Dream Act Supporters: Bill-Killing Filibuster Was Unconstitutional
Quote:
Would-be Dream Act beneficiaries aren't just angry that the bill failed in the Senate in 2010: Some also are joining a lawsuit seeking a court to rule that the cloture vote that killed it was unconstitutional.<br />
Three undocumented young people were named as plaintiffs, along with four Democratic House members, in a lawsuit filed on Monday by nonpartisan lobbying group Common Cause. The suit goes after the Senate's filibuster rule, which forces a bill to overcome a supermajority (of 60 votes) to end debate, while passage of a measure requires only 50 votes.
The Dream Act, which would let some undocumented immigrants gain legal status if they meet a number of requirements, passed the 50-vote threshold in December 2010 with bipartisan support. But it fell short by five votes of the 60 needed to end debate.
"I was really frustrated when I saw the Dream Act; it was basically cheated justice," Caesar Vargas, an undocumented plaintiff on the lawsuit, said at a press conference on Tuesday. "I say that the Dream Act won by five votes. It was the unconstitutional filibuster that caused it to not proceed."
Legislative passage of the Democratic-sponsored Dream Act is nearly impossible this year, filibuster rule or not. The bill is opposed by a majority of Republicans in both chambers. The dynamics of the Senate have not changed enough to help it; the Senate would still fall short of 60 votes (as it did in 2010).
Still, the lawsuit is a new approach to advocacy for the bill and adds to a larger effort on behalf of filibuster reform that would leave the chamber less vulnerable to manipulation by the minority party.
-
Quote:
Celso Mireles, a plaintiff in the suit who would be affected by the Dream Act's passage, said it is important to remember how people can be directly affected by a filibuster.<br />
"The filibuster is more than just a parliamentary abstract procedure," he said. "It affects real lives."
