Rep. Haley Stevens walked into a minefield Thursday when moderators pressed her on the Senate filibuster during a Democratic primary debate in Michigan, and her stumbling response gave ammunition to both her opponents and political observers who questioned whether she understands the rule she was debating.
Stevens initially sent mixed signals, saying the filibuster "must go" to protect healthcare while simultaneously claiming Democrats "should use the filibuster" to block Republican tax legislation. When asked directly to choose, she doubled down on eliminating it but then offered an explanation that legal scholars and Senate veterans quickly identified as fundamentally flawed.
The congresswoman argued that if the filibuster were removed, Democrats could have voted down the 2017 tax bill that extended President Donald Trump's cuts. That's not how it works. The Republican-controlled Senate passed that bill last year using the "reconciliation" process, which already exempts certain tax and spending measures from the 60-vote threshold. Eliminating the filibuster wouldn't have changed Democrats' ability to block it then. What it would do is let any Senate majority pass legislation with 51 votes instead of requiring 60, regardless of the opposition party's preference.
Stevens' campaign tried to smooth over the gaffe. Spokesperson Caitlin Legacki released a statement saying Stevens supports killing the filibuster "to do what's right for Michigan families, including to codify abortion rights and raise the minimum wage." The statement also blamed the filibuster for enabling Republicans' use of reconciliation to pass tax cuts for the wealthy while cutting healthcare benefits.
But the damage had already spread online. Former Senate Democratic aide Tré Easton tweeted that "table stakes for being a senator should be at least knowing how one of the more famous Senate rules actually works." GOP operative Matt Whitlock piled on, calling it a "brutal moment." Stevens' explanation, he wrote, suggested she didn't understand the basic mechanics of the Senate tool she was asked about.
Her two primary opponents seized the opening. Abdul El-Sayed, who ran for Michigan governor in 2018, argued the filibuster lets senators avoid accountability by hiding behind obstructionist votes. "It has become the place where all legislation goes to die," he said during the debate at the Mackinac Policy Conference. State Sen. Mallory McMorrow echoed the call to abolish it, saying Democrats shouldn't "protect Republicans from their own bad decisions" by letting a single senator block bills.
The three-way primary race is shaping up as competitive heading into the August 4 primary. The winner will likely face Republican former Rep. Mike Rogers in November for the open seat being vacated by retiring Democratic Sen. Gary Peters. Removing the filibuster has become a rallying point for Democrats energized by abortion rights and minimum wage increases, positions that poll well in the state.
Stevens' mischaracterization of the rule handed her opponents a talking point about her readiness for the Senate during a debate watched by party activists and donors. Whether voters remember the technical flub come primary day remains to be seen, but in a tight three-way race, any moment that raises questions about a candidate's grasp of basic Senate procedure could matter.
Author Sarah Mitchell: "Stevens had a chance to confidently stake out a clear position on filibuster reform, but instead she tangled herself in knots over the mechanics and handed her opponents an easy attack."
Comments