In a cloying little exchange of pleasantries before Arizona senator Kyrsten Sinema spoke from the podium of Mitch McConnell’s eponymous center at the University of Louisville on Monday, the Senate Republican leader called the Democrat “the most effective first-term senator” he’d ever seen. McConnell was probably being sincere given Sinema’s role, along with Joe Manchin, in saving the filibuster, the chief tool in the GOP’s obstructionist bag of tricks. He could have called her a “one-term senator” since her demise in 2024 seems all but certain after she alienated as many Arizona Democrats as she could, but that wouldn’t have been gracious. Instead, he went on to give her the highest token of his esteem, calling her a “deal-maker.”
For her part, Sinema noted that she and McConnell share a “respect for the Senate as an institution,” a statement she reinforced by calling for the restoration of 60-vote thresholds for executive and judicial-branch confirmations in the upper chamber, which were abolished by serial Democratic and Republican majorities in 2013 and 2017, respectively. Sinema is, you see, an old-school respecter of the Senate, which makes me sick to my stomach.
Anyone who spends time around the Senate (I worked there in the late 1980s and early 1990s and with Senate offices for years before and after that) is aware of the extremely high regard in which senators hold themselves “as an institution.” They don’t publicly bash House members as petty-minded, party-bossed parochial Lilliputians who have to spend all their time running for reelection. But the unstated though very real mutual disdain of the two congressional chambers is deeply rooted in the Senate’s distinctive constitutional role as an anti-democratic redoubt of entrenched privilege.
This is nowhere more apparent than in Sinema’s beloved filibuster, which in its most recent incarnation has made supermajorities a requirement for even routine legislation. But lest we forget, even if the filibuster went away, the Senate’s grant of equal power to all 50 states is profoundly undemocratic. The states themselves are not allowed to get away with such a gross misappropriation of legislative power. In the 1964 decision in Reynolds v. Sims, the U.S. Supreme Court held that, under the Equal Protection Act of the 14th Amendment, state legislatures had to respect the principal of “one person, one vote,” with seats in the upper as well as lower chambers being awarded in districts of equal population. As Chief Justice Earl Warren famously wrote in the Court’s opinion in a 8-1 decision:
“Legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests. As long as ours is a representative form of government, and our legislatures are those instruments of government elected directly by and directly representative of the people, the right to elect legislators in a free and unimpaired fashion is a bedrock of our political system.”
The logic is the same with respect to the model for all those once-oligarchical state upper chambers, the U.S. Senate itself. But the Senate has its own separate, unassailable constitutional basis. The Article I, Section 3 provision of the Constitution providing for equal representation of states in the Senate is expressly exempted from amendment in Article V (“no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate”). So we are stuck with an anti-democratic chamber. But we don’t have to celebrate it.
It’s important to remember the two reasons we have a U.S. Senate. First, it represented a compromise with those in the founding generation who wanted an unelected body like Britain’s House of Lords to counteract “the people’s House,” the lower chamber. But more important, as James Madison made clear in “Federalist 62,” it was essential to the ratification of the Constitution that the country maintain its original character as a compact of states, not as a truly United States:
“It may be remarked, that the equal vote allowed to each state, is at once a constitutional recognition of the portion of sovereignty remaining in the individual states, and an instrument for preserving that residuary sovereignty …
“Another advantage accruing from this ingredient in the constitution of the senate is, the additional impediment it must prove against improper acts of legislation. No law or resolution can now be passed without the concurrence, first, of a majority of the people, and then, of a majority of the states.”
This understanding of the country as a modified confederation of states with a stronger central government than it originally had more or less perished with the outcome of the Civil War and the ratification of the Civil Rights Amendments (including the 14th Amendment, that great and still-evolving guarantee of individual rights against states rights). But the Senate remains as a relic of the era when McConnell’s hero Henry Clay and a host of other patriarchal slaveholders held the Union temporarily together by engaging in “deal-making” at the expense of human dignity. The 17th Amendment, ratified in 1913 and providing for the popular election of senators instead of letting state legislatures choose them, took the chamber as far toward democracy as a flawed Constitution would allow.
“Respect for the Senate as an institution” means contempt for democracy as a fundamental value. That is why those with respect for democracy — particularly those who profess to be a member of the Democratic Party — should do everything possible to minimize the Senate’s ability to function according to the Founders’ design instead of boasting about making the chamber even more susceptible to high-handed measures to frustrate the popular will.
10,000 Voters in PA just had their polls moved. And they don’t know.
The Republican Board of Elections in Lackawanna County just changed voting locations for 21 precincts.
And the voters don’t know.
10 to 15,000 PA voters could show up at their regular polls, find them closed, and not know where to vote.
It’s Friday before election day and postcards announcing the change won’t be in the mail until tonight. What if they don’t arrive? Or don’t get read? One smallish ad is running on Saturday in one local paper. What if no one notices?
The Democrats are organizing a volunteer effort for people to stand at the old polls and give directions to the new. But the polls are open in PA from 7am to 8pm. It’s 21 precincts. They need a lot of people.
But this is easy, significant GOTV for people who were uncomfortable with traditional doorbell ringing or phone calling. All you have to do is stand there and give directions.
Scranton PA is only 90 minutes from NYC.
To help, e-mail AlanEGross@aol.com or Calyndha@aol.com. Put “POLL GOTV” in the subject line.
What meaning, if any, can be ascribed to Novak’s (i.e., Rovian) claim today (see excerpt) that Zogby is now essentially calling the race for Bush based on the latter’s current read of the polls?
WASHINGTON — Pollster John Zogby surprised the political world back in April with a long-range prediction that John Kerry would defeat George W. Bush for president. On Monday this week, Zogby told me, he changed his mind. He now thinks the president is more likely to be re-elected because he has reinforced support from his base, including married white women.
That conclusion would be a surprise for frantically nervous Republicans and cautiously upbeat Democrats entering the campaign’s final days. In fact, nobody, including Zogby and all the other polltakers, can be sure who will win this election. Yet, it is clear that President Bush’s strategists have succeeded in solidifying his base to a degree that makes it much harder to defeat him next Tuesday.
Thanks, Ruy, for this and Memory Lane.
It does much to lighten the burden of an oppressed and lifelong Dem.
I personally don’t believe the LA Times poll on Florida, nor do I believe the alleged 9-point lead for Kerry from the suppressed CBS survey (a 4-point lead for Kerry seems reasonable, though a bit high on the Kerry side.) Both results seem implausible (though of course either could be right.), so why not release all the polls? We politically knowledgeable folks can sift through them and root out the clearly wrong-looking ones. Unfortunately, the media doesn’t always do the same (Exhibit A: Gallup.)
Incidentally, I read that Kerry’s lead among likely voters in the LAT’s Ohio poll was 6 points, larger than the RV margin. In fact, that also seems too large to be believed.
I’m starting to think the polls are even more UNreliable than I first thought… Great piece in the WP today… Refusals, caller ID, etc. are making it incredibly difficult to actually reach a random sample of Americans…According to the story, “less than one in five calls produces a completed interview — raising doubts whether such polls accurately reflect the views of the public or merely report the opinions of stay-at-home Americans who are too bored, too infirm or too lonely to hang up…”
If Gallop has Kerry leading in PA by 2 and in Iowa by 1, then he must really be up by 5 or 6, judging by their previous accuracy.
Kerry in a Landslide!
Transparency International publishes a Corruption Perception Index for countries. It may be worthwhile to publish something similar for state election processes. Consider: very few people are fretting at the moment about transparency or reliability of voting in Utah or Maine. The idea of 60,000 absentee ballots vanishing is almost inconceivable. In Florida or Ohio, on the other hand, the lack of transparency and likelihood of hanky-panky is practically a given. In worst-case situations, like voting in the Soviet Union, the certainty of the vote rises to 100% and the trustworthiness of the vote as a measure of actual voter desires approaches zero.
Is there a statistical methodology that can be applied in addition to standard polls that would anticipate for fraud? Or at least, like in moral hazard questions, quantify the susceptibility of particular voting arrangements to abuse?
absentee ballot link= http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6346293/
Have you heard anything more about the supposed CBS/NY Times Florida poll (discussed on both MyDD and Atrios on Wednesday) that had Kerry up by 8 or 9 and was returned for further investigation due to the “implausibility” of this scenario. (A further version of this rumor was that the new, adjusted results still had Kerry up 4 … but there’s been nothing yet released.)
What are the internals on that Florida poll? Strange that a CBS poll showing Kerry up 9 in Florida is suppressed while a Gallup and LA Times poll showing Bush up 9 is published. Both are equally wrong – Florida is ties and turnout will determine the winner.