U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) George Stern
(D) A. Gonzalez
(R) Sheri Davis
40%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
January 04, 2011 06:53 PM UTC
18 Comments
Two fewer phone calls I have to make on an issue.
Changing the rule to require 40 Senators to maintain the filibuster is a common-sense approach. Removing one-person secret holds and reducing the number of places in the legislative cycle where a filibuster can be held are the other two.
Good for Colorado’s Senators, and good for the country if the rules changes in the Senate pass. I wish I could say the same for the in(s)ane rules changes being proposed by the new GOP House majority.
aspire to the mantle of Strom Thurmond, I say let them work for it.
If the Dems lose control of the Senate, they’re going to be sorry they did this.
The Dems never used the arcane rules to the same effect the Republicans have since Obama took over. I see no reason to believe they would in the event they lost the Senate or the White House. At the very least, if this passes, it ensures that the Repulicans won’t be able to mount the same kind of obstructionism they’ve gotten away with in the last Congress.
You don’t need arcane rules to roll over and play dead.
Just the will to lose.
if you look at it another way:
You don’t need arcane rules to screw over the country.
Just the will to screw over the country.
but when repubs win the Senate again (whenever that is) they’ll probably do the exact same thing if dems don’t do it tomorrow…
http://voices.washingtonpost.c…
First- that should be “when”, not “if.”
Second- Since they love it so much don’t you think it would be one of the first things the R’s would put back into place?
At the beginning of the next Republican-controlled Senate session, Republicans could change the rules to force color-coded suit wearing if they wanted to.
Look at the House rules for the coming session – they’re ludicrous, and far beyond anything Newt Gingrich ever imagined trying to foist on the 1995 Congress. A Republican-controlled Senate will not feel bound by the current rules, and Democrats would be nuts to “keep the powder dry” by keeping the current rules.
Aside from which, the proposed reforms are actually common-sense rules designed to return the burden of holding up the Senate business on the party that wants to hold up the Senate business. And no more hiding behind “anonymous” holds, either – you want to block a nomination, take ownership for your action. I’d support these rules were I a Democrat in the minority…
One of the political consequences of majority rule is the pin political blame squarely on the party in the majority. In parliamentary systems, they call it “responsible government.”
In a system where almost everything requires bipartisan support to pass to some extent, attaching blame for a law to one party or the other is far more difficult.
The article claims that “Democrats have a chance Wednesday to change Senate rules with a simple majority vote, rather than the two-thirds majority it usually takes.”
This has not historically been considered to be the case. The traditional position on that issue has been that the Senate is in continous session, and so, unlike the House, all changes to Senate rules require a two-thirds majority to be adopted, even on opening day.
Of course, since the Senate is the judge of its own rules, the “nuclear option” of simply ignoring the two-thirds requirement or the filibuster’s sixty vote requirement and declaring legislation to be validly passed is always available.
it has never been decided, at least not in modern history.
Nixon, while VP in 1957, issued perhaps the most authoritative opinion on the subject: that so long as any action affirms (either explicitly, or implicitly by conducting regular Senate business aside from those procedures required on the opening day of the Senate) the previous Senate rules, then those rules are considered to be adopted, and that, yes, the Senate was effectively “continuously” in session. However, he also found that the seating of new Senators after an election effectively signaled a “new” Senate session which had the right to adopt its own rules without being bound by the previous rules.
This is still the operating theory under which the rules changes will be discussed tomorrow (and which, if called upon to do so, VP Biden would almost certainly support). But it’s never been tested, because the minority party in the end has always been more interested in sitting at the table to discuss such changes in the rules.
In 1975, when the last filibuster reform passed, rather than face the prospect of hearing this “Constitutional option” judgment from the Senate President’s chair, the minority Republicans agreed to a resolution allowing a delayed floor vote on rules changes. It took them until March to finally vote on the rules change.
In the Senate history, Udall says he’s found three instances where the Senate rules were changed on Day 1 of a new session by simple majority.
I keep hearing about the changes to the rules. I have looked all over the place, but I can’t find a copy to read. Does anyone have a link?
By the way, it is being reported that Reid is negotiating with Republicans. When will the Democrats get a clue?
BTW, having the filibuster will never be an advantage to Democrats. Thet have no party discipline. And, even if they could filibuster they don’t have the stones.
The Democrats have been meeting in caucus since the beginning of December trying to come to an agreement on exactly what the changes might be, and those meetings of late have not included staff. Apparently that’s cut down on the number of leaks significantly.
I think the top proposal right now comes from Tom Udall’s office. I’ll outline the generalities of it, but realize these changes may be altered by the time the rules pass…
* Change the cloture requirement from “60 Yea votes” to “fewer than 40 Nay votes”.
* Require the filibustering minority to continuously hold the floor and maintain their 40-vote block.
* The filibuster can only be attempted at one point of debate for each bill (or nomination), or perhaps a small number of points.
* Would remove or reduce the 30-hour “ripening” period between a cloture call and a vote.
* Would remove anonymous holds. Such holds must be performed as regular filibusters under the new rules.
As an olive branch, it is reported that the proposed rules change would also allow a (not unlimited) number of amendments from either party on any bill.
400 – number of House bills not even considered by the Senate due to the delays caused by GOP obstructionism.
125 – number of Administration positions requiring Senate approval that have not, AFTER TWO YEARS, received a vote on the Senate floor due to lack of unanimous consent to proceed to a vote.
102 – number of empty Federal judicial seats held open largely because of Republican obstruction.
48 – number of Obama judicial nominations still waiting for confirmation when the 111th Congress adjourned.
30 – number of hours Senate business is delayed every time a GOP Senator objects to unanimous consent and the Senate wishes to continue to a vote.
30 hours * (125 appointees + 48 justices) = 5190 hours of delay (minimum) to confirm all of Obama’s outstanding nominations to positions that need filling. That’s more than a year’s worth of backlog (16-hour days, 6-day weeks – which the Senate does not do), with zero legislation considered, just to clear the current nominations list.