Paxton Makes Thune an Offer He Can’t Refuse
It’s blindingly obvious that Senate Majority Leader John Thune would much rather have Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) back in Congress for six more years than see him replaced by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. But Cornyn’s failure to capture anywhere near 50 percent of last week’s primary vote, plus the prospect of an ugly and expensive runoff, doesn’t bode well for his future. Despite the far left and genuinely weird Democrat nominee, James Talarico, Cornyn’s unpopularity may reduce GOP turnout in the general election enough to cause his Senate seat to flip blue. This is why Thune should pounce on Paxton’s tentative offer to drop out of the race if the Senate passes the SAVE America Act.
Sunday morning, President Trump put even more pressure on Thune to get moving on the legislation by taking to Truth Social and issuing the following ultimatum: “I, as President, will not sign other Bills until this is passed.” The SAVE America Act would, of course, require everyone to provide documentary proof of citizenship before registering to vote and to show a photo ID to cast a ballot. Senate Democrats, who fear few things more than election integrity, would certainly filibuster the bill. Yet the Republican leadership is under increasing pressure to either kill the filibuster or force Senate Democrats to endure a “talking filibuster,” which would require them to stand on their feet and talk hour after hour in order to block the bill.
It’s the perfect issue with which to flip the script on the Democrats.
This is what most Americans imagine when they hear the term, “filibuster.” Until Senate rules were changed in the 20th century that was the only way a Senate vote could be blocked by the minority party. But the days of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington are long gone. In 1975, the Senate adopted a rule to allow a three-fifths majority of all senators to end a filibuster. Consequently, a vote of 60 senators is required for cloture (ending debate). The current 53-47 GOP majority obviously doesn’t control 60 votes, so a single Democrat can initiate a “silent filibuster” by objecting to a unanimous consent request to move forward with a bill. But a talking filibuster can be forced by a simple majority without a rules change according to Heritage Action:
Once a quorum [51 Senators] has been established, senators opposed to the bill have two options: give speeches or offer motions or amendments. To do this, there would need to be at least 20 opposition allies on the floor to provide a sufficient second on the motion required to initiate a roll call vote. If there were fewer than 20, the bill supporters could table amendments by voice votes. Further, supporters of the bill could prevent any amendments from receiving a vote by offering a motion to table and voting to set aside the amendment under consideration. The final option is endless debate: the talking filibuster. This process becomes grueling very quickly.
This does not, by the way, require 51 supporters of the bill to remain on the Senate floor at all times. Republicans would need to remain close by, and in communication with Majority Leader Thune in case Democrats suddenly demand a quorum call. At length, the Democrats would run out of allowed speeches and motions, the bill would go straight to a vote and would only require a simple majority of 51 votes to pass. More likely, the process would end in a negotiated settlement whereby the Republicans agree to change some provision of the bill in exchange for enough Democrat votes to invoke cloture. The talking filibuster is a good compromise for the Republican senators who foolishly refuse to “nuke” the moribund “silent filibuster.”
It’s the perfect issue with which to flip the script on the Democrats. It would force them to explain on the floor of the Senate — beneath the unforgiving eye of C-SPAN — why they object to a bill that requires only a few easy-to-understand elements of election integrity. Moreover, poll after poll indicates that the primary features of the SAVE America Act are wildly popular with the public — including a majority of Democrats. Last August, for example, Pew Research found that 83 percent of respondents strongly or somewhat favored “requiring all voters to show government-issued photo identification to vote.” Why, then, do the Democrats oppose it? The only plausible explanation was provided by President Trump in his recent SOTU:
I’m asking you to approve the Save America Act. To stop illegal aliens and others, who are unpermitted persons, from voting in our sacred American elections. The cheating is rampant in our elections. It’s rampant. It’s very simple. All voters must show voter ID.… Why would anybody not want voter ID? One reason: because they want to cheat. There’s only one reason. They make up all excuses. They say it’s racist, they come up with things — you almost say, “What imagination they have.” They want to cheat. They have cheated. And their policy is so bad that the only way they can get elected is to cheat and we’re going to stop it. We have to stop it, John. We have to stop it.
Which brings us back to Paxton and the President’s red line on the SAVE America Act. Paxton does not want to drop out of the Texas Senate race, and he would be a better Senator than John Cornyn. Nonetheless, he seems willing to do so in order to give Senate Majority Leader John Thune an incentive to stop dithering on the legislation. Trump, like many of his supporters, is frustrated that the House of Representatives has passed two versions of this bill — despite its microscopic majority. Yet, somehow, the Republican leadership in the Senate can’t bestir themselves to bring it to the floor for a vote. The public wants it passed and the President wants to sign it into law. Only the Democrats and a few GOP senators disagree. Hmm …
READ MORE from David Catron:
The Democrats’ Epic Fury Over Iran Strikes