Senate to take up voting rights bill Tuesday, missing Schumer deadline

[mystery-ak]

Senate to take up voting rights bill Tuesday, missing Schumer deadline
By Jordain Carney - 01/13/22 10:29 PM EST

Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) announced on Thursday night that the Senate will take up voting rights legislation on Tuesday, missing his self-imposed deadline to hold a vote on changing the filibuster by Monday, Jan. 17.
 
The change in the Senate schedule comes after Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) announced he was isolating after testing positive for COVID-19 in a breakthrough case, leaving Democrats one vote short on their ability to start debate on the voting rights bill. Senators are also worried about the potential for another snowstorm in Washington, D.C., on Sunday into Monday.
 
"I have a short announcement about the schedule. Due to circumstances regarding COVID and another potentially hazard winter storm approaching the D.C. area this weekend, the Senate will adjourn tonight. However, we will be postponing the recess so the Senate can vote on voting rights. We will return on Tuesday to take up the House-passed message containing voting rights legislation," Schumer said from the floor.
 
The Senate had been scheduled to be out of town after Friday for a one-week recess, but Schumer's move means the break will be delayed. Schumer said the one-week recess will now take place the week of Jan. 24.

more
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/589716-senate-to-take-up-voting-rights-bill-tuesday-missing-schumer-deadline

[Wingnut]

Wishing Sen. Brian Schatz  a full recovery.  A slow one... but a full one none the less.

[Cyber Liberty]

Wishing Sen. Brian Schatz  a full recovery.  A slow one... but a full one none the less.

Watch the Senate try to change the No Proxies Rule.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Watch the Senate try to change the No Proxies Rule.

Is that possible with only 49 Dem votes accounted for?

Guess the way the Dems could do it is to deliberately infect several GOP Senators clandestinely, then make a run for it.

[Cyber Liberty]

Is that possible with only 49 Dem votes accounted for?

Guess the way the Dems could do it is to deliberately infect several GOP Senators clandestinely, then make a run for it.

That change still won't get them past the 51 vote requirement. 

[libertybele]

Schumer misses self-imposed deadline on voting rights package, drawing ire

Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., will delay the vote on election reform legislation until Tuesday, missing his self-imposed deadline to take up the voting rights legislation by the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday on Monday.

The pair of voting rights bills are in limbo after Democratic Sens. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Joe Manchin of West Virginia on Thursday doubled down on their opposition to rolling back the filibuster rule, despite personal pleas from Schumer and President Biden.

"Due to the circumstances regarding COVID and another potentially hazardous winter storm approaching the DC area this weekend, the Senate will adjourn tonight," Schumer announced late Thursday.

Rather than keeping the Senate in all weekend to meet his Monday deadline, Schumer sent the lawmakers home, citing the snowy forecast on the East Coast and alluding to the COVID-19 case of Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, that put the Democrats' perilous 50-seat majority down one person.

Schumer said the planned recess for next week will be delayed so lawmakers can return to Washington on Tuesday to take up the voting rights legislation.

"Make no mistake, the United States Senate will — for the first time this Congress —debate voting rights legislation beginning on Tuesday," Schumer said............

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/schumer-misses-self-imposed-deadline-voting-rights-package

[MOD4]

Topics merged.

[Kamaji]

No, Mr. Schumer, you aren't taking up voting rights legislation; you're taking up election fraud legislation - legislation designed to permanently enshrine election fraud in this country.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

That change still won't get them past the 51 vote requirement.

So 51 is the magic number, not a majority of Senate members in attendance?

[Cyber Liberty]

So 51 is the magic number, not a majority of Senate members in attendance?

Right.  Clear Majority of Senators voting "Aye" is required and the VP gets no vote.  "Not Present" has the same effect as a "Nay" vote.

Now...if a GOP leaves office suddenly, then the total Senators would be 99, so 50 votes will pass a Motion.

[Fishrrman]

Cyber wrote:
"That change still won't get them past the 51 vote requirement."

Does it have to be "51", or simply a majority of those voting?
Would 50 ayes beat 49 nays?

[Cyber Liberty]

Cyber wrote:
"That change still won't get them past the 51 vote requirement."

Does it have to be "51", or simply a majority of those voting?
Would 50 ayes beat 49 nays?

You mean like if there are absent Senators?  the requirement of a procedural change vote like this, it's "Senator," not "Senators present."  If someone simply isn't there at the time of the vote, it goes down as a "Nay" vote. 

It would take a sudden removal/death of a Republican to reduce the threshold to 50 votes.

[Hoodat]

I don't think that's correct.  It is a majority of the members voting.  If five Senators don't show, then it only takes 48 yes votes to pass.  VP wouldn't get a vote.

[Hoodat]

October of last year:  Senate votes 50-48 to raise debt ceiling

Passed without 51 votes.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

You mean like if there are absent Senators?  the requirement of a procedural change vote like this, it's "Senator," not "Senators present."  If someone simply isn't there at the time of the vote, it goes down as a "Nay" vote. 

It would take a sudden removal/death of a Republican to reduce the threshold to 50 votes.

So are these articles incorrect?  Even Harry Reid agreed with it in 2010.  And Joe Manchin said the same in 2021.

How Many Votes to Change the Senate’s Rules?
Senate rules require 67 votes to change the rules of the Senate.
Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate says that in order to cut off debate on “a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules” the “affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting.”
https://archive.thinkprogress.org/how-many-votes-to-change-the-senates-rules-ef6c1a89be67/
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/manchin-indicates-it-would-take-67-votes-to-change-senate-rules-to-implement-a-talking-filibuster/
@Cyber Liberty

[Hoodat]

How Many Votes to Change the Senate’s Rules?
Senate rules require 67 votes to change the rules of the Senate.
Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate says that in order to cut off debate on “a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules” the “affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting.”
https://archive.thinkprogress.org/how-many-votes-to-change-the-senates-rules-ef6c1a89be67/
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/manchin-indicates-it-would-take-67-votes-to-change-senate-rules-to-implement-a-talking-filibuster/
@Cyber Liberty

This rule was violated with the passage of Obamacare.  The bill itself contained a provision which amended Senate rules, thus requiring a 67-vote threshold (which they did not get).  'Rules' are simply things that do not apply to Democrats.  Regardless of what the Senate rules say, if the Dems want to eliminate the filibuster with 50 votes (+ VP), then they will do so, and the Republicans will do absolutely nothing to stop it.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

This rule was violated with the passage of Obamacare.  The bill itself contained a provision which amended Senate rules, thus requiring a 67-vote threshold (which they did not get).  'Rules' are simply things that do not apply to Democrats.  Regardless of what the Senate rules say, if the Dems want to eliminate the filibuster with 50 votes (+ VP), then they will do so, and the Republicans will do absolutely nothing to stop it.

I do not recall any change in Senate rules in Obamacare.  The measure achieved 60 votes to stop debate when the traitor Arlen Specter switched parties.

I am aware that the Constitution was shredded when a revenue bill originated in the Senate, but that is a constitutional provision which SCOTUS later supported, not a Senate rule

[Fishrrman]

I sailed wrote:
"Senate rules require 67 votes to change the rules of the Senate."

No, this isn't correct.

The rules can be changed by simple majority vote.
That's what the original "nuclear option" was all about.

The only thing of which I'm not certain (and that includes Cyber's posts above) is whether or not the Vice President can "break a tie" in a vote to change Senate rules.

Of course, we know that the VP can break a tie in votes regarding legislative matters.

But a rules changes is not "lawmaking" per se.
It's a "rules change" pertinent to the senators, and it's possible that ONLY sitting senators can vote for same.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I sailed wrote:
"Senate rules require 67 votes to change the rules of the Senate."

No, this isn't correct.

The rules can be changed by simple majority vote.
That's what the original "nuclear option" was all about.

The only thing of which I'm not certain (and that includes Cyber's posts above) is whether or not the Vice President can "break a tie" in a vote to change Senate rules.

Of course, we know that the VP can break a tie in votes regarding legislative matters.

But a rules changes is not "lawmaking" per se.
It's a "rules change" pertinent to the senators, and it's possible that ONLY sitting senators can vote for same.

Don't know where you got your information, but I checked the Senate Rules and it clearly states 67 votes are required for rules changes or 2/3 of Senators present and voting.

The fact that Harry Reid made the changes he did in 2013 with a simply majority vote just means the Rules are not followed, so anything goes, whether it is a majority, a minority or just the guy who happens to be pounding the hammer.  Sp anything can be done as it does not obey its own declared rules.

Excerpt
"Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be brought to a close?" And if that question shall be decided in the affirmative by three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn -- except on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, in which case the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting -- then said measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, shall be the unfinished business to the exclusion of all other business until disposed of. https://www.rules.senate.gov/rules-of-the-senate
[/quote]

[Elderberry]

What is the Senate filibuster, and what would it take to eliminate it?

https://www.brookings.edu/policy2020/votervital/what-is-the-senate-filibuster-and-what-would-it-take-to-eliminate-it/

A more complicated, but more likely, way to ban the filibuster would be to create a new Senate precedent. The chamber’s precedents exist alongside its formal rules to provide additional insight into how and when its rules have been applied in particular ways. Importantly, this approach to curtailing the filibuster—colloquially known as the “nuclear option” and more formally as “reform by ruling”—can, in certain circumstances, be employed with support from only a simple majority of senators.

The nuclear option leverages the fact that a new precedent can be created by a senator raising a point of order, or claiming that a Senate rule is being violated. If the presiding officer (typically a member of the Senate) agrees, that ruling establishes a new precedent. If the presiding officer disagrees, another senator can appeal the ruling of the chair. If a majority of the Senate votes to reverse the decision of the chair, then the opposite of the chair’s ruling becomes the new precedent.

In both 2013 and 2017, the Senate used this approach to reduce the number of votes needed to end debate on nominations. The majority leader used two non-debatable motions to bring up the relevant nominations, and then raised a point of order that the vote on cloture is by majority vote. The presiding officer ruled against the point of order, but his ruling was overturned on appeal—which, again, required only a majority in support. In sum, by following the right steps in a particular parliamentary circumstance, a simple majority of senators can establish a new interpretation of a Senate rule.
What are some ways to modify the filibuster without eliminating it entirely?

The Senate could also move to weaken the filibuster without eliminating it entirely. A Senate majority could detonate a “mini-nuke” that bans filibusters on particular motions but otherwise leaves the 60-vote rule intact. For example, a Senate majority could prevent senators from filibustering the motion used to call up a bill to start (known as the motion to proceed). This would preserve senators’ rights to obstruct the bill or amendment at hand, but would eliminate the supermajority hurdle for starting debate on a legislative measure.

A second option targets the so-called Byrd Rule, a feature of the budget reconciliation process. These bills have been critical to the enactment of major policy changes including, recently, the Affordable Care Act in 2010 and the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in 2017. To guard against a majority stuffing a reconciliation measure with non-budgetary provisions, the Byrd Rule limits the contents of the bill and requires 60 votes to set aside. Because the Senate’s non-partisan parliamentarian plays a significant role in advising whether provisions comply with the Byrd Rule, some senators have proposed diluting the power of the Byrd Rule by targeting the parliamentarian. This approach would weaken the filibuster by making it easier for a majority party to squeeze more of its priorities into a reconciliation bill (which then only requires a simple majority to pass). For instance, the majority party could select a parliamentarian who is more willing to advise weaker enforcement of the Byrd Rule, and, indeed, there is some history of the parliamentarian’s application of the Byrd Rule affecting his or her appointment. Alternatively, the senator presiding over the chamber (or the vice president, if he or she is performing that function) could disregard the advice provided to him or her by the parliamentarian, undercutting the efficacy of the Byrd Rule.