Three Government Resolutions for the New Year

As a diplomat and employee of the U.S. Federal Government, I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution. However, I don't think that should preclude me from offering some constructive support for reforms that would make the country better. I offer such support for three important initiatives below - one for each branch of the government.

1. Executive Branch: National Popular Vote

I have expressed my support for this initiative before. Suffice it to say, I believe we should elect our president in the most appropriately democratic method possible. There are numerous ways to do this but the one that makes the most sense to me with the least amount of deviation from the current method is a popular vote where every citizen's vote counts equally. The NPV is one of the simplest ways to accomplish this. For more info, visit the NPV web site.

2. Legislative Branch: Filibuster Reform

Ezra Klein has saved me the trouble of writing much on this issue by producing a very nice piece on the history of the filibuster, why it needs fixing, and how to do it. My favorite quote from Klein:

"The government can function if the minority party has either the incentive to make the majority fail or the power to make the majority fail. It cannot function if it has both."

An here's a quote from Sen. Jeff Merkley:

"But it's not a filibuster anymore. It's a supermajority requirement. And when that becomes commonly used, it's a recipe for paralysis."

Klein mentions one proposals, courtesy of Sen. Harkin. One is a gradually smaller hurdle for a cloture vote where on the first vote 60 votes are needed; a few days later a second vote can be taken needing 57 votes, and then a few more days for a third vote needing 54, and then a few more days until only 51 votes are needed. This retains the ability for the minority to make sure that the motion is given the appropriate debate while allowing the majority to act.

Merkley suggests having the reform take place sometime in the future so that it does not necessarily advantage one party over the other.

3. Judicial Branch: Term Limits for Supreme Court Justices

Here is a write-up of a proposal by Roger Cramton and Paul Carrington to limit the term of supreme court justices to 18 years with the President getting to nominate a new justice every two years. Why 18 year terms with a two year cycle? If a president serves two full four-year terms, then he will get to nominate four justices. If it is more frequent with shorter terms, then a single president would have too much sway over the make-up of the bench. Any less frequent with longer terms and what's the point? A few nice things about this proposal: It maintains a balance between insularity and democracy but with a slight movement toward the latter. The proposal also removes the incentive for justices to continue working beyond their prime just because they aren't sure their replacement will match their ideology. Additionally, a predictable replacement cycle takes a little pressure off of the president to name someone that fits a specific mold because it might be their only chance to leave a legacy on the bench.

*****************

Two important notes about all three of these proposals. First, these are not partisan issues. In fact, the opposite is more likely to be true. The problem is that whoever is in power at any given moment (in the case of the filibuster, in power actually means the minority) has an incentive to not change the system. But because we do have two parties that actually do flip back and forth in power, over time these reforms a party neutral.

Second, all three of these reforms could happen without a constitutional amendment. NPV is one big intra-state contract. The filibuster is just a procedural rule of the Senate, which they can change unilaterally. The supreme court one is trickier but works if you the forced-out justices become ex officio of sorts.