The Legislature’s State and Local Government Committee today will pretend to consider a resolve by Senate Republican Leader Paul Davis to amend the state’s constitution to require a two-thirds vote to increase a tax or repeal a tax exemption. Before the first word on LD 150 is uttered, most or all Republicans on the committee will be supportive; most or all Democrats will not. Having thereby established a record that was already apparent, the measure will begin a quiet journey toward death.

This is a shame because Sen. Davis has a point: There should be a higher standard for passing important legislation than major-party momentum. What is true of increasing taxes is also true of decreasing them – starving state government of necessary revenue has a nasty effect on services and on local tax levels, and shouldn’t be undertaken without substantial legislative support.

The shortcoming of Sen. Davis’ proposal, however, is that it offers nothing to Democrats, who as the majority party already control tax issues and, when they someday return to being the minority party, are unlikely to protest about Republicans raising taxes.

The committee, however, has another way to raise the standard on passing important legislation, a way that eventually benefits both parties. It is the U.S. Senate’s Rule XXII, informally known as the cloture rule. The committee should consider whether an amendment would give the Maine Senate, but not the House, a rule that on major

legislation allows for unlimited debate – a filibuster – to be ended only by a super majority voting in favor of cloture. In the U.S. Senate, that means 60 votes; in the state Senate, the equivalent would be 21 votes.

What constitutes legislation that would qualify for the cloture standard or whether all bills should count would have to be worked out, but the benefit of the standard is that it requires the parties to work together so that the business of the Senate can be conducted. That demands communication, a balance of interests among senators,

a responsibility of the major party to consider the minority party’s reaction to legislation and the responsibility of the minority party to seek compromise over protest. As a 2003 study by the Congressional Research Services says, “the possibility of filibusters creates a powerful incentive for senators to strive for legislative consensus.”

Some Democrats dismiss super majority votes because they say it allows a small minority (the increment between a 51 percent and the number required by the super majority) to control legislation. But this argument misses the role of the Legislature, which is to represent a public that rarely cares which political party a lawmaker belongs to; a larger majority of lawmakers represents a larger majority of Maine citizens. One worthwhile argument is that raising the bar on passing legislation makes a lobbyist’s job of killing it easier. This would have to be countered by the skill of lawmakers as they assemble legislation. They would quickly learn what bills would survive in the Senate and adapt.

The likely alternative is to continue as the Legislature has, where the standard for requiring cat licenses is the same as for overhauling health care.

The Senate could agree on cloture as a rule change, to be reviewed every two years, or a constitutional amendment, which would be permanent. Whichever way, it would provide the higher tax standard Republicans seek without putting Democrats, who will someday be in the minority again, at a disadvantage long term. What’s more, the public would gain by having a Legislature forced to represent a broader range of interests. The committee should give it serious thought.