In the upcoming days, a crucial election will take place that might not capture as many headlines as the national ballots, but it holds significant implications for the future of American governance. This election, occurring shortly after November 5, will involve a mere 50 votes but will determine the next Senate majority leader. The gravity of this decision extends beyond party lines, affecting the functionality of the entire Congress and influencing which legislative issues will take center stage.
Currently, the Democratic Party controls the Senate, bolstered by four independents who align with them, providing a slim majority. However, this landscape is poised for a shift. With tough election battles in states like Montana and West Virginia that are leaning toward Republican wins and potential gains in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, the GOP stands on the precipice of seizing the Senate majority. The potential for Republicans to secure a minimum of 51 seats, or even climb to 54, presents a unique opportunity to restore a conservative approach to Senate leadership and governance.
The forthcoming decision will determine not just party control but the very manner in which the Senate operates. Historically, the Senate was a bastion of American democracy, characterized by open and respectful debate where all senators had the opportunity to present amendments. However, this democratic tradition has eroded over the decades. Beginning in the 1990s, there was a shift towards backroom negotiations, where bipartisan groups formulated agreements behind closed doors. These deals were presented to the full Senate with a predetermined commitment to reject all amendments, thus sidelining individual senator input and diminishing transparency in legislative proceedings.
The increase of this practice reached its zenith during the administrations of Presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump, where Senate Majority Leaders Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell, respectively, frequently used a procedure known as “filling the tree.” This tactic prevented other senators from offering amendments, centralizing power and stifling open debate. The stark reduction of amendment votes — one-third from 1969-1990 to 1999-2020 — is a testament to this declining openness.
This approach, while politically expedient, restricts the people’s business to closed-door negotiations dominated by entrenched interests. The Senate thus transforms into a lobbyist’s paradise, where transparency is sacrificed, and special interest groups wield disproportionate influence. For those who champion accountable and open governance, this trend is deeply concerning.
In response, conservative voices, including those like Sen. Mike Lee of Utah, advocate for a reformation within Senate processes. Although Sen. Lee is not a candidate for Senate majority leader, his call to circumscribe the use of “filling the tree” resonates with many seeking to empower all senators to present amendments openly. This sentiment is echoed by the bipartisan group Fixing Congress, which champions increased legislative transparency and accountability.
Revitalizing the process by which senators can bring amendments to the floor and ensuring those amendments receive due consideration is not an all-encompassing solution. However, it represents a vital step toward reinvigorating congressional accountability and transparency. Embracing this shift will demand more of our senators, requiring them to confront challenging votes in the public eye and justify their legislative choices to the citizens they serve. This is not just desirable; it’s essential to maintain the integrity of the democratic process.
For too long, the legislative arm of governance has operated in obscurity, eschewing the robust debate that is the lifeblood of democracy. As the election of a new Senate majority leader approaches, it presents a pivotal moment to restore the Senate’s original purpose, upholding its role as a deliberative body where every voice is heard and every vote is on record.
