South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint apparently intends to block all action in the Senate until after the elections by refusing to allow his consent to the days business. This call attention -- not only to the Senator -- but to this practice. As we discussed in 2302, the Senate is far more subject to the preferencs of individual members than is the House. This is proof.
Here's a brief description of unanimous consent from a larger, critical, piece in the The New Republic:
The chamber conducts most of its business via what’s known as unanimous consent. Under this procedure, the Senate majority leadership announces it intention to do something, like setting the hours for debate on a given day, and reaches an agreement with the minority leadership. Once that agreement is in place, the leadership gives senators a chance to object. If nobody objects--i.e., if the consent is unanimous--the leadership’s proposal takes effect. But if even one senator does object, the majority must secure sixty votes via the cumbersome cloture process in order to reach a vote on the pending measure. As a recent brief for the Center for American Progress puts it, "It may only take 60 votes to get something accomplished in the Senate, but it takes 100 votes to do so quickly."
Among the items of business the Senate handles through unanimous consent is non-controversial legislation, such as a new law prohibiting federal prisoners from keeping cell phones while serving time. (It's called the “Cell Phone Contraband Act.”) The Senate Democratic leadership had planned this week to dispense with a backlog of such proposals before adjourning, as is customary at the end of a session. But DeMint has said no, vowing to object to any further business. That means no more laws will pass until after the election--and it will happen then only if the Senate decides to deal with the bills during the lame duck period.
- More info from the Senate Glossary.
- Unanimous Consent Agreement.
- The Senate as a collective action problem.
