Tactical consequences of the Specter switch
30 April
I spent more than seven years working in the Senate, including 5 and a half working for Senator Trent Lott (R-MS), in his time both as Majority Leader and as Minority Leader resulting from Sen. Jeffords’ party switch.
There is a lot of hype about how Sen. Specter’s switch from Republican to Democrat will give Senate Majority Leader Reid 60 votes, assuming that Mr. Al Franken is sworn in as a Democrat Senator from Minneota. Some are suggesting that there will be no legislative check on Democrat majorities, now that Senator Reid has 60 votes to invoke cloture and shut off filibusters.
This is an exaggeration. While Leader Reid’s tactical position is clearly stronger, given that Sen. Specter was a frequent Reid target for that 60th vote, it is important not to overstate the change.
Here are what I think will be some practical consequences of the party switch:
- I imagine Sen. Specter’s voting patterns on issues that are clearly high personal priorities for him, like judicial issues, health, and appropriations, will show almost no appreciable change. I think the same will be true for headline issues like Iraq, Afghanistan, and terrorist surveillance.
- The biggest effect will be on the small votes, as well as votes on things that are not high priorities for Sen. Specter. If he behaves like other party switchers, his new party will get many of these votes, because his default vote will switch from R to D. This benefits Leader Reid in that he has more flexibility with other Democrats who might be tempted to vote against the party on a particular issue.
- The same will be true for many procedural votes, on which I expect him to vote with his new party.
- But on cloture votes, where Sen. Specter has often been the marginal Republican vote, it is easy to imagine him being a less-than-reliable Democrat vote for cloture, just as he was a less-than-reliable Republican vote against cloture.
- Assuming Sen. Specter wins re-election, the ratio of Democrats to Republicans on committees will improve slightly for Democrats. This has a significant practical effect on the legislation that actually reaches the Senate floor.
- I assume Sen. Specter’s chance for re-election increases substantially.
The Specter switch contributes to significant short-term Democrat political momentum. The long-term legislative effect matters, but it is not as large as some observers are suggesting.
Related Posts
(best matches are listed first)- Voting for health reform before voting against it
- Five important upcoming Senate health care votes
- The 72-hour rule
- Part 2: Procedural options for health care after a Brown victory
- How reconciliation might be used for health care reform
- Updated health care projections
- Updated legislative scenarios for health reform
- Senate floor #004: The Senate’s unfinished to do list
The critical issue here is Specter’s re-election. Isn’t time to retire this pre-historic fossil from the US Senate?
If Pennsylvania voters willing to keep this guy senator for life, there is something very wrong with the political system!
After the 60 vote question itself, the most important consequence of the Specter switch really has nothing to do with Specter. It has to do with moderate Democrats up for re-election who may now have the opportunity to oppose legislation they would otherwise feel compelled to vote for. On those votes when Specter would have stayed with the Republicans before and now votes with the Democrats, Reid can let one of his moderates go. Blanche Lincoln may be the happiest Senator in town right now.
There is a good post on Specter Defection Will Haunt Dems On Souter Replacement by William Jacobson of Cornell Law School. It’s good to know that there may be some downside to the switch for Democrat political momentum as well.
As a Pennsylvania Republican who voted for Specter at President Bush’s request, I am outraged at Specter’s self-serving decision to switch parties. I personally think it is very possible he will lose the election as a Democrat as well. He has become the poster boy for term limits, in my opinion.
I don’t think Specter re-election is a given. You may recall that an unknown portion of the newly registered democrats for the 2008 election cycle were republicans playing mischief in democratic primary to keep Clinton candidacy alive. It is very easy to verify but I would suspect that majority of these voters have yet to switch back and now may not do so at all just to help Arlen retire