Decryption | The “filibuster”, a weapon that kills silently

(New York) This is the story of a gun known as the “filibuster,” and one that may kill the next gun bill in the United States Senate.

Richard Hetu
special cooperation

In the XIX^e and XX^e centuries, proponents of slavery and racial segregation have deployed it to prevent or delay the passage of laws threatening their interests or supremacist aims.

In the XXI^e century, the allies of the National Rifle Association use it to bury any measure intended to restrict access to firearms.

They were seen at work on April 17, 2013, four months and three days after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. That day, the Senate held votes on three measures wanted by Barack Obama. The first two, which sought to ban certain assault rifles and high-capacity magazines, were rejected by majorities.

But the third had the support of 55 out of 100 senators (and, according to polls, 90% of Americans). It aimed to generalize the examination of the psychiatric and judicial antecedents of arms buyers. It was none the less zigouillée with the help of a “filibuster” to which subscribed 41 Republican senators and four Democrats elected in conservative states (Alaska, Arkansas, Montana and North Dakota).

How can a minority of senators impose their will in this way?

Before going to the origins of this confusing rule, a reminder: since 1975, with some exceptions, it suffices for a single senator to announce a “filibuster” for the adoption of a bill to require not a simple majority , but a super majority of 60 votes.

This is why passage of a gun bill is uncertain, even unlikely, in the wake of the Buffalo and Uvalde massacres.

This is also why this rule has never been so contested.

Aaron Burr’s Mistake

An error is at the origin of the “filibuster”, according to political scientist Sarah Binder. In 1805, Vice President Aaron Burr convinced senators to eliminate a Senate rule allowing debate on a bill to be terminated by a simple majority vote, on the grounds that the rule was superfluous.

She was not. And, beginning in 1841, Democratic South Carolina Senator John Calhoun, a prominent pro-slavery advocate, exploited this error to block or delay the passage of opposing bills by Southern states. He and his fellow slaveholders could thus paralyze the Senate for days or weeks by discoursing uninterruptedly in the Senate Chamber.

And Calhoun called anyone who tried to put an end to this first form of filibuster a “tyrant”, as Adam Jentleson recalls in Kill Switch – The Rise of the Modern Senate and the Crippling of American Democracythe book on the history of the Senate which he published last year.

In 1917, the Senate finally corrected Burr’s error. Under “Rule 22,” the upper house of Congress could now end debate on a bill with a two-thirds majority vote.

But the new rule did not put an end to the “filibuster”. Beginning in the 1930s, this 67-vote super majority became an obstacle that allowed Democratic Georgia Senator Richard Russell and his fellow Southern segregationists to torpedo several civil rights bills, including a measure to combat the lynching of blacks.

Russell and his group finally gave in on June 10, 1964. After 60 days of debate and a final 14-hour-13-minute speech by Virginia Democratic Senator Robert Byrd, Senate leaders managed to muster the necessary votes. to overcome the obstacle of 67 votes and put an end to the “filibuster” which prevented the adoption of the future Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Mitch McConnell’s Zeal

“The filibuster served primarily to allow a minority of predominantly white conservatives to override our democratic system when they found themselves outnumbered,” writes Adam Jentleson in Kill Switch.

That remains true today. Certainly, contemporary Democrats have used the “filibuster” to frustrate some conservative projects, including the privatization of the public pension plan (Social Security) wanted by George W. Bush in 2005. But no leader of the Senate has wielded this weapon with as zealous as Kentucky Republican Senator Mitch McConnell.

From 1941 to 1971, the Senate held just 35 votes to end a filibuster. However, in the first two years of Barack Obama’s presidency, when Mitch McConnell was Minority Leader, he held 91.

Throughout the Obama era, the “filibuster” has helped kill climate, immigration and, of course, gun bills, among others.

Why not get rid of it? Democratic senators could do so by taking a simple majority vote. They have 51 votes, including that of the vice-president, Kamala Harris, as president of the Senate. But at least two members of their group, Joe Manchin (West Virginia) and Kyrsten Sinema (Arizona), refuse. Senator Manchin notably argued that the “filibuster” has been part of the “Senate tradition” since its inception.

It’s wrong. As the book demonstrates Kill Switch, none of the Founding Fathers envisioned an Upper House where passing laws would require a super majority. “A system in which the minority would prevail over the majority would be contrary to the common practices of assemblies in all countries and of all ages”, estimated Benjamin Franklin, to quote only him.

Now, nowadays, a senator just has to call a special line to announce a “filibuster” and thus impose the obstacle of 60 votes. He doesn’t even have to discourse in front of his colleagues, like in the days of John Calhoun or Richard Russell. The “filibuster” has become “silent”, according to the accepted expression. But it also kills effectively. And nothing pleases the National Rifle Association more.