A Beginner's Tour of the US Elections: The Power of the Majority and the Senate Race in Nevada

Lee Haddigan continues his pre-election tour of the US with a look at the Senate race in the western state of Nevada:

The Senate and the House of Representatives have different operational rules of operation, the most important which is the ability of a minority in the upper house to block the passage of bills they do not support.

In the House, majority opinion invariably rules: if 218 of the 435 representatives vote for an act, it passes. In the Senate, however, 41 of the 100 member can block a bill using the the filibuster. This is the Senate’s role as a supposed check, as a chamber of deliberation and compromise, on the will of the people as expressed in the lower house.

Still, a majority of 51 in the Senate bestows significant powers on a party significant powers. The majority party elect a leader, and he/she has the authority to either severely hinder or vitally promote the legislative and executive agenda of the President.

It is the influence that the Majority Leader wields which makes the current Senate race in Nevada --- pronounced with a harsh a, as in cat, not the soft a in car --- so intriguing. The present leader, Harry Reid, is locked in a titanic struggle with a Tea Party candidate, Sharron Angle; in years to come, historians will make the Silver State the focus of their discussion of the 2010 Congressional elections.

Currently there are 57 Democrat Senators, 41 Republicans, and 2 Independents who usually vote with the Democrats. In practice, the Democrats can usually count on 59 of 100 members, but this is insufficent votes to ensure that Democrat-backed legislation such as the DISCLOSE Act is passed.

Predictions for the numbers in the next Senate stand, as of 20 October, at 48 likely Democrat/Independent seats, 44 likely Republican seats, and eight races still rated as a toss-up. One of those too close to call is in Nevada. The Real Clear Politics average of all recent polls taken recently gives Angle 45.6% and Reid 45.2%. (The numbers are skewed in Nevada by the inclusion on the ballot of a “none of the above” option.)

Without denigrating the importance of economic concerns for voters in other states, it is in Nevada that the problems of unemployment and mortgage foreclosures come into sharpest focus. The state, once the fastest-growing in the country, is now suffering from the highest jobless and foreclosure rates in the nation.

Inevitably, Reid comes under fire for these difficulties. You can make a valid argument that the recession is the fault of policies undertaken by the previous administration, but that does not hide the fact that the legislation designed to end the recession, with Reid as a major architect, has failed in Nevada. As the election looms, the two candidates trading blows over those issues in a 60-minute debate in Las Vegas last Thursday. 

What further distinguishes this race is that Angle is not your typical Republican politician. Reid cannot accuse her of helping bring about the recession as she has never held a federal office. Indeed, Angle's economic views on a limited government role are as opposed to the spending increases of the Bush-era Republicans as they are are to Obama’s stimulus package. Reid cannot intimate that Angle would only carry on politics as usual in Washington. 

So what happens if Reid falls and the Republicans will pick up a few seats in the Senate on 2 November? Because the Senate is a more prestigious body than the House, with its longer terms and larger constituencies, it exercises powers that the lower chamber of Congress does not. For instance, the President cannot ratify a treaty until he has asked for the ‘advice and consent’ of the Senate. Of more immediate concern for Democrats is the Senate’s role in confirming the appointment of Cabinet secretaries and federal judges.

This is where the importance of a simple majority becomes evident. Though it is highly unlikely the next Congress will see a vacancy appear on the Supreme Court, even the possibility explains how a Republican majority could obstruct the agenda of the executive.

When a new position becomes available on the Court, the administration nominates a person it believes is fit to take the seat. The possible appointee is then scrutinised by the Senate Judiciary Committee, who can either approve the nomination for examination by the Senate as a whole, or impede the process by keeping the nomination in Committee. When and if the candidate appears before the entire Senate, the nomination can be blocked by a simple majority.

And this is where the authority of the Senate Majority Leader fbecomes apparent. At the start of each Congress, the Senate committees are assigned members in accord with the overall representation of the parties in Congress. If the Republicans have greater numbers in the Senate, they will have a slight majority in the 16 different committees.

The powers of the committee, whose chairs are selected by the Majority Leader, are extensive. In theory, they are mini-Senates convened to discuss proposed legislation and nominations, with the ultimate power of refusing to allow those subjects to come before the full Senate for final approval. Bills can languish and nominations stall indefinitely, with little the minority can do other than hope to appeal to a bipartisan compromise.

The Majority Leader is also responsible for deciding the legislative agenda of the Senate. In theory, bills are debated in the order, or Calendar, that they emerge from committees. In practice, however, the Leader, usually after discussions with his Minority counterpart, sets the times when proposed legislation and nominations will be inspected.

Then there is practice of the filibuster, with a cloture vote of a majority of 60 Senators needed to overcome the obstructionist tactic. Recourse to a cloture vote is also the only means of ending the delay in consideration of legislation by a method known as the “hold”. Senate rules state that, for consideration of a bill to occur, it must receive unanimous consent. This means that if one Senator objects to the motion to consider, they have put a hold on discussion.

Traditionally, a hold was used by a Senator to give them more time to investigate the consequences of a bill. In recent times, however, the hold has become increasingly used as a strategy for frustrating the legislative aims of the majority.

The most despicable aspect of the hold, for many, is that it can be done anonymously as well as publicly. Attempts have been made to end the use of the "secret hold", but crafty politicians have found ways around the 2007 Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007", which required public notice of anonymous holds to be released after six session days. In a maneuver known as tag-teaming, a Senator places a hold on a motion. Five days later they remove their hold, at which point another Senator puts a hold on the motion, and so on and so on.

What makes the use of the hold so intriguing in the next Senate is its possible adoption by maverick Tea Party representatives who manage to pull off victory in their contests. A Senator like Sharron Angle may not be shy in putting a hold on legislation, even if it is supported by the Republican caucus, if she feels it betrays the principles of the conservative movement she represents.

(The subject of the filibuster and the hold began to receive extensive attention of the Senate Rules Committee in the last session of Congress, with several suggestions for how procedures can be reformed to make the Senate more efficient. Transcripts of the committee hearings are available at the rules.senate.gov website.)

The election in Nevada may well see the ousting of Harry Reid as Senate Majority Leader, either by his loss to Angle or by the Republicans winning enough of the seven other toss-up seats to relegate him to a member of the minority. Either way, one thing is certain: neither party will achieve the super-majority of 60 Senators needed to ensure the passage of controversial legislation in the next Congress by defeating any filibuster. If Reid survives as Majority Leader, Democrats will have a greater chance of proposing liberal legislation, but as current Senate rules, they stand little chance of passing them. A Republican Majority Leader, despite the advantages of controlling the composition of Senate committees, will face a similar predicament when it comes to passing conservative legislation.

In fact, unless the Senate miraculously rediscovers the bipartisan tone of compromise it once possessed, it is hard to see what either party with a simple majority can hope to accomplish in the next two years. Common sense will ensure that some accommodation is reached on approving a budget, but on other matters the filibuster and the hold are increasingly becoming first strike weapons instead of weapons of last resort. Perhaps the most significant event in the next Senate --- if it occurs --- will be the rewriting of the rules that govern the institution to make it work.