With COVID-19 relief out of the way, Democrats are shifting their attention to their next top priority: voting rights.
Last week, the House voted 220–210 to pass H.R. 1, a sweeping voting rights and elections reform bill. (CNN)
What does H.R. 1 do? 🗳️Creates automatic voter registration 🗳️Establishes independent redistricting commissions
But, H.R. 1 will likely face a major obstacle on the Senate floor: the 60-vote legislative filibuster.
Democrats have long called to get rid of the legislative filibuster, citing its history blocking civil rights legislation.
But, Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema confirmed in Feb. that they would vote against ending the filibuster.
Manchin, during a Sun. interview on "Fox News Sunday" signaled that he was open to reforming the filibuster.
Manchin suggested a return to a "talking filibuster" that would last as long as senators could debate on the floor.
How is that different? A talking filibuster would remove the 60-vote threshold required to end a filibuster. (Vox)
A talking filibuster would require filibustering Senators to be on the floor for the entire duration of their speech. (Vox)
After the Senator is finished speaking, the filibuster is over; legislation can then be passed by a simple majority vote.
The downside? A talking filibuster could be weaponized by a minority party to delay and halt business in the Senate.
WH press secretary Jen Psaki told reporters Mon. that Pres. Biden was opposed to getting rid of the legislative filibuster.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who in 2017 removed the filibuster from SCOTUS nominees, said Wed.:
McConnell: "[The filibuster is] a feature, not a bug, that slim majorities can't ram through half-baked ideas."
House Majority Whip Rep. Jim Clyburn has another take on reform: making civil rights legislation filibuster-proof.
Stacey Abrams also endorsed the idea in March on MSNBC: "[Voting rights] should be subject to a [filibuster] carveout."