In the midst of election season, one crucial vote often gets overlooked – the election for Senate majority leader. Although it won’t be a widely publicized contest, the outcome will significantly impact the functioning of the next Congress, regardless of who wins the presidency. On November 5, millions of Americans will cast their ballots for various offices, but just a day later, a much smaller group of around 50 people will decide the fate of the Senate majority leader.
The current balance of power in the Senate favors the Democratic Party, with 47 senators identifying as Democrats and four independents who caucus with them, giving them a total of 51 votes. However, this advantage is likely to be short-lived, as the party faces a challenging electoral map. The Democrats are expected to lose seats in Montana and West Virginia, and Republicans are poised to make gains in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. As a result, the Republicans should secure at least 51 seats, and their majority could potentially swell to 54.
The Senate majority leader plays a crucial role in determining the chamber’s agenda and has significant procedural powers, including the ability to decide which bills to prioritize and which amendments to allow. Historically, the Senate has operated as a collegial institution, where each senator’s office was respected, and amendments were freely debated on the floor. However, this began to change in the 1990s, when bipartisan “gangs” of senators would meet behind closed doors, craft legislation, and then present it to the full body with a commitment to reject any amendments that might jeopardize the compromise.
This approach, while effective for landmark legislation, has become the norm, stifling democratic participation and transparency. The Senate’s written rules, which can only be altered by statute or a supermajority, grant the majority leader the power to “fill the tree,” effectively blocking other senators from offering amendments. This tactic has been employed by both Democratic and Republican majority leaders, including Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell, who have used it to limit debate and prevent amendments.
The results are stark: between 1969 and 1990, the Senate cast amendment votes on approximately three times as many bills as it did between 1999 and 2020. The 101st Congress, which met in 1990, saw amendment votes on 59 bills, whereas the most recent Congress had only 15. This has led to a system where most legislative business is conducted in secret, with little input from other senators and minimal transparency.
To combat the influence of special interests, it is essential to move legislative debate out of closed-door meetings and onto the Senate floor. Sen. Mike Lee, who is not running for majority leader, has called on his colleagues to support a candidate who promises to limit the use of “filling the tree” and facilitate amendment votes. The bipartisan group Fixing Congress has also endorsed similar policies in a recent report.
Empowering senators to participate in amendment debates is not a panacea, but it is a crucial step towards restoring transparency and democratic participation in the Senate. It will require senators to take more votes on more issues, many of which will be difficult, but ultimately, it is the only way to hold them accountable. The time has come to bring Senate amendment votes back into the public eye and restore the democratic spirit that once defined the institution.
