Tipping the Lame Duck Balance
by Paul Deaton“What we
don't think about is that even though the Democrats would retain power
in a lame duck session, their majority could be reduced because of the
unelected senators.”
Many of us understand what is at stake in the midterm elections. Something we may not consider came up at the Iowa Peace Initiative Conference in Dubuque, Iowa on Saturday during a conversation about the Senate vote on the New START Treaty. The Democratic majority in the Senate could be reduced on November 3, 2010.
It is no secret that the United States House of Representatives has been churning out legislation much faster than the United States Senate will consider it. There are roughly 375 bills passed by the house, waiting for the senate. When, if ever, will the senate take up these bills? People look to a potential lame duck session of the U.S. Senate to clear up some of them.
What we don't think about is that even though the Democrats would retain power in a lame duck session, their majority could be reduced because of the appointed senators. There are six appointed United States Senators from Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, New York and West Virginia.
Except for in New York, where the date a replacement senator is seated is specified as January 3, 2011 by law, in the other five states, the election winners may be seated immediately after the midterm elections.
NewYork and Delaware seem likely to remain Democratic seats after the
midterm elections. However, in Colorado, Illinois and West Virginia,
there is a real possibility that Democrats could lose the seat. (Florida
is held by a Republican and the Democratic Candidate Kendrick Meeks
trails both Republican Marco Rubio and Independent Charlie Crist in the
polls). In a worst case scenario, if the Colorado, Illinois and West
Virginia Senate elections are won by the Republican candidates, the
number of Democrats in a lame duck session is reduced to 54, and the
challenge of breaking a filibuster and getting New START ratified
becomes even more difficult.
The New START Treaty requires 67 Senators to vote for ratification. With a pre-election vote count of 57 Democrats, 2 Independents and the three Republican members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who voted the treaty out of committee, there are enough votes to break a filibuster, but not enough for ratification. Do the math and we are 5 short, six short if Isakson (R-GA) or Corker (R-TN) change their mind.
For this reason, one can expect the administration to favor a full senate vote on New START before the senate breaks for the fall elections on October 8. The same may be said of other presidential priorities as with a larger minority, the Republican caucus will be more empowered to obstruct the progress of President Obama through use of the filibuster, rendering a lame duck session less effective.
If we thought there was gridlock in Washington during the 111th Congress so far, in a lame duck session, it could be even worse. Because so much is at stake, it is a great time to get involved with the campaigns of progressive candidates. ~Paul
Deaton is a native Iowan living in rural Johnson County and weekend
editor of Blog for Iowa. E-mail Paul
Deaton
Blog For Iowa 