As senators returned to work last week, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer sent a letter to his members that went further than many expected. The New York Democrat not only called for passing voting rights legislation through majority rule, he also set a rather specific timeline.
If the Republican minority refuses to allow action on voting rights, Schumer wrote, the Senate “will debate and consider changes to Senate rules on or before January 17, Martin Luther King Jr. Day, to protect the foundation of our democracy: free and fair elections.”
That date, of course, is seven days from today — which means a whole lot is riding on what happens this week.
Let’s recap with some Q&A.
What bill is on the table?
There are actually two pending pieces of legislation — the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act — that constitute the Democrats’ voting rights agenda. Both bills appear to enjoy unanimous support among the conference’s 50 members.
If the bills have majority support, what’s the problem?
Given the routinization of Senate abuses, the fact that the bills have the votes to pass doesn’t matter: Republican filibusters are blocking both pieces of legislation. To overcome GOP obstructionism, the bills would each need 60 votes, not 50, which is proving impossible.
So, game over?
Not yet. A great many Senate Democrats, including several former skeptics, are pushing a “nuclear option” strategy in which the governing majority creates an exception to the chamber’s filibuster rules, based on the idea that voting rights are so fundamental to democracy, and the Republican campaign against the right to vote is so dangerous, that the party doesn’t have a choice but to act, whether the GOP likes it or not.
How many votes would it take to execute this strategy?
50.
And how many votes currently exist?
By most counts, 48.
Let me guess.
Right. Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona have said they support the bills, but they want to leave the filibuster rules intact, no matter what the consequences are for democracy.
Is it safe to assume there’s an aggressive lobbying campaign underway to change their minds?
Is it working?








