end, either with some kind of clock or more likely, with some kind of provision that just makes it physically difficult or impossible for the minority to sustain for very long.

So, to be clear, talking filibuster is like the Mr. Smith goes to Washington. The idea that you can't just text the cloakroom and say you're gonna filibuster something, but if you want to filibuster something, you have to be on the floor and talk about something that's related to the bill indefinitely. And basically, if you want to debate indefinitely, you better debate indefinitely. There's none of this, you know, 60 votes to end this fake debate.

But.

But what you're saying here is that that's all fine. You can make people, you know, debate, but it can't be Something that that still allows debate to last indefinitely, that there still has to be some way to allow a simple majority to pass legislation.

That's right. I mean, if we move to a talking filibuster where one Republican can talk for two hours, hand it to another Republican to talk for two hours, they can continue that forever. I have full faith that in order to stop voting rights and maintain their grip on power, they can make sure they can string that along for days and days and days, weeks, weeks, maybe even months. So we need something more than that to make it a truly strong talking filibuster. Some of the good ideas I've heard include things like putting the onus on the minority to produce 41 at any time, rather than the onus on the majority to produce 60. In other words, that if any member of the majority or any member who supports the bill can call a vote at any time to end debate, and unless there are 41 members affirmatively saying we want to continue debate and extend the filibuster, debate ends and you move to final passage, which is a simple up or down vote. What that means is that, sure, the minority can sustain that for some period of time. They could keep 41 members on the floor for a few days, a few weeks. But at some point, if Schumer or any member of the majority calls a vote at 3am on Saturday, unless the Republican minority wants to be there all the time, nonstop, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, at some point that filibuster will have to end as it should, because again, the minority shouldn't be able to perpetually hold up legislation. Maybe they should be able to slow it down. They shouldn't be able to stop it forever. So that, I think, is one good reform, and that, critically, is one that Senator Manchin, in that leaked audio, specifically called out as one that he could support, which makes me hopeful about how this could play out.

And so what are some of the other types of reform that you've been hearing?

Sure. So you mentioned reducing the thresholds. People have talked about reducing the threshold to something like 55. That's another option that Senator Manchin said he was open to in that leaked audio. Again, I don't think that that is a great option, but that's one that's out there. Senator Harkin over the years has talked about reform that would start the culture threshold at 60 and then ratchet it down after a certain number of weeks. So it would go to 60. Then maybe after a week it would go to 57. Then after a week, it would go to 55 and then ultimately down to 50. The idea being that if there is a bill that the majority really wants to pass, they can spend a few weeks and the minority gets their opportunity to debate, but at some point it will be able to pass with a simple majority. That again, that would meet the test of, of being a good reform. But I'm not sure that that's the one that will have the most energy in the end. I think there's also some conversation or there is some conversation right now about a democracy. Carve out what some people are calling a John Lewis carve out. This is the idea that there are already so many exemptions to the filibuster, budget reconciliations, one nominations are another that it would make sense to carve out another exemption for democracy and voting related issues. This is something that Stacey Abrams has talked about. It's something Senator Warner recently talked about it and some others. Again, I don't think this is the ideal solution because there are lots of issues that are subject to the filibuster that are also important. But certainly voting rights is critical right now and the clock is ticking on getting something done. So if that's the only thing that Senate Democrats could do, that would certainly be a step forward. But again, I don't think it would be ideal. Then there's some smaller reforms that people have pushed over the years, things like getting rid of the filibuster on the motion to proceed, which gets to that point that you and I talked about earlier, where the minority can stop a bill from even coming up for debate. That's not one that would ultimately solve problems, but it would at least be a step in the right direction to take away one weapon that the minority has to just prevent a bill from even coming up and even having to debate it. That's what they did to the January 6th commission is what they did to voting rights. They didn't even have to come to the floor to debate it. They just did not give culture on the motion to proceed and it never even came out up. Those are the main reforms being discussed right now. There's, there's different variations of all of them, but those are the main ones. Right.

And there are a bunch of other, I think, creative ones that I've heard, like require allowing for senators representing a majority of the American population to break a filibuster to make kind of the Senate a more Democrat, a small d Democratic institution. But I mean, essentially, I think that the standard you'd laid out is it should be our guiding principle, right. That anything that allows for a simple majority to pass legislation is probably where we want to be going. And anything that doesn't meet that threshold, you know, to getting us to a place where the Senate can operate as a Democratic institution is probably not real reform. And so your point is very much taken, that if you reduce the cloture threshold to 55, it probably doesn't do too much to fix the Senate. But speaking of fixing the Senate, let's talk about the, the coalition that you're the spokesperson for. Fix Our Senate. What is Fix Our Senate, Who's a part of it? And in other words, what are you doing?

That's a good question. So fix our Senate is a coalition of, Right now over 80 organizations, issue groups, advocacy groups, progressive and otherwise, that are all focused on eliminating the filibuster in some way. These are groups like Indivisible Sunrise Movement, Move On, Stand Up America, Communication Workers of America, you know, issue one, many, many other groups that are in some way focused on eliminating the filibuster because the issues that they care about, they understand are being blocked by the filibuster. So groups like Brady Campaign that has been so focused on universal background checks and other legislation over the years, they're a great example. They saw their, their legislation has no chance of movement. They got, they had a bill, the Manchin Toomey bill. It was a bipartisan bill, got 54 votes in the Senate, 90% support among the public, but blocked by the filibuster because the NRA was able to find 46 Republicans who were willing to stand up and filibuster that despite the fact that 90% support their immigration groups, environmental groups. So we have, as a coalition, been working over the past year, we've had hundreds and hundreds of conversations with different groups across the country, helping them connect the dots between the issues they care about and their members care about and the Senate procedure that blocks any, any progress on them. Yeah. So we've been working with press and pundits to make sure that they don't buy the misinformation that McConnell and conservatives are spreading about the filibuster. They don't buy it or they question it when they are told that the Senate has always operated with the filibuster, that the filibuster is critical to maintaining bipartisanship and compromise. Of course, we think that's wrong, and it's the exact opposite. And we most recently have been conducting polling and going up in the air in states across the country, Arizona West Virginia, many, many other states with paid advertisements, making sure that people understand the issue and understand what is at stake and reach out to their senators. And we think it's been making a difference. We think that this is higher on the agenda than it's ever been before. We think that, as I mentioned before, Senate Democrats now understand that the filibuster can no longer be used as an excuse, that when they go back home to campaign, they know their constituents are now going to not only ask, why didn't you deliver on these promises, but why didn't you get rid of the filibuster to deliver on these promises? And it's something that we're seeing in the polling, but we're also seeing in action as more and more Senate Democrats are coming on board with filibuster reform, making it clear, especially when it comes to something like voting rights, that they prioritize action and delivering on their promises more than some outdated, abused Senate procedure. And I think, critically, one of the things that we've seen is that this has been for a long time seen as a progressive issue, and it still is, of course, because progressives are interested in getting rid of the filibuster to get so many of the issues that they care about make some progress on them. It is also critically being seen as a moderate, pragmatic issue. This is something. You hear Senator Tester talk about this a lot. You hear Senator Klobuchar talk about this a lot. Moderates who are, by no stretch of the imagination can they be considered firebrands or progressives or really people at the cutting edge of, of the most aggressive forms of reform. They are people who are pragmatic, and they see a broken institution. They see a Congress that has, in some polls, 20% support, 25% support approval, not getting anything done for their constituents. And there is nothing moderate or pragmatic about gridlock and dysfunction. So they are now seeing that the way to deliver results for their constituents, the way to get things done and to make Congress work, which is something that they go home and promise their constituents they would do, is to fix the rules, to change the Senate and to get rid of this filibuster, just creating all that gridlock and dysfunction and making it so that they can do anything that they promise for their constituents.

So the one person we haven't really spoken about is, is the president. You know, President Biden was a senator for many, many years, operated under a Senate that did have a filibuster, although it wasn't quite the same. Modern Filibuster that we see today. President Biden has spoken very fondly about his time in the Senate. Senate. And about the Senate as a deliberative body. And, you know, there have been questions about just how much he's invested in reforming the filibuster. Where does the president stand on this? What are your takes on that? What should we, you know, make of his positions thus far? Do we need him to push harder? Give us some thoughts on where the President currently stands on the filibuster and. And the pathway forward.

Yeah. So President Biden has had an interesting relationship with the filibuster, and he's approached it in kind of a little bit of a confusing way, I would say. So he has been a longtime supporter of the filibuster. He is someone who's been in the Senate for a long time. He was in the Senate when the filibuster wasn't nearly as much of a problem as it is today. So I think he is slightly influenced or maybe even more than slightly influenced by the Senate that existed when he was there. Of course, he left right as it became especially bad when President Biden and he, as vice president, moved out of the Senate. I think that on the campaign trail, what he said was he would be open to filibuster reform. If Republicans were, quote, obstreperous, if they continued their gridlock and dysfunction and they wouldn't let anything move, he would be open to reform. He subsequently, subsequently was a little bit more open about the fact that he could be on board with reforms like a talking filibuster. He said that filibusters used to be more painful, should be more painful. You know, he has talked about the abuse of the filibuster and how members can just email it in or phone it in, don't even have to show up to the Senate floor. And he's expressed openness to a talking filibuster. But I think it is very clear, especially in the last few weeks, that this is not an issue he's particularly excited to talk about. You know, as we all know, he. He wants to do bipartisan work. He wants to talk about issues that can get bipartisan support. He's right now very focused on getting this bipartisan infrastructure bill over the finish line. He is, you know, he. He has made it very clear that that's his priority. He went to the caucus lunch, he said, just a couple of days ago, we learned that he was on the phone all weekend, talk calling senators, pushing them to support this bipartisan infrast he is not yet doing that on filibuster or voting rights. And I think that he is going to have to if we want to get this over the finish line. And I think we are very, very close. I mentioned before we have 50 Democrats on board with voting rights legislation, got 50 votes to move forward, including Senator Manchin who was not a co sponsor of the for the People act, but who put out his own compromise proposal and is on board with some form of voting rights. We have 48 Democrats who are, are very clearly open to reform. And we have two who I believe would be open to reform, Senator Manchin and Senator Sinema, if the President was truly invested and pushing for this to get done. I think we need to see from the present on this what we are seeing from him on infrastructure. A real investment, a real understanding that it's critical. I think there was a lot of disappointment from the civil rights and voting rights community when they heard him talk about non legislative solutions, quote unquote to voter suppression and gerrymandering. When he talked about things like out organizing voter suppression or when he talked about simply pushing people to go out and vote in the face of attacks on our democracy, that was insulting to a lot of people who worked hard to organize to vote, who have been facing systematic oppression and suppression of their vote for many, many years and who are now being told, told we after putting Democrats in office on a promise to help restore our democracy, who are now being told you need to go out and do it again and work harder. President Biden, I think, you know, he was a little bit too rosy in his speech about what happened in 2020. He said you can't stop the American people from voting. We know that.

You can stop, absolutely you can stop people from voting. And I mean I just want to flag a little bit that the absurdity of the claim that you can out organize gerrymandering, it's just not true, right? Like it's objectively not true. You can't break a gerrymander. And that's, that's, you know, with, with the rise of the kind of the, you know, the, you know, the big data that they use to construct these impenetrable maps, these that you know, that they use to partisan gerrymander states like Wisconsin and you know, Pennsylvania and other places. I mean the only maps that were broken were, were by the courts in 2018. And, and that wasn't breaking the gerrymander. That was just about, you know, a handful of court rulings that, that forced some of These places to redraw maps, but the ones that remained weren't broken by any stretch of the imagination. So this idea that you can out, you know, mobilize voter suppression and, and gerrymandering is, is, is really, as you said, offensive. So, so but then how do, what do we do? Like why, like, you know, if, if, if the president is kind of a little bit wishy washy. Although, you know, point taken, right, that like he has said that he would support a talking filibuster. It's not that he's an opponent here, it's just, it's, it's a question of, of is he fighting hard enough for this? And, and you know, really is, is he fighting hard enough to, to save our democracy? So, so then what, what needs to be done are, are there folks out there, you know, pushing the President and senators who, who are wavering a bit? Are there folks in Arizona pushing Kyrsten Sinema? Are there folks in West Virginia pushing Joe Manchin? And of course I asked this question as a little bit of a softball because the answer is yes. But I'd love to hear you talk a little bit about the work that's being done by grassroots activists to turn up the heat a bit on these politicians who want to brush this question of rules reform under the rug and the folks who are saying, you can't do that. This is a do or die moment for our democracy. Democracy. It's the filibuster or democracy. You can only have one.

That's exactly right. And I've been very encouraged by what I've seen over this past week when it was after President Biden gave his very, his disappointing speech where he talked about, he laid out in grave terms, he talked about the threat to our democracy and how so much was at stake. But then DIT was so weak when talking about the solution and talked about non legislative solutions. Then we saw him in a town hall of, you know, really make it very clear that he was just not comfortable with this. He was, he evaded the question. Don Lemon pushed him hard and he, you know, kind of tried to pivot away and talk about the things that he wanted to get done. He made some claims that just weren't true about how if you get rid of the filibuster, reform the filibuster, it would make the Senate not work when, you know, we know that it's the thing that is this stopping progress on issues like voting rights.

Bizarrely, he also said it would, it would throw the Senate into chaos. It was a very weird statement because, you know, I don't know what chaos he's talking about or, you know, what, how, how a small d Democratic Senate or more Democratic Senate, small d Democratic Senate is, is, is chaotic. I would think it's, you know, democracy is good. But, but then he also made some, some weird claims that he didn't want, want the fight over the filibuster to take up political energy because he wanted to focus on the issues concerning the American people. But as the fix our Senate coalition has done a great job making clear is if you want to focus on the issues that the American people care about, like health care or gun safety or saving our democracy or again, any of the issues, then you have to make rules reform part of this because, because you're never going to pass anything in this Senate with the filibuster in place. And so that was a very bizarre claim by the president in that town hall on CNN that you were talking about, because it really was this moment where I was, it felt divorced from reality to say that he didn't want the fight over the filibuster to essentially take away from his agenda when the filibuster is already taking away from his agenda right now and has been since he took office.

Right. And what it really highlighted was a concern that many of us have had over the last few weeks. That was that, that I think we saw most clearly in that town hall, which is that the White House seems to be operating under the theory that if they are able to pass a big bipartisan infrastructure bill, if they're able to keep the economy juiced, create lots of jobs, get the pandemic under control, that they, even if they don't do a thing on voter suppression or gerrymandering, that they will still be able to hold the house in 22, that they can then maybe win a few more seats in the Senate and they could take care of all this in 2023. And I think, first of all, I think that's wrong. I think most people, most people think that there's going to be such an impact on the House in an, in a year that historically is already bad for incumbents, that Democrats are much more likely to lose the House than hold the House. But even if they were correct and even if they did hold the House, that is a wild gamble to take with our democracy. That is not the kind of gamble.

It's unacceptable. It's an unacceptable gamble. I mean, quite frankly, you shouldn't be using gamble and kind of our democracy in the same sentence unless you're saying we shouldn't gamble with our democracy. And more to the point, I mean, you know, in addition to that is the absurdity of the claim that you can again out organizes. And a friend of this podcast, David Daly, wrote a great piece, the in Globe that essentially, you know, by gerrymandering alone, because the new maps are going to come out soon for the next decade, you know, the Democrats are going to likely be locked out of the House for, for the next decade based on gerrymandering alone. And again, you know, I want to be very clear here, and I think you would agree is that this, this isn't partisan. We're not, we're not talking about this because, you know, we're, we're, we're rooting for the Democrats over anybody else. Right? But, but we're talking about this purely in democracy democracy terms. That this is, this is a, this is our one moment to fix our democracy. This is the one moment to kind of begin to right the ship of a government that is so deeply broken. And I would think that if you were a conservative or a liberal, you would want the Senate, our democracy, our, the House, the presidency to work better. And obviously that's why we've been fighting for the, for the people act and it's why we absolutely, absolutely support filibuster reform. Because this is about the continuation of American government that actually represents the people instead of a government that is just so, so broken that it breeds political apathy, cynicism, a country or a government that just absolutely brutalizes, you know, ordinary Americans by not taking care of their needs. I mean, it's remarkable that in some respects that we had a government that was even able to pass, pass legislation to deal with COVID because the system is so broken that it's almost remarkable that we were able to, you know, deal any relief during the past, historically awful, you know, Covid crisis. And that's not how the United States government should be working. We shouldn't be, you know, holding on with a prayer that our government can, can get us through a, you know, once in a century pandemic where 600,000Americans have died and just hope that we can get a, you know, meet a super majority requirement that will, you know, allow us to, to prevent deaths of our own, you know, the people living in our, in our borders, let alone, you know, preventing deaths in other countries as well. I mean, Elliot, it just like there's a point in this conversation where I just have, I get worked up because the absurdity here is just when you peel away the kind of the beltway talk about, about rules are form and you know what's good politics, right? When you go 30,000 foot view, the whole situation is absurd. This is just kind of, you know, almost, if it wasn't so awful and if there weren't so many people dying because of a broken Senate, it would almost be laughable at how we can look at this and think this is at all resembling a democracy or a functional government.

I could not agree more. And I think what we want and what you have heard from civil rights leaders and voting rights experts and people across the country since President Biden made those remarks over the last two weeks is we just want him to live up to what he said himself about the threat to our democracy. He is out there saying there is a grave threat to our democracy, that our democracy is under attack, that these voter suppression laws are Jim Crow on steroids. He called them. He called them the greatest threat to our democracy in a generation. We want him to act commensurate with that analysis. We buy the analysis. We don't think he is doing enough to actually address that. And if you think our democracy is under attack, if you think that we are seeing Jim Crow on steroids, wouldn't you think that the highest priority should be stopping that? Yes, infrastructure is important. Yes. What he will do in reconciliation with paid sick leave and child tax credit and other things like that are absolutely critical for families and communities. But it is hard to say that that is truly meaningful if our democracy is being eroded underneath us, and especially if the people who are being attacked, the people whose votes are being suppressed, are people who have been attacked for so many times in our history and who have been asked so many times to step up in the face of those attacks, which is essentially what President Biden asked. So we're seeing. I've been very encouraged over the last couple weeks, Representative Clyburn, who's, as all of your listeners know, is a real ally of President Biden, someone without who he may not be president because of his endorsement in South Carolina at a key moment. He has come out in support of some kind of filibuster reform to get voting rights done. You're hearing from advocates across the spectrum, but especially in the black and civil rights communities who are so focused on this and sick and tired of being asked to step up and bail the country out again and again when the system is rigged against them and against our democracy. So, you know, I agree it's unacceptable. It is not something that, you know, I think it is a place, a case of misplaced priorities for the moment. But I'm hopeful that in part because of this blowback and because people are making their voices heard, that they're going to realize that this is not a, this strategy is flawed. They cannot rely on just juicing the economy and delivering some results for people, which are important, but while allowing democracy to erode underneath them. That, that simply cannot work.

So one question that I have have, you know, is, is, you know, people say, you know, okay, you support filibuster reform now if you're a Democrat, right, but then you're really going to regret it later, right? And to that I say, you know, that that's democracy, right? That, that there's a certain level of a majority should be allowed to pass legislation. And, you know, if, if I, as Adam Iken, don't like it, you know, then we got to fight back. And, and, but that's part of living, living, living in a democracy. You know, what, what do you say to that? This idea that, like, oh, you just, you just support filibuster reform because, you know, you're left of center. And the moment, you know, you didn't support it in 2017, when the Republicans had unified control, you know, what do you say to that? And then what do you say to, like, why this is something that Republicans should care about as well, that this isn't just a liberal issue? Because I fear that, like, our conversation, because we're focusing so much on what you Democrats should do, you know, is, is it's being cat. Like, you could read this conversation as a, how do we get, you know, the most liberal agenda through as possible. But, like, let's frame this in terms of, like, again, bringing it back to a functional democracy and why the filibuster reform should cut across a partisan division, if it should. You may disagree.

Oh, no, I absolutely agree. I think that it is, it is about good government, is about having a government that is responsive to people, that is accountable to people, where people can look at their government, know who is making the decisions that being made. I mean, right now, people look at their legislature and they don't know who is stopping progress or who is helping things along because there's just, there's no accountability. There's no real vision into what can happen and what can't happen. People elect a majority, but then they don't, don't understand why the majority is not delivering the results that they were promised. I think it's important to note that President Trump wanted to get rid of the filibuster. He, he called for the filibuster to be eliminated. He thought that that was in the best interest of his agenda. He called on McConnell to get it done. I think it's also important to note that Senator McConnell did get rid of the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees. It's also important to note that there is no filibuster on budget reconciliation that allows for tax cuts. So Republicans are already able to do, to implement a significant portion of their agenda or some of their highest priorities, which are judges, conservative judges, and cutting taxes without any threat of the filibuster. And I think it's pre clear that Republicans, if they ever had a moment when they thought it was in their interest to get rid of the filibuster, we saw in 2017, that McConnell would have no compunctions about doing exactly that, about changing the rules. So I think that this is, it is not about Democrat or Republican, even though in this case Democrats are in charge and would be the ones implementing their agenda. It is about making the Senate work and able to deliver results for people. It's about having your elected officials be accountable to you as a voter. And it's just about a government that is more functional and can actually step up and deliver on the things that are needed in this. You know, there's a lot of things that need to get done right now and we have a government that's not responsive and not working and that needs to change. Right.

No, I think I completely agree with that. And you know, again, I just come back again and again to the idea that if, as Biden said, you know, this is about democracy or authoritarianism, if that's the choice, then we have no choice ourselves but to reform the filibuster, to pass the for the People act, the John Lewis voting rights act, D.C. statehood, everything. You know, an infrastructure package for our, our very government of our democratic institutions. That's a no brainer to me if those are the stakes, which I completely agree with him that those are indeed the stakes. So, so let, let's kind of bring it back a little bit more kind of to an optimistic lens. I know it's so hard and maybe it's, maybe people will tune out if I say optimism because people feel such, such a lack of optimism right now. But let's try and get a little bit of hope, right? Why should people not lose hope right now? What's keeping you going here? And do you think that if we were to talk again in a month in two months that we might get to a place where we reform the filibuster.

I think people should be hopeful and people should be hopeful, but also know that we need to keep working. I think we are so close. We are truly in from the goal. And like no time before that, I have been watching this, following this issue and working on this issue. We are closer than ever. I mentioned before that there are 50 Democrats who understand that voting rights needs to happen, who have talked about the threat to our democracy. We have at least 48 Democrats who are on board with some form of reform. And I think it's clear that there are at least one, if not two, who are open to some other form of reform potentially. I think that we are, are just inches away from getting this done. And if President Biden gets invested in this and he wants to push us over the finish line and he makes it clear that this is something he considers to be important and key to our democracy and his presidency, that we can do it. But it's important that people now for the next few weeks, these are going to be critical weeks as we approach the August recess and we approach those dates that I'm sure your listeners understand very well that beyond which they're going to be, the window will be closing on the ability to actually protect voters for the 22 election. Promote, protect the House from being rigged for the next 10 years. If we don't get something done these next few weeks, it's going to be tougher and tougher to protect our democracy. So this is the moment for people to make their voices heard. This is the moment for people to put pressure on President Biden. If you live in West Virginia or Arizona or any of those states where members may be more reluctant to make reforms, make your voice heard with your senator. Tell them that you care about, you care about voting rights, you care about a democracy, and that you don't think the filibuster should stand in the way of protecting our democracy. But I feel confident, hopeful. I think there's a long way to go. If we come back in a month and have another conversation. I would not be shocked if there was reform and we were able to get some, some movement on this. I also, unfortunately, would not be shocked if we didn't if this just got pushed by the wayside and President Biden and Senate Democrats decided to, decided that they weren't going to move on this. So that's why pressure right now is so important. Making your voice heard is so important. And people, people should, should not sit by the sideline any longer if they care about this issue or our democracy.

So, Ellie, how can people get in touch with fix our Senate to plug into, into the fight? Like what, what can people concretely do? If you, if you're listening right now and, you know, they want to get in touch with you and, and join, you know, your efforts, what should people do?

Sure. Go to fixarsenate.org go to twitter ixrsenate. There are ways that you can get involved. There's resources that you could share. There's social media that you can help spread the word about and to make your voice heard on this. But fixarsenate.orgixoursenit those are the two best ways to get in touch.

Well, Ellie, thank you so much for an excellent conversation. I think that I'm optimistic, or at least I have hope, and that's more than I think most people feel right now. But again, I think that for, you know, for folks who are in this fight, I think we're, we see that goal line and, you know, we're so tantalizingly close. And I think you feel the same way that right now maybe we're running just on adrenaline, but we see that goalpost and, you know, if we get there, the rewards are massive because as you said, or as I guess President Biden said, it really is democracy or authoritarianism. And we, we have a real shot. And so, you know, there are folks doing the good work to get this done. It's not too late to fix our democracy, to get rid of the filibuster, to, to save our government. We have this shot. And the question that we have to ask ourselves is what are we going to do to, to get it done? And I think everybody has a role to play. And I'm really excited to have had this conversation with you today just to kind of give our listeners a sense of where things are with the filibuster, what different reform options look like and how to plug in. So, Ellie, thanks so much for joining me. Thanks for all the work you're doing and make sure to go visit Fix Our Senate. Ellie, thanks again.

Thanks for having me on.

This has been another episode of Another Way. See you next time.

Sa.