***Schumer announces plan to bypass filibuster on voting rights legislation.***

[pnwmom]

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1481381032461058049.html

🚨BREAKING: Senator Schumer announces plan to push through filibuster and proceed with voting rights legislation using a procedure known as "messages between the Houses" in a caucus memo.

Here's what you need to know🧵👇

When the House and Senate pass different versions of the same bill, the bill must go through reconciliation in order for the chambers to approve the same bill text. Messages between the Houses is a form of reconciliation.

Here's what happens: when chambers disagree on bill text, they can send the bill back and forth to each other with revisions until a final text is agreed upon. Once the bill has been sent between chambers 3 times, the motion to proceed CANNOT be filibustered in the Senate.

Democrats in the House will take a bill that has already undergone messages between the Houses 3 times, substitute the bill's language for the #FreedomToVoteAct and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, pass the legislation and quickly send it to the Senate. #JLVRAA

SNIP

While it's not known how long debate will last, we can expect that a final vote will happen by Monday — Martin Luther King Jr. Day — at the latest. This was the deadline Sen. Schumer set earlier this month in a "Dear Colleague" letter.
The next few days will be very busy in the Senate.

MORE AT LINK.

[Nevilledog]

1. Was just coming to post this

Link to tweet

Tweet text:

Democracy Docket
@DemocracyDocket
🚨BREAKING: Senator Schumer announces plan to push through filibuster and proceed with voting rights legislation using a procedure known as "messages between the Houses" in a caucus memo.

Here's what you need to know🧵👇
2:42 PM · Jan 12, 2022

Read the full conversation on Twitter

🚨BREAKING: Senator Schumer announces plan to push through filibuster and proceed with voting rights legislation using a procedure known as "messages between the Houses" in a caucus memo.

Here's what you need to know🧵👇

When the House and Senate pass different versions of the same bill, the bill must go through reconciliation in order for the chambers to approve the same bill text. Messages between the Houses is a form of reconciliation.

Here's what happens: when chambers disagree on bill text, they can send the bill back and forth to each other with revisions until a final text is agreed upon. Once the bill has been sent between chambers 3 times, the motion to proceed CANNOT be filibustered in the Senate.

Democrats in the House will take a bill that has already undergone messages between the Houses 3 times, substitute the bill's language for the #FreedomToVoteAct and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, pass the legislation and quickly send it to the Senate. #JLVRAA

Once the Senate receives the bill, it will go to the floor for debate. Senate Republicans will be unable to filibuster debate on the bill like they had done 3 times prior on voting rights legislation in 2021. They will have to come to the floor and debate the bill.

During floor debate, you can expect senators to give speeches about the bill and filibuster reform. Amendments can also be added to the bill. Republicans will likely propose amendments to try and remove voter protections.

After senators speak, a motion will be made to end debate on the bill and move to final passage. Republican senators could filibuster the motion, but that would be the opportunity for Senate Democrats to pass a carveout of the filibuster rules for voting rights legislation.

While it's not known how long debate will last, we can expect that a final vote will happen by Monday — Martin Luther King Jr. Day — at the latest. This was the deadline Sen. Schumer set earlier this month in a "Dear Colleague" letter.

The next few days will be very busy in the Senate. Catch the latest updates on our live #DemocracyAlerts page.👇

🔴 LIVE UPDATES: Voting Rights Battle in the U.S. Senate
Read more here.
https://www.democracydocket.com/alerts/live-updates-voting-rights-battle-in-the-u-s-senate/

[Tom Rinaldo]

8. This part is seemingly a buzz kill

"After senators speak, a motion will be made to end debate on the bill and move to final passage. Republican senators could filibuster the motion, but that would be the opportunity for Senate Democrats to pass a carveout of the filibuster rules for voting rights legislation. "

Isn't that the same as it ever was? If Senate Dems need to pass a carveout of the filibuster rules, that takes all members of the Dem caucus to agree and for VP Harris to provide the 51st vote in order for the carveout to pass. Which means any holdout Democratic Senator can kill the carveout, doesn't it? Is this news just a roadmap of how we will get to the final showdown vote on filibuster reform rather than a new breakthrough method of passing it?

[Nevilledog]

14. It's definitely not foolproof.

I'm just happy they're starting to think outside the box.

[dsc]

27. the plus here is getting to debate

but yes, to get passage we still need to either carve out an exception or get rid of the filibuster all together.

[PatrickforB]

62. Yep. Because....Manchin and Sinema might not go for it.

But voting rights is so popular with so many of us that maybe the thinking is to shame them into voting yes, and pound on anyone who votes no in upcoming campaigns.

Biden leads the party now, and lately he is signalling a desire to start playing hardball. I think he went in still with lots of respect for the institution, and the belief that common sense and perseverance could turn around Republicans and get them to actually be bipartisan.

Now he knows that won't happen, and that Manchin and Sinema are really not on board with all that much of his agenda, so he is turning on that bully pulpit - and he does it much better and more subtly. He is a master of the Senate, having had so much experience there. Harris is a help, too.

[lagomorph777]

75. Gonna need a pretty big stick to get SineManchin support for voting rights.

They don't seem to like voters.

[PatrickforB]

77. Yeah, they both like money far, far more than voters.

Too bad that.

[woodsprite]

79. Biden is aging (as we all are) and anything the Republicans do is messing with his legacy and

our country's democracy. It's past time for hardball. Hope he and Schumer continue to keep the pressure on and employ every single procedural device or maneuver possible.

[OhZone]

2. You mean they could've done this the whole time?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[Calista241]

3. They can debate the bill using this process, but still requires 60 votes to close debate and

take the bill up for a vote. At the end of debate is when Schumer will call for a rules change, and then everyone will be on record to change the filibuster. Failure to change the rules or to get 60 votes will result in the tabling of the bill.

[unblock]

12. I think the idea is to use a bill that has already passed the senate

So the cloture vote already happened, it passed the senate, and it's in reconciliation between the houses to determine the final language.

Apparently if there's been enough back and forth between the houses, the vote on the final bill can't be filibustered.

Who knew.

[mcar]

24. That's not correct

This bypasses phase 1 (which I didn't even know was a thing), but it still has to go through "cloture," which can be filibustered by just 1 senator objecting.

Then Schumer will move to change the filibuster rules.

[unblock]

43. Ah, I see. Jfc very disappointing given the headline.

All this just to *have* a debate at all, and probably still not pass anything.

Ugh.

[mcar]

44. I feel the same

[uponit7771]

67. +1

[paleotn]

42. Nope. Doesn't. Read original OP.

[Calista241]

55. Nope, still need 60 votes to move the bill to the floor for a vote.

"Of course, to ultimately end debate and pass the voting rights legislation, we will need 10 Republicans to join us — which we know from past experience will not happen — or we will need to change the Senate rules as has been done many times before" Schumer said.

https://www.axios.com/schumer-loophole-elections-reform-fa66e1d0-8e1d-4b05-96a2-ffdfa650a068.html

[paleotn]

84. Got it. Thanks!

[Beetwasher.]

4. TIME TO STOP FUCKING AROUND HAS ARRIVED

Hallelujah!!!!!!!

[unblock]

5. If we do this, will we have 50+1 vote to win the actual vote?

In particular, will manchin and sinema refuse to go along if only to object the bypassing of the filibuster?

[pnwmom]

9. No way to know.

[JohnSJ]

10. That is the question, and based on Manchin's and Sinema's past actions, I see no reason for optimism

[unblock]

15. So far, their objection seem to be about "changing" or "nuking" the filibuster

Bypassing it using an already existing rule hasn't come up so I don't know their views on this

[JohnSJ]

16. I thought Manchin's whole argument was getting bipartisan support on voting rights legislation

He wasn’t keen on making an exception for just voting rights legislation, even he didn’t have a problem with it being used to raise the debt ceiling

I hope he has no problem with this messaging maneuver to bypass the filibuster, and votes for it. I am just not going to get my hopes up.

[unblock]

19. That's been his argument for keeping the filibuster

So that's exactly the question -- is he ok bypassing it instead, or will he insist on "bipartisanship" regardless of the procedure?

[FBaggins]

28. This doesn't bypass the filibuster in terms of passing the bill

They can only bypass the filibuster that would occur to block opening the debate. There is no bypassing the need for cloture to end debate.

[cstanleytech]

37. To pass any legislation into law you have to have a majority vote aye.

Now what was happening though was the Republicans were using ever trick in the book to keep it from even coming to the floor for a vote.
This though will force them to actually go on record and the record will then show if they think all Americans should be allowed to vote or if they do not think they should be allowed.

[wryter2000]

80. Sinema went to the floor of the Senate to say no

I wish I could slap her.

At least, this will stop the impression that Biden and the Dems don't care about this issue and aren't doing anything to advance voting rights. That's super important for turnout in the midterms.

[gab13by13]

6. Yay

[bucolic_frolic]

7. That will set some conservatives' souls on fire!

But you still need 50 Dems for final passage

[Calista241]

56. They need 60 votes to end debate on the bill.

Or, they need 50 votes for a rules change.

[Girard442]

11. Calvinball.

Except Calvinball players usually exhibit a higher level of maturity.

[Mr.Bill]

13. None of this will produce any results

unless all 50 Democratic Senators are on board. Or, of course a few republicans joining us. Does Chuck know something we don't?

[Bayard]

17. Well, first--YAY!

But I don't understand, "substitute the bill's language". Is that like bait and switch?

[madville]

18. Basically yes

They take any bill that has passed the Senate but not been passed by the House yet, it could be renaming a post office or anything, pass it back and forth three times then the House would paste in the voting bills language and the Senate would only need 51 votes to approve the language change and the bill becomes law.

I wonder if the Senate parliamentarian has to weigh in on if it conforms to the rules or not?

[Bayard]

60. Wow

That's a new one on me. Thanks for explaining.

[Drunken Irishman]

72. They still need 60 votes to end debate.

And they're not going to get it. The hope is that when the GOP filibusters, the Dems can bring up a rule to limit the filibuster here - but that will require a majority and Manchin has clearly said he does not support doing so, so we're back to square one.

It ain't happening, unfortunately.

[SallyHemmings]

20. It's a start

[OnDoutside]

21. Can't they just call it the Joe Manchin Voting Rights Bill ? I'm sure John Lewis would understand...

[PortTack]

23. Now there's an idea!

[joanbarnes]

22. so like Dorothy we had the ability all along? What about doing this with BBB?

[paleotn]

46. BBB is spending, thus eligible for reconciliation per the Byrd Rule. Voting rights is not.

[karynnj]

53. BBB is already under reconciliation needing only 50 votes ... meaning it needs all Democrats

as all Republicans are no.

[Takket]

25. i just don't see this going anywhere.

manchin/sinema won't do a carve out, and there is still going to be a filibuster. so, the bill is dead.

[Bettie]

26. Good, glad he found a way

around the obstructionists!

[Hoyt]

29. Do it, rather than announcing it.

[Magoo48]

61. Yes,

These announcements or this BREAKING news, viewed in considered retrospect, is simply:

Maybe blah, blah, blah; then perhaps, blah, blah, blah; if blah, blah, blah.

[PortTack]

30. If manchin and sinema vote no, it will on record and good primary fodder for AZ Dems come '24

[uponit7771]

68. +1, they will still need 60 votes to STOP debate seeing the bypassed votes to open debate by the 3

... switch process.

This is just to get Manchinema on record for history's sake.

[Celerity]

31. this will not work, the text of your own OP explains why

After senators speak, a motion will be made to end debate on the bill and move to final passage. Republican senators could filibuster the motion, but that would be the opportunity for Senate Democrats to pass a carveout of the filibuster rules for voting rights legislation.

Manchin and likely also Sinema will NOT vote for a carve out, so it will still be dead in the water. Tester and Kelly are also balking at a carve out as well atm.

I posted on this 10 hours ago.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216237951

Now onto tactics. Schumer can call up the Freedom to Vote Act (supported by all 50 Senate Democrats) or the Senate version of the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act (supported by all Senate Democrats besides Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia) or both. Both bills have been blocked by unyielding GOP opposition. Schumer can call for their reconsideration at any time.

However, there’s another, more complex plan under consideration to provide an alternative way for Senate consideration.

The House this week is supposed to take up an amendment to a bill dealing with NASA’s leasing “underutilized” property to private entities. The House and Senate have ping-ponged this bill back and forth already.

Under this new plan – which is still just under consideration, it hasn’t been agreed to yet – Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats would use this NASA bill as a shell, strip out the existing language and insert the Freedom to Vote Act instead. The House would then pass this revised bill and send it onto the Senate. Since it’s a “message” between the House and Senate, there’s no filibuster on the motion to proceed to the legislation. That means the Senate could take it up quickly.

Senate Republicans will still filibuster the underlying bill and Schumer would have to file cloture in order to cut off debate and force a vote. That hasn’t changed. So, in sum, a GOP filibuster still has to be overcome, but there’s only one cloture vote, compared to two with a regular bill.

Yet the advantage of this proposed plan is that Schumer would be filing cloture on a voting rights bill that’s already been adopted by the House, instead of the Senate-only version of the legislation. Thus when Republicans filibuster the measure, they’d be blocking a bill that just needs Senate approval in order to head to the president’s desk. It’s a distinction with a difference.

Schumer is expected to unveil more on his next steps today, so let’s return to the strategy discussion. As we said, Schumer doesn’t have the votes to pass the Freedom to Vote Act – any version of it – due to a GOP opposition. And he can’t pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act for the same reason. All 50 Senate Republicans will vote no.

More importantly, Schumer doesn’t have 50 Democratic votes to trigger the “nuclear option” to change Senate rules unilaterally and get rid of the filibuster. Manchin and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) remain opposed to any such move.

Manchin will back some technical changes to the filibuster, although he won’t back getting rid of the 60-vote threshold to cut off debate on a bill.

“I'm not for breaking the filibuster, but I am for making the place work better by changing the rules,” Manchin told reporters on Tuesday, one of several statements he made laying out his continued opposition.

For her part, Sinema met Tuesday night in the LBJ Room with a group of Senate Democrats from the Rules Committee. The group included Sens. Angus King (I-Maine), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Jon Tester (D-Mont.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) to discuss potential rules changes.

As far as we can tell, however, Sinema’s position didn’t change following that session either. More meetings with Manchin and Sinema are likely today, Democratic insiders told us.

[Fiendish Thingy]

49. But this will put those senators on the record as prioritizing the filibuster over voting rights

Any Senator who votes to oppose a carve out will be ending their career.

That includes Kelly and Tester.

[Celerity]

52. Yes, and so ironic that you replied about that, as I just said the same thing in another thread, lol

[ShazzieB]

32. I have a question for all the naysayers in here saying this can't work.

And it is this: Do you think Chuck Schumer is stupid?

This is a serious question. Because announcing this plan without being sure all the i's are dotted and all the t's are crossed would be pretty damned stupid, imo.

Personally, I don't think Chuck Schumer is stupid. I really, really don't.

[h2ebits]

38. True. Schumer is not stupid

[paleotn]

45. Bingo. I will not be dragged into their pity party.

[liberalla]

47. Yes, I'm with you on this... Chuck is not stupid and must have a plan in mind that

he has yet to reveal... I'm most curious to see how this plays out.

God speed, Leader Schumer!

[NYC Liberal]

59. The headline misrepresents what he said.

In the memo he is very clear that this is about having the debate, not bypassing the filibuster to invoke cloture. And he's clear that 60 votes will be needed.

“The Senate will finally debate voting rights legislation, and then every senator will be faced with a choice of whether or not to pass the legislation to protect our democracy,” Schumer wrote in a memo, obtained by POLITICO, to Senate Democrats.

“To ultimately end debate and pass the voting rights legislation, we will need 10 Republicans to join us — which we know from past experience will not happen — or we will need to change the Senate rules as has been done many times before,” Schumer wrote. “How can we in good conscience allow for a situation in which the Republican Party can debate and pass voter suppression laws at the state level with only a simple majority vote, but not allow the United States Senate to do the same?”

[uponit7771]

66. RIGHT !! This is a procedural vote to get people on record not a end around the filibuster

[uponit7771]

65. Of course not, that doesn't mean he wont go through procedural votes to get people on record either

... meaning "you voted against this" is going to be written in history.

[onenote]

33. People are misunderstanding this strategy. It does not bypass the filibuster.

Well, it does and it doesn't.

There are two opportunities to block a bill in the Senate via a filibuster. The first opportunity comes when a motion is made to proceed to consider a piece of legislation -- that is, to open up debate on the bill. Previously, votes on motions to proceed to debate voting rights legislation (both the John Lewis bill and the Manchin sponsored Freedom to Vote bill) failed to get 60 votes, stopping the bills in their tracks.

Schumer's strategy gets around the need for 60 votes just to open debate.

But there has to be a second vote to close debate. And that will still require 60 votes.

When it fails to get 60 votes, Schumer will call for a vote on the nuclear option -- a ruling that 60 votes are not needed to close debate on voting rights legislation. Presumably Manchin and Sinema will vote yea on the motion to close debate. But the question is whether, after that vote falls short of 60, will they support the nuclear option.

[Ellipsis]

36. Thanks for that clarification. n/t

[pnwmom]

50. Yes, everything still hinges on those two. But they need to be put on the spot. nt

[uponit7771]

64. +1

[Tatertot]

34. Is this a back door to a talking filibuster

Seems like they aren’t permitted to filibuster holding the debate. And since debate has begun, aren’t they constrained to maintain 60 votes to end debate and go to a vote…..republicans will be forced to continue debate or let it go to an up or down vote?

Am i missing something? Does debate last for a specified time and then the senate moves to another task, move to vote, move to table, etc?

[Celerity]

35. Manchin's version of the talking filibuster is a sham at the end of the day, as his version still

requires 60 votes for cloture in order to move to a final vote.

[Tatertot]

39. I don't know how that would work

Dems don’t have 60 votes and republicans can’t keep talking indefinitely. Are you sure that Repub. don’t have to maintain 41 votes to defy the motion?

[msfiddlestix]

40. Wow. Excellent News. Was not aware of this procedure.

I'm thinking, are there any limits to applying this procedure for other bills?

[uponit7771]

70. Yes, the fact that we still need 60 votes to END debate this just gets rid of the BEGIN debate part

[msfiddlestix]

73. yeah.. after reading other responses after i posted, my optimism levels dropped to the basement

again. or maybe below the basement at this point.

[uponit7771]

74. Well, this gets around one part of filibuster procedure I'm thinking they'll have SOME way of ...

... progressing these bills.

Dems need to improve messaging mechanics, there's no way we don't have 10 rep senators who we can't do a 1 million dollar ad by in their state to pressure them to do the right thing like they're doing with Manchin in WV.

[myohmy2]

41. creative...

...and resourceful...

...excellent...let's get the job done...

...we should be doing whatever it takes to save and defend our democracy...

...can there be anything more important than securing our elections and vote?

...

[uponit7771]

71. Yes, right now its carving out exception to END debate Schumer's just getting rid of BEGINING debate

[ffr]

48. Makes me want to stand up and shout!!!

[LetMyPeopleVote]

51. This will be fun to watch

Link to tweet

[Celerity]

54. You left out Cooper's 2nd tweet that shows the claim of that reply tweeter to be false

Link to tweet

[markpkessinger]

81. Thank you . . .,

. . . All of the high-fiving going on here over this is absurd!

[Celerity]

82. And as predicted (and I fully documented as to why) I was right

We are (rightly so) quick to rip RWers and antivaxxers, etc, etc, to shreds for lack of critical thinking skills, but then (some, not all of us) toss those very same skills out the window ourselves when the falsely projected positings are in line with our desires.

A perfect example is the Louise Mensch batshittery. Her acolytes were positively viscous towards people who dared to question the drug-addled (self-admitted she had drug-induced permanent brain damage) ex TORY MP's fantasyland conspiratorial rantings. She always was a fraud, some just wilfully chose to overlook the obvious.

[spanone]

57. ...K&R...

[usaf-vet]

58. ///

[uponit7771]

63. ***THIS ISN'T HAPPENING*** "... Democrats to pass a carveout of the filibuster rules ..."

OK, wait ... we're still back at square one ... there's going to be no changes to the filibuster that allows this to pass because.

This is to get opposing Dem senators on record ... we'll see going forward if this changes anything

After senators speak, a motion will be made to end debate on the bill and move to final passage. Republican senators could filibuster the motion, but that would be the opportunity for Senate Democrats to pass a carveout of the filibuster rules for voting rights legislation.

[Roisin Ni Fiachra]

69. Yep. nt

[Buckeyeblue]

76. It would be nice to pass this with bipartisan support

But that's not going to happen. A rights bill is not going to get any republican support because the only rights that they value are guns and religion. It just amazes me that anyone thinks there is a god in 2022.

Anyway, I while I think there is a risk of putting Manchin on the spot like this, I don't think we can continue tip-toeing around his obstructions.

If he is against voting rights then I suppose he should vote no. At least then we'll all know.

[OneCrazyDiamond]

83. not perfect, but gets us better

more details here: https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/chuck-schumer-s-filibuster-dodge-voting-rights-just-may-work-n1287395