NO: The Senate is unlikely to end this parliamentary procedure
Could abolishing the filibuster to enact the For the People Act be the one reform of Senate procedure to unlock more ambitious democracy reforms? This is the dream of many congressional Democrats, but likely a dream that will be unfulfilled.
Democrats are enthused by beating Donald Trump, unexpectedly winning two Georgia runoff races and taking control of the presidency and both houses of Congress for the first time since 2010. Yet that enthusiasm should be tempered by the 50-50 Senate, understandable resistance to doing away with the filibuster, and the democracy reform bill, For the People Act, that is too big, raises significant federalism concerns and lacks bipartisan support.
Many familiar arguments against the filibuster might prevail even if Democrats had a larger majority in the Senate. What would Republicans do in the absence of the filibuster in the future when they are in the majority? Would it change the character of the Senate to make it more majoritarian like the House and thereby take away important prerogatives of individual senators? Would it undermine bipartisanship in the Senate by encouraging Senate majorities to pass measures on a majority vote rather than seeking some votes from the minority?
But with a 50-50 Senate the questions are multiplied. Key Democratic senators such as Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema have sympathy for the filibuster, but are also in a tough political position. A vote to abolish the filibuster would be followed by two years of tough votes on key Democratic priorities. Would Manchin want to be seen as Mr. No on a series of votes that are important to the progressive base of the party? With the filibuster in place, he is only one vote in the quest to secure 60 votes to break a filibuster. In the post-filibuster Senate, he is the deciding vote.