The 60 Vote Senate Cloture Rule Abuse or Part of Checks and Balances? Ask the 26 states and 22% f the population that control it
April 24, 2013, 04:12 pm
Senate 60-vote rule is an abuse of democracy
Burt Neuborne, professor, NYU School of Law
As an introduction ....In the following the writer claims foul but fails to point out the balance is in the House of Representatives. But he put his case so powerfully and for sure half a million Wyomingites(?) are probably worth more than 37 million Caifornicators I used to be from Oregon before it went completely off the rails but then so did most Oregonians because it's mostly Californians now.
To keep it balanced some of The Hills contributor filed good comments too . Their opinions will follow the Professors."
"Senate 60-vote rule is an abuse of democracy. But it gets even worse. Since the Constitution requires that each state, regardless of population, be awarded two senators, California’s 37 million residents get the same Senate representation as Wyoming’s 568,000 hardy souls. Thus, a voter in Wyoming casts a vote for senator that is more than 50 times as powerful as an identical voter in California. 51 senators from 26 states with about 20 percent of the nation’s population can constitute a Senate majority.
It gets still worse. Since the Senate operates under a self-imposed filibuster rule requiring 60 votes to act, senators representing 11 percent of the national population can veto laws supported by senators representing 89 percent of the population. That’s just about what happened when the Senate voted 55-45 to approve background checks for gun ownership, only to see the legislation fail because it did not reach the artificial 60 vote threshold. When you deconstruct the votes, 46 Senators representing about 65 million Americans blocked crucial legislation approved by 54 Senators representing about 250 million Americans.
That’s not democracy. It’s more like being governed by the British House of Lords. Actually, it’s more like being governed by the American House of Cowboys.
Short of amending the Constitution’s grant of two Senators per state, there isn’t much that can be done about giving the residents of California and Wyoming equal representation in the Senate. But the Senate’s self-imposed 60 vote requirement is another story. Self-imposed voting rules that render the already mal-apportioned Senate even less democratic violate the “one-Senator one-vote rule” of the 17th Amendment, which provides:
“The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two senators from each state, elected by the people thereof…and each senator shall have one vote……”
Under a 60 vote rule, 41 Senators outvote 59 colleagues, reducing the value of the votes cast by each of the 59 losing senators to 65-70 percent of the value of the votes cast be each of the 41 winners. When 46 Senators defeated 54 Senators on gun control, the 46 winners cast votes about 1.3 times more powerful than the votes of the losing 54.
Super-majority requirements do not necessarily violate one person-one vote when they are adopted by legislative bodies whose membership complies with one-person one-vote. An equally apportioned legislative body can bend the rules. But when a mal-apportioned legislative body already containing members whose votes are 50 times more powerful than the votes of other members imposes yet another layer of voting inequality, the last link to democratic governance has been severed. The plain meaning and obvious purpose of the 17th Amendment’s requirement of “one-Senator one-vote” is to prevent the unequal representation pattern already built into the Senate from getting any worse.
It’s time to enforce the “one-senator-one-vote” mandate of the 17th Amendment. The presiding officer of the Senate could act tomorrow by ruling on a point of order that the filibuster is unconstitutional. Alternatively, 51 Senators could find the courage to vote to end the practice. Barring such acts of courage and principle, the courts could intervene. I know, I know. Ruling that the Senate’s 60 vote requirement is a violation of the 17th Amendment’s “one senator-one vote” rule would take a judiciary willing to throw American democracy a constitutional lifeline, instead of sandbagging it with decisions like Bush v. Gore and Citizens United. But standing by while American democracy sinks slowly in the wild west is simply not an option."
Neuborne is a professor at NYU School of Law.
The following are the comments written three years ago as was this article
It is amazing that this article was written by someone who professes to be a professor of law! He has basically insinuated that everything the Founding Fathers included in the Constitution to ensure fairness to all citizens is wrong and ought to be changed. Incredible! Apparently he forgets that the House of Representatives is a body where the majority can steam roll the minority whenever it is able to muster the votes. The author now asserts that the U.S. Senate ought to be able to do the same thing. That is NOT democracy....that is Cuba, North Korea or the former Soviet Union! The 60-vote rule was instituted as a means of protecting the interests of the minority and to prohibit a majority from engaging in legislative terrorism.
Readers and especially COLLEGE STUDENTS should beware of left wing professors who espouse seemingly innocent changes to our governmental structure when, in fact, they are truly calling for a governmental structure that would enhance and entrench a big government controlled by the large states and the urban areas dominated by citizens who depend on big government.
Readers and especially READERS should beware of anonymous commenters implying that the "60-vote rule"/filibuster is in the U.S. Constitution.
Yeah it's an abuse for this guy when his party is in the majority. But when it was in the minority, it was protection against the "tyranny of the majority." Now that his favored party is in power, he's totally unconcerned with that little issue. It's not a bug, professor, it's a feature.
Bah...another liberal academic windbag who really thinks his words really mean something to the real word. Well it does not, nor do we really care what you think when you spout nonsense like this.
And to think, your students actually pay money to listen you make yourself look dumber than you really are.
"That’s not democracy."
We need to return power to the states by repealing the 17th Amendment so that State legislatures select their senators as set forth in the Constitution. This would make senators accountable to the state and less likely to act solely in the interest of the federal government.
The founders rejected outright a pure Democracy because they always devolve toward tyranny.''3 years ago
The 60 majority was added later and isn't in the Constitution. What is in the Bill of Rights is the Congressional Apportionment Amendment. This amendment was found in 2011 to have 80% of the states voting for it by 1792.....clipped see first comment
Senate 60-vote rule is an abuse of democracy
Burt Neuborne, professor, NYU School of Law
As an introduction ....In the following the writer claims foul but fails to point out the balance is in the House of Representatives. But he put his case so powerfully and for sure half a million Wyomingites(?) are probably worth more than 37 million Caifornicators I used to be from Oregon before it went completely off the rails but then so did most Oregonians because it's mostly Californians now.
To keep it balanced some of The Hills contributor filed good comments too . Their opinions will follow the Professors."
"Senate 60-vote rule is an abuse of democracy. But it gets even worse. Since the Constitution requires that each state, regardless of population, be awarded two senators, California’s 37 million residents get the same Senate representation as Wyoming’s 568,000 hardy souls. Thus, a voter in Wyoming casts a vote for senator that is more than 50 times as powerful as an identical voter in California. 51 senators from 26 states with about 20 percent of the nation’s population can constitute a Senate majority.
It gets still worse. Since the Senate operates under a self-imposed filibuster rule requiring 60 votes to act, senators representing 11 percent of the national population can veto laws supported by senators representing 89 percent of the population. That’s just about what happened when the Senate voted 55-45 to approve background checks for gun ownership, only to see the legislation fail because it did not reach the artificial 60 vote threshold. When you deconstruct the votes, 46 Senators representing about 65 million Americans blocked crucial legislation approved by 54 Senators representing about 250 million Americans.
That’s not democracy. It’s more like being governed by the British House of Lords. Actually, it’s more like being governed by the American House of Cowboys.
Short of amending the Constitution’s grant of two Senators per state, there isn’t much that can be done about giving the residents of California and Wyoming equal representation in the Senate. But the Senate’s self-imposed 60 vote requirement is another story. Self-imposed voting rules that render the already mal-apportioned Senate even less democratic violate the “one-Senator one-vote rule” of the 17th Amendment, which provides:
“The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two senators from each state, elected by the people thereof…and each senator shall have one vote……”
Under a 60 vote rule, 41 Senators outvote 59 colleagues, reducing the value of the votes cast by each of the 59 losing senators to 65-70 percent of the value of the votes cast be each of the 41 winners. When 46 Senators defeated 54 Senators on gun control, the 46 winners cast votes about 1.3 times more powerful than the votes of the losing 54.
Super-majority requirements do not necessarily violate one person-one vote when they are adopted by legislative bodies whose membership complies with one-person one-vote. An equally apportioned legislative body can bend the rules. But when a mal-apportioned legislative body already containing members whose votes are 50 times more powerful than the votes of other members imposes yet another layer of voting inequality, the last link to democratic governance has been severed. The plain meaning and obvious purpose of the 17th Amendment’s requirement of “one-Senator one-vote” is to prevent the unequal representation pattern already built into the Senate from getting any worse.
It’s time to enforce the “one-senator-one-vote” mandate of the 17th Amendment. The presiding officer of the Senate could act tomorrow by ruling on a point of order that the filibuster is unconstitutional. Alternatively, 51 Senators could find the courage to vote to end the practice. Barring such acts of courage and principle, the courts could intervene. I know, I know. Ruling that the Senate’s 60 vote requirement is a violation of the 17th Amendment’s “one senator-one vote” rule would take a judiciary willing to throw American democracy a constitutional lifeline, instead of sandbagging it with decisions like Bush v. Gore and Citizens United. But standing by while American democracy sinks slowly in the wild west is simply not an option."
Neuborne is a professor at NYU School of Law.
The following are the comments written three years ago as was this article
It is amazing that this article was written by someone who professes to be a professor of law! He has basically insinuated that everything the Founding Fathers included in the Constitution to ensure fairness to all citizens is wrong and ought to be changed. Incredible! Apparently he forgets that the House of Representatives is a body where the majority can steam roll the minority whenever it is able to muster the votes. The author now asserts that the U.S. Senate ought to be able to do the same thing. That is NOT democracy....that is Cuba, North Korea or the former Soviet Union! The 60-vote rule was instituted as a means of protecting the interests of the minority and to prohibit a majority from engaging in legislative terrorism.
Readers and especially COLLEGE STUDENTS should beware of left wing professors who espouse seemingly innocent changes to our governmental structure when, in fact, they are truly calling for a governmental structure that would enhance and entrench a big government controlled by the large states and the urban areas dominated by citizens who depend on big government.
Readers and especially READERS should beware of anonymous commenters implying that the "60-vote rule"/filibuster is in the U.S. Constitution.
Yeah it's an abuse for this guy when his party is in the majority. But when it was in the minority, it was protection against the "tyranny of the majority." Now that his favored party is in power, he's totally unconcerned with that little issue. It's not a bug, professor, it's a feature.
Bah...another liberal academic windbag who really thinks his words really mean something to the real word. Well it does not, nor do we really care what you think when you spout nonsense like this.
And to think, your students actually pay money to listen you make yourself look dumber than you really are.
"That’s not democracy."
We need to return power to the states by repealing the 17th Amendment so that State legislatures select their senators as set forth in the Constitution. This would make senators accountable to the state and less likely to act solely in the interest of the federal government.
The founders rejected outright a pure Democracy because they always devolve toward tyranny.''3 years ago
The 60 majority was added later and isn't in the Constitution. What is in the Bill of Rights is the Congressional Apportionment Amendment. This amendment was found in 2011 to have 80% of the states voting for it by 1792.....clipped see first comment
Its time that the people who produce real goods stop trading it for worthless paper, to force the use of money backed by something of value.
All part of the dismantling of the checks an balances system and the fascist income tax by the progressives under Woodrow Wilson. But his last part is news to me and a valid amendment not being included is nothing sort of treasonous
So i'll go do my home work on that act!