To the heap of arguments being amassed for torching the U.S. Senate's filibuster rule, permit me to add the Minnesota Legislature's checkered experience with bonding bills.
"Huh?" you say. What do public works bills in St. Paul have to do with the U.S. Senate's rule that 60 votes are needed to end debate and proceed to a vote on a bill?
Please bear with me: Bonding bills at the State Capitol and just about any politically sensitive, non-money bill in the U.S. Senate have one de facto thing in common. They require a supermajority — coincidentally, both 60% — to become law.
Both of these lawmaking conventions arose in the 19th century and sprang from sentiments not all deemed worthy today, including states' rights and aversion to public debt. Both work to empower the minority, giving those who lost the previous election what amounts to veto power over the actions of those who won.
And both supermajority requirements are getting skeptical scrutiny in the harsh light of latter-day partisanship. They're begging a question: How much minority rule can a legitimate democracy stand?
For more than a quarter-century in Washington and nearly as long in Minnesota, obstruction has been a favored tactic for legislative minorities. Minority caucuses have been increasingly loath to contribute to the enactment of high-profile bills, for fear voters will credit the majority party to the minority's disadvantage.
Minority pols also perceive that many voters in their base would rather allow problems to fester than see enacted the remedies preferred by their political opposition.
The politicians who play this game have their eyes on the next election, and they've kept playing it because in that sense, it's often worked. But in the long run, excessive minority rule has damaged the nation's ability to govern itself. Consider the years of futile federal wheel-spinning on immigration reform, gun control, health care and, more recently and urgently, voting rights.
