Member Newsletter
Something happened during the Democrats’ excitement-packed Chicago convention that has drawn relatively little notice. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said he was considering changing or open to changing or may change the filibuster rules next year to pass a federal Roe law, enshrining national abortion rights. Schumer said that he would pass two voting rights laws under a filibuster exception. On abortion he said, “I have to discuss that with my caucus. This is one of the issues we would have to debate and discuss and evolve.”
Of course, for any of this to happen, Democrats need Kamala Harris to win the presidential election and hold Senate control, the latter of those two contingencies being very much uncertain. Democrats look to be in fairly good shape everywhere but in Montana, where Jon Tester is now clearly the underdog. They also have potential, though certainly very uphill, pick-up opportunities in Texas and Florida. Schumer also speaks of the need to bring his caucus along with him. Axios reminds us that, in 2022, Democratic sources told them that there were more than two Senate Democrats (Sinema and Manchin) opposed to filibuster carveouts. They rather comically refer to the ancient and newly abused tactic as one of the Senate’s “guardrails.”
I’ve always been highly skeptical of this. I don’t doubt that there are additional Senate Democrats who’d prefer that such a carveout not come to the floor. But that’s altogether different from a willingness to publicly oppose such a move with a vote on the Senate floor. I don’t think that position is viable today for any Senate Democrat who wants to remain in the upper chamber. What is key to me about Schumer’s statement is that I think he’s now willing to push this — in other words, to force the matter. Which he absolutely should.
That’s a big deal.
It shouldn’t be a big deal. As you know, I’ve been pushing for voters to get all 48 or 50 or 51 Senate Democrats on the record supporting such a carve-out for more than two years, entirely without success. Democrats are campaigning on defending Roe; they’re promising they’ll pass a Roe law if they win the election; but they’re leaving vague the fact that there is absolutely no way that can happen without removing the filibuster from the equation, at least on abortion bills. You simply can’t put abortion rights this front and center in the campaign and leave that part vague.
The contrary argument is that getting into the filibuster just distracts from the central message, opens up secondary arguments with people who may be leery of making changes to the filibuster. I don’t think that’s a good argument. To maximize the chance of restoring Roe‘s protections, and to leverage the electoral advantages of doing so, abortion needs to really be on the ballot. That’s the lesson we’re seeing in all the states with abortion ballot initiatives this cycle.