Democrats Seek Filibuster Changes to Pass Elections Bills

“You can think of January as a moment when two different forces are converging,” said

Sen. Jeff Merkley

(D., Ore.), who has been a leader in negotiations on both rules changes and voting legislation. “One is the functionality of the Senate and the other is the functionality of our republic.”

Democrats have called passing new elections legislation their priority, arguing that minority voters need protections from new state rules. Republicans have blocked election-related bills in the Senate, and they paint calls to change the filibuster as a power grab. GOP lawmakers say the proposed changes to election law would put voting rules under the control of the federal government with little sensitivity to election security or local needs.

“I’ve always thought that the diversity of the election system in our country was really one of the strengths of the system,” said

Sen. Roy Blunt

(R., Mo.), a former Missouri secretary of state who is also the top Republican on the Senate committee that handles elections policy. “The fact that states do this in slightly different ways makes it harder to disrupt our system than it might otherwise be.”

A revised version of Mr. Biden’s roughly $2 trillion climate and social-spending legislation, known as Build Back Better, is also headed to the Senate floor, despite not currently having the 50 votes it needs to advance under a special budget process called reconciliation. Senate Majority Leader

Chuck Schumer

(D., N.Y.) has projected a vote early in the new year, with a series of votes until some version passes.

The proposal seeks to create a universal prekindergarten program, subsidize child-care costs, lower prescription-drug costs and offer tax credits for reducing carbon emissions, among other measures.

Sen. Joe Manchin

(D., W.Va.) stopped the bill dead in its tracks in mid-December, citing its possible impact on inflation as well as the way its price tag was calculated, which he said understated its true cost if programs were extended.

Some supporters said there was still hope of reviving at least parts of the package.

“There’s a lot of discussion taking place, including this week, in an effort to bring this together,” said

Sen. Ben Cardin

(D., Md.) on Thursday.

As Build Back Better stalled, Democrats turned their attention to voting rights and the filibuster. Mr. Biden has signaled he could back modifications to the filibuster if needed to pass voting-rights legislation.

Democrats have unified around two election bills. The Freedom to Vote Act would overhaul election rules nationwide. Another, named after the late lawmaker and civil-rights leader

John Lewis,

would give the federal government more control over state voting procedures after a pair of Supreme Court rulings weakened the 1965 Voting Rights Act, a multipronged law that gave Washington control over changes to voting rules in states with a history of racial discrimination.

Mr. Schumer said in a letter to colleagues last month that he would bring voting legislation to the Senate floor as soon as the first week the chamber returns. A representative for Mr. Schumer declined to comment on either the substance or timing of voting legislation.

The Democratic leader said that Democrats would proceed to consider rules changes if Republicans again filibuster the elections legislation, as they did in the past year.

Defenders of the filibuster say it encourages bipartisan cooperation and prevents policy from swinging between extremes when a new party takes control. Republicans also note that Democrats used the filibuster when they were in the minority.

Creating a new precedent to change the filibuster rule would require a majority vote in the Senate, and Mr. Manchin as well as

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema

(D., Ariz.) have said they oppose eliminating the rule. As such, lawmakers are discussing various modifications to the filibuster, short of eliminating it outright.

According to Democratic senators and activists, one approach would eliminate the 60-vote hurdle needed to simply initiate a debate on the Senate floor about a bill, while leaving in place a later 60-vote hurdle needed to end debate. Another would be aimed at guaranteeing a certain amount of debate time and certain amendment votes.

A third would put more of the onus on opponents of a bill to block it. Instead of requiring 60 senators to vote to proceed to the vote, 41 senators would be required to show up in person to block a vote. To make the requirement meaningful, a vote could be called at any time, in effect forcing 41 objecting senators to be on hand at all hours to thwart a bill.

“I think you’re going to be seeing more detail now that we’ve got at least some of the outlines of a proposal—or more than one—that would create a process where it might take days and even weeks of floor time, but we’ll have a full airing or a full hearing on big issues,” said

Sen. Bob Casey

(D., Penn.).

Mr. Blunt, who said he had broached possible changes to the filibuster with Mr. Schumer back in early 2016, said he was skeptical of Democrats’ motives.

“Are you looking for a change in how the Senate functions?” he said. “Or are you looking for temporary partisan advantage? And I think it’s clear that they’re more focused in this discussion on what you could do to take advantage of the moment.”

Write to Siobhan Hughes at [email protected]