imberley Strassel recently opined in The Wall Street Journal about the “hot air” of the talking filibuster strategy currently being considered by Senate Republicans as a way of passing the SAVE America Act, a bill that would mandate voter ID in federal elections, require proof of citizenship for registering to vote, and make states purge noncitizens from their voter rolls.
The Senate rules provide two ways to break a filibuster. The first is the mechanical way, by invoking cloture (the Senate’s term for ending debate), which requires 60 votes. The second, which has existed within the Senate’s rules since its inception, is by making senators talk — the “talking filibuster.”
The talking filibuster is a strategy that, first and foremost, imposes a physical and psychological cost of obstruction on filibustering senators. Second, it forces a public political process that has implications for those who oppose the bill. In other words, it doesn’t allow them to hide behind a single vote. If Democrats want to oppose securing the vote from the interference of noncitizens, they should have to explain why — at length and in public.
Strassel has provided several reasons for opposing this strategy, challenges she calls “false promises and huge problems.” But her essay leaves out critical details, makes some key factual errors, and is based on unwarranted assumptions. I’ll respond to each of her objections one by one.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member