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.
Regarding Steve’s question above, on election day undecided voters historically tend to vote 2 to 1 for the challenger (sometimes 3 to 1) so what you tend to see is a late movement for the challenger compared to the final polls.
The net effect of all this is that the incumbent’s actual poll number (Bush) reflects his ceiling, the max he can get, where as the challenger’s real number will be much higher than his current polling.
So where Bush is below 50% he is likely to be overtaken by the late surge for Kerry (according to the rule of thumb)
Please help me to understand. In the individual state
polls. If Bush is leading (by whatever margin), then
what differance does it make if he is below 50 ?
WaPo tracking poll just out shows Bush margin over Kerry by 1%–down from 4% yesterday. (But another Hawaii poll shows Bush up one point). T.J.
The two Nevada polls are encouraging, as are Rasmussen’s statewide polls for Michigan and Iowa. Also, Rasmussen shows Bush and Kerry separated by less than 1/2%. The ABC tracking poll now has Bush up by a mere 1%, while stating that Kerry had his best day of polling yesterday (Saturday) since October 2nd. That conflicts with Zogby who reports that on Saturday Bush reached 50% for the first time, with Kerry at 43%. Confusing, isn’t it? I think that this wide disparity in the polls reflects the fact that Kerry has large undereported support among young voters who 1) have only a cell phone, or 2) are more likely to be unavailable when surveyers call. I firmly believe that the nation will be surprised when this previously unheard from block of voters flock to the polls in record numbers.
I hope I’m not just seeing through blue-tinted glasses, but this and other recent posts seem to support the “undecideds breaking for challenger” assumption:
In both FL and NV, whichever poll finds the lower number of undecideds also has a better Kerry number. And in my home state of TN, a just-released Mason-Dixon poll –
http://tennessean.com/elections/2004/archives/04/09/60256115.shtml?Element_ID=60256115
– shows Kerry going from 16 points down to 12 down, *exactly* matching a 4-point decrease in undecideds from a month ago. I don’t hold out much hope for TN, but if this kind of evidence continues to mount, we may be in for some very pleasant surprises wherever Bush is at 49% or less.
And from this perspective the 43-43 “tie” in Hawaii is nothing to lose sleep over–unless of course you can use your insomnia to make GOTV calls to an appropriate time zone.
Nevada’s polls are open. I’m on my way up to work the precincts. Start the surge for Kerry!
Best Bumper Sticker of 2004 campaign was found in Puerto Vallarta, Mx:
“Pull the Cheney…Flush Bush”…only eight more days…hallelujah..goyo
WOW!!!
Maine Kerry 50
Bush 49
Zogby Intl..(I know)
This will be the week of the Great Breakout
Polishing the Ann Richards Turkey Fork
Ruy, what do you make of the Hawaii poll that has it dead even at 43%, with 10% undecided. I spend part of the year there and Hawaii’s about as Democratic as it gets so its shocking. Friends in Hawaii say it’s unlikely that Bush could win there, a little campaigning by Inouye for his veteran buddy Kerry is all what’s needed I was told.