Opinion / Christopher Cermak
Under the influence
Parliamentary rules are among the most arcane of practices in most nations. Despite the fact that lawmakers (in democratic countries) are supposed to be doing the people’s business, the procedures by which laws get passed are almost always opaque. Nowhere more so than in the US Senate where, this week, those rules are at the centre of a legal battle that has major implications for the country.
How many of you knew the role of “Senate parliamentarian” even existed? Her name is Elizabeth MacDonough and she’s the chamber’s legal adjudicator. This week she’s set to rule on whether a massive overhaul of the country’s immigration system – including giving certain groups of illegal immigrants permanent residency – will have a material impact on federal spending and can therefore count as part of the government’s annual budget proposal. Why does this matter? Because, to put it simply, budget proposals can be passed in what’s called “reconciliation” with only 50 votes in the 100-member Senate, while all other legislation effectively needs 60 votes to pass that other arcane procedure known as the filibuster. Given that Democrats have only 50 votes in the Senate, they’re trying to pack as much of their agenda as possible into the budget-reconciliation process.
As I said, all of this is opaque. Perhaps it’s part of the reason that Congress’s approval rating is currently at just 28 per cent. While we all disagree (often sharply) on the right course of policy, at the end of the day legislatures must be able to do their jobs. I’m all for bipartisanship, as I’ve written about many times in this newsletter, but the inability of ruling parties in the US to legislate needs to end. It shouldn’t take bizarre workarounds or placing civil servants such as MacDonough in the partisan firing line. So let’s make it simple: ditch the 60-vote threshold, accept the consequences (next time the other party comes to power, they’ll benefit too) and get on with the business of governing.