The Democratic debate over filibuster reform, explained

Nobody runs on Senate procedure, but without changing it, nothing is going to happen.

Lurking behind the bold progressive proposals shaping the Democratic presidential primary is the question of how to make them reality. One answer is Senate procedure, which has become one of the hottest issues on the trail today.

Candidates are debating whether to get rid of the filibuster, a procedural quirk that has evolved over time into a nearly insurmountable barrier to most forms of legislation. Once rare, it’s become standard practice in recent years to filibuster everything in the Senate, thus requiring 60 votes to pass anything.

The Senate, however, makes its own rules, and a majority of senators could vote to change the rules and allow majority votes to prevail. If Democrats fare well in 2020, a rule change would greatly increase the likelihood that some of these big progressive ideas could come to fruition. But top Democrats are skeptical.

“We should not be doing anything to mess with the strength of the filibuster,” says Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ).

Most senator candidates are with Booker. Bernie Sanders says he’s “not crazy about getting rid of the filibuster.” His plan for Senate reform is statehood for the District of Columbia, which he thinks can get done because “I hope my Republican colleagues do the right thing.”

Kamala Harris is “conflicted.” And Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand is concerned about the risks to being in the minority. “Having just lived through being in the minority,” she explains, “I just want to think long and hard about it.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, though, disagrees, telling Pod Save America that “all the options are on the table.”