18
from committee consideration and supermajorities to suspend the normal rules of
procedure.
As Table 2 shows, while 28 changes were made to the formal rules of procedure
between 1987 and 2001, only two of these changes have any clear potential partisan
impact. The first changed occurred in 1989 and added to the rules that the formal rules
of procedure could amended by a majority vote through the last Thursday in January.
After that, a two-thirds majority would be required. The Democrats may have needed to
pass this addition to the rules as a way to make initial procedural changes in the face of
their shrinking majority. The second change occurred in 1999, two session after the
Republicans gained control and it added a rule stating that the Speaker would have the
power to appoint the chairs of the standing committees. In the past, committees were
given the authority to elect their own chairs. By making this change, the Republican
Party can ensure that a Republican will chair every committee.
[Table 2 about here]
The Democrats in the Senate, however, reacted as Dion’s (1997) theory would
suggest, and did not lose their majority without first restricting the power of the minority
party. In addition to adopting a relatively low number of traditional minority party
procedural rights (prior to the Republican takeover minority rights adopted included less
than a majority to call committee meetings, easy floor amending and supermajorities for
rule suspensions), the rules changes adopted by the Democrats between 1987 and
1989 increased the vote requirements necessary to limit debate time and fix times for
votes to numbers that closely reflected the size of their majorities (See Table 2). In this
case, the Democrats chose procedures that would have required them to behave in a
cohesive manner to successfully oppress the Republicans.
Convention