The Balance of Power in the Senate
We were all watching closely on Tuesday, December 6, when a runoff election in the United States Senate determined the balance of power in that body for the next two years. Senator Kyrsten Sinema threw us a curve ball this morning (more about that in a minute), but the Democratic Party’s margin in the Senate is still expected to have a significant impact on how well President Biden’s agenda will fare in the next two years.
On Wednesday, Andrew Wortman (a Democratic activist whose Twitter feed I follow) posted a thread in which he explained the benefits for the Democrats of having a 51-49 majority in the Senate rather than the 50-50 tie they lived with for the past two years. Here are the advantages he listed:
COMMITTEES/APPOINTMENTS. In a 50-50 Senate, any tie votes are broken by the Vice President, which the committees operate under a power-sharing agreement and are evenly split. So the Judiciary Committee, for example, which considers all judicial nominations, has 11 senators from each party. Now that Warnock was reelected, Democrats completely organize the Senate and have majorities on ALL COMMITTEES. What does this mean?
Democrats can afford a dissenter among their ranks without sinking every nomination, meaning judges and administrative posts will be confirmed more easily.
High-priority nominations like cabinet secretaries and appellate judges will get confirmed regardless of GOP delays. And district court judges and less prominent executive-branch positions are almost guaranteed to pass and do so more quickly.
Democratic majorities on committees can conduct oversight investigations that Republicans object to. While not all oversight is partisan (unless you’re the House GOP, of course) a clear majority will make hearings and investigations proceed more smoothly for senate Democrats. With the dumpster fire that is now SCOTUS, Democrats need to confirm judges for lower courts as quickly as possible. Republicans lost all ability to obstruct or delay that process. Also, if a SCOTUS vacancy does become available in the next 2 years, Dems can afford a dissenter.
BREATHING ROOM FOR LEGISLATION/DETHRONING OF BOTH MANCHIN AND SINEMA. In the 50-50 Senate, majority leader Schumer was forced to constantly whip his entire caucus into agreement to pass just about everything, which gave any democratic dissenter (like these two) huge leverage. Manchin’s decision to withhold support for Biden’s Build Back Better agenda tanked the bill last winter, with Democrats unable to move forward without unanimous support. But 51 votes buys wiggle room and has the potential to curtail Manchin and Sinema’s influence/veto power.
WE GET WARNOCK FOR 6 YEARS – MEANING HE’LL SERVE IN THE NEXT THREE CONGRESSES. While this may seem small or self-evident, and often makes us insane when it comes to Republican senators, it’s actually a big deal and feels pretty amazing when it’s a senator like Raphael Warnock. Even if Biden or his success wins reelection in 2024 and Democrats recapture the majority in the House, it will still be difficult for them to retain the Senate – where they will be defending 23 seats compared to just 10 for Republicans. Having 51 seats makes it a bit easier.
INSURANCE. In the 50-50 senate, any single member resigning, dying, or switching parties [see below] would have completely shifted control of the chamber. This is no longer the case. Democrats can afford a vacancy, which is the peace of mind they deserve in such a high-stakes chamber.
NOT ONLY NO RED WAVE, DEFINITIVE DEMOCRATIC VICTORY (AND GAINING OF ADDITIONAL REPRESENTATION/AUTHORITY) IN 2022. As outlined above, this seat gives Democrats CONSIDERABLY MORE POWER in the Senate. It also makes clear that the GOP failed to even hold their senate ground.
STRENGTHENED SUBPOENA POWER. With the House GOP – which only got back the majority through system-rigging, not because anyone what them there – declaring open season on baseless investigations, it’s a good time to remember the Senate has subpoena powers bolstered by a 51-40 majority.
WARNOCK BRINGS A LOT TO THE SENATE. Warnock has proven himself to be an enormous asset to Democrats in the Senate and has fought to get packages added to major legislation specifically for his state’s constituents. He will undoubtedly continue to do this over the next 6 years.
When I went to bed last night, this is what I had already planned to write about today. This is all good and mostly still true. But I woke up this morning to Sinema’s announcement that she was leaving the Democratic Party and declaring herself an independent. What does this mean? Because Arizona registers voters by political party, she changed her Arizona voting registration to reflect her switch. In a state that does not register voters by political party (there are 19 of them, including my state of Virginia), she would not even have to do that. Is there anything else she has to do?
As it turns out, not really.
It seems odd, but elected officials don’t have to do much to change their political party affiliation. They generally consult with the leadership of their “old” party (out of courtesy) and then make a public announcement. They notify the administrative arm of the body in which they serve so that the directories and door signs can be changed, but they don’t have to ask permission from anyone. Their constituents may be miffed by the fact that the person they elected as a member of one party suddenly changed to the other party (or disaffiliates altogether) but they don’t get a say in the matter until the next election cycle.
This has happened more than 20 times in the US Senate (you can read about this here https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/senators_changed_parties.htm#20). The two most significant recent party switches were by Jim Jeffords of Vermont and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. Jeffords, formerly a Republican, announced in 2001 that he would become an Independent but that he intended to caucus with the Democrats. This changed control of the evenly divided Senate from the Republicans to the Democrats. Specter had been elected to five terms as a Republican senator, from 1980-2004. In April of 2009, he announced that he was changing his party affiliation to the Democrats. This gave the Democrats a 60-40 majority in the Senate, thus killing any filibusters and allowing the Affordable Act to be brought to the floor and passed.
Before today, there were two Independent Senators who caucused with the Democrats in the current Senate – Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Angus King of Maine. Sanders has never been affiliated with the Democratic party, and King disaffiliated from the party in 1993. However, they have proven themselves to be reliable Democratic votes for the organizational decisions that matter in the Senate, including choosing party leaders and committee chairs. When the Senate was operating as a 50-50 body for the last two years, the actual party division in the Senate was D-48, R-50, and I-2.
As part of her announcement about her decision to leave the Democratic party, Sinema added that she would continue to caucus with the Democrats and that her voting decisions would not change. This means that the actual party division in the Senate is, as of today, D-47, R-49, and I-3. In exchange for their loyalty to the Democrats, Sanders and King are accorded seniority within the Party, which means they are appointed to committees and assume chairmanship positions as if they were Democrats. It’s hard to predict whether Sinema will be an Independent in the mold of Sanders and King, or whether she will carve out a new identity that will require the Democrats to court her regularly if they want her votes on organizational as well as policy decisions.
So why did Sinema do this? One reason is sheer politics. Because she is an annoying gadfly, the Democrats were planning to support a primary challenge to her when her seat is up for reelection in 2024. Their probable candidate, Reuben Gallego, is a very popular Democratic congressman from Arizona who has won resounding victories in four elections – 2014, 2016, 2018, and 2020. He would have been a formidable challenger to Sinema. By declaring herself an Independent, she is saying that she is not planning to run for reelection to the Senate as a Democrat in 2024. Some observers are suggesting that this announcement means that she is probably not going to run at all in 2024, but others think that she will be making the run as an Independent. This could turn this election into a three-person race; depending on how this campaign shapes up, it isn’t clear at this point whether she would draw votes from the Democrats or the Republicans.
The real reason why Sinema did this? She’s a publicity whore. Her dress and demeanor in the Senate carry a kind of “look at me, look at me” desperation. As item #2 in Andrew Wortman’s analysis above notes, a 51-49 Senate takes Sinema out of the spotlight to some extent. This announcement places her right back in the spotlight.
In case you’re wondering if this is a misogynistic and unfair gratuitous hit on one day’s misguided clothing (and wig) choice, you can google “Sinema ridiculous images” to see more.
If Sinema is an Independent (and I'm not sure she is) then it matters with whom she caucuses (is that a word?). Yes, committees and appointments are very important, and I also think the subpoena issue is a big one. Particularly now. Just relieved and happy about Sen. Warnock. I think he is a fine choice. I'm also thinking about Walker's pick by the Republicans. It doesn't just seem that Walker was used by the party, but that it was a racist decision to run Herschel Walker.
Good piece!